Let it in… Let it out… Let it be…

I realize that much of the process of education involves classifying, sorting, categorizing, etc. various ideas, thoughts, concepts, and constructs.  We seem to need a framework of some type to “hang” an idea on, in order to grasp it.

Nonetheless, I find “either/or” statements problematic, particularly when it comes to discussions about a topic which falls into the realm of mostly what I would call “experiential opinion”.

Is God “within”, looking to our unfoldment in order to give greater expression?  Is God “without”, trying to get into our hearts and minds”?  We discussed the “let it in / let it out” (the “it” being God) in class on Tuesday.  Of course, we came to no conclusions, and I for one, am not willing to “pick one”.

As I voiced in class, I do not see an issue with AND.  It is full of possibility.  There is no finite measurable verifiable infallible way to “prove” God – so is this just an egoic conversation about who is “right”?

Yes, I am aware that “if this is true, then that means…” types of discussions.  I find it mostly irrelevant to my daily experience of God.

I gave the example of “water”.  Present within me, in great quantity.  Water as the basis of blood and other body fluids.  Some “water” present as interstitial AND intrastitial cellular fluid, spinal fluid, tears, etc.  Some expressed only when needed, such as sweat, some to be released to the outside, as urine.  Water vapor is present as a component of the breath – necessary for comfort of the airways, and a byproduct of respiration.  That’s my experience of water “inside”me. Mostly operating and doing it’s thing below the level of consciousness, but essential nonetheless.  All providing something essential to my life, on so many levels. Oh, and I sometimes drink the stuff too…  purposely and consciously putting it into my body as water, coffee, tea, etc.

And then there is my experience of water “outside” of me.  This experience of water occurs on a much more conscious level.  I am conscious of experiencing water as weather – rain, sleet, snow, fog, mist, dew, etc.  I experience water as a cleansing agent for my body.  I experience water as a buoyant and refreshing immersion in the pool or lake on a hot summer day. Or in which I wash the dishes, or clothes.  I experience water externally in many, many, MANY forms – ice, liquid, hot, cold, steam, etc.  And, sometimes I consciously drink the stuff too… oh, I said that already.  Probably because when someone says “water” I initially think of one thing – that thing upon which I anchor  my definition.  A drink of water. Although I experience water daily in a multitude of ways... I tend to think of "water" in a limited sort of way. 

My point is, how is this different from God?  All the way from the smallest molecule of my being to the grandest expression in the cosmos – who is to say that the essence we call “God” isn’t present throughout?

Sometimes, it’s time to let it out.

Sometimes it’s time to take it in.

And, sometimes, it’s time to let it BE!

Free "Will"?

So the talk I heard in church today was "God's will or my will; whose will is it anyway?"

Here we go, back to the "free will" debate.  And then I ran across a disturbing news article that argues evidence that there may be no such thing as free will.

     "The conscious decision to push the button was made about a second before the actual act, but the team discovered that a pattern of brain activity seemed to predict that decision by as many as seven seconds. Long before the subjects were even aware of making a choice, it seems, their brains had already decided."

and further

     "As humans, we like to think that our decisions are under our conscious control — that we have free will. Philosophers have debated that concept for centuries, and now Haynes and other experimental neuroscientists are raising a new challenge. They argue that consciousness of a decision may be a mere biochemical afterthought, with no influence whatsoever on a person's actions. According to this logic, they say, free will is an illusion. "We feel we choose, but we don't," says Patrick Haggard, a neuroscientist at University College London."

See the complete article here:  http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html

So, if this is true, who/what is doing the choosing?  Is there even really a choice?  

Just as important:  NOW WHAT???

Divine Will and Free Order???

I found the discussion today in class rather interesting.

What is the relationship between Divine Order and Free Will?

This is how I see the relationship:

Divine Order	Free Will
Describes a process of unfoldment or growth or evolution	Describes a power or causation
Unfolds according to some type of principles; according to “law”	Unfolds according to individual selection or choice; “whim” or “not law”
Based on a Divine Idea – an Ideal	Based on a person’s “filters”
Directed (shaped) by interaction with free will	Influenced by history, tradition,  teachings, experience, reflection
Some predictability, if “laws” are familiar and known.	Less predictable, highly subjective © 2012

I am sure that others can add to this comparison / contrast.  I'm still pondering how either/both of these relate to the concept of PREDESTINATION.  Seems (at the moment) that predestination is not either a process nor a power... but a line in the sand, saying "THIS is what IS".

I know it's way more complex than that. But I need to start slow!

Say It Ain't So!

Here we go....  "If I've told ya once..."

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

Psalm 102:24-27: "So I said: "Do not take me away, O my God, in the midst of my days; your years go on through all generations. In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end."

Process Theology?  Huh???

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, the Swiss physician/researcher, in her seminal work on the grief process (On Death and Dying, 1969) developed a five stage model of the emotional and psychological response to "negative" change (typically grief, tragedy, catastrophic losses.) The model has since been found to be an accurate description of the emotional process that occurs whenever a change of significance occurs in someone's life.

The five stages go kinda like this:

(1) Denial - "You gotta be kidding me!  God can change??? I don't think so!"

(2) Anger - "Who IS this guy that proposes that theory?  What? More than one person thinks it's possible?  Those idiots!  Don't they read the Bible?  What are they talking about?"

(3) Bargaining - "Well, maybe I heard it wrong.  Guess I'm going to have to do some research and poke some holes in this thing.  Maybe it will go away if I just ignore it and I can hang on to my old idea of God... I don't have to accept this thing right now, do I?  After all, it got only 5 minutes of class time!"

(4) Depression - "What's the point? Why are we studying this stuff if just anyone can make up anything and get it published?  If it sounds plausible (to someone) and there are enough big words and convoluted logic, I guess it earns a place in the Wiki-leagues.  OMG I cant go on!"

(5) Acceptance - "Well, I guess it's going to be okay… can't fight it, I may as well learn about it.  It's not going away, and I need to know what people are talking about.  Whether or not I believe it!"

Diagrammatically, the process kinda looks like this:

http://www.care611.com/2012/01/04/grief-cycle/

In Unity, this is called "chemicalization".

I guess I need a new definition of "absolute". These definitions don't work (for me) when used to describe "God" in the same sentence as the phrase "process theology".

Absolute, the--Divine Mind; unlimited Principle; the almighty One; the all-pervading Spirit; the Infinite; the Eternal; the Supreme Being. The one ultimate creative Mind; the Source of all things. That which is unconditioned, unlimited, unrestricted, and free from all limitations. The self-existent God.Revealing Word, p. 7-8

absolute

noun

1.

something that is not dependent upon external conditions
for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (relative ).

2.

something that is free from any restriction or condition.

3.

something that is independent of some or all relations.

4.

something that is perfect or complete.   Copyright © 2012 Dictionary.com, LLC

At church, we just finished the fall sermon series on the book “The 5^th Agreement” by Don Miguel Ruiz.  His website says “The Fifth Agreement uses doubt as a tool to discern the truth.”    It goes like this:  “Be skeptical, but learn to listen”.

Right now, I’m skeptical.  

And I’m listening.

Hypostasis of the Trinity

Where to start?  I always like to start with some accepted definitions.  

First, from Van Harvey:

Trinity:  The doctrine of the T. states that in the BEING of the one eternal deity there are three eternal and essential distinctions, traditionally named Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  In Western Christendom, the classical formula has been “three PERSONS in ONE SUBSTANCE” (una substantia et tres personae); in Eastern Christendom, “three HYPOSTASES in one being” (treis hypostaseis, mia ousia).  [1]

From Charles Fillmore:

Trinity: The religious terms for the trinity are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The metaphysical terms are mind, idea, and expression.

Father is the source, origin, essence, root, creator of all. Son is that which proceeds from, is begotten of the Father, like Him in nature, and essentially all that the Father is. Holy Spirit is God's word in movement: the working, moving, breathing, brooding of Spirit, made known to men through revelation, inspiration, and guidance. The Holy Spirit is the Comforter who will bring all things to their remembrance.

The doctrine of the trinity is often a stumbling block, because we find it difficult to understand how three persons can be one. Three persons cannot be one, and theology will always be a mystery until theologians become metaphysicians.

God is the name of the all-encompassing Mind. Christ is the name of the all-loving Mind. Holy Spirit is the all-active manifestation. These three are one fundamental Mind in its three creative aspects. [2]

Another from Van Harvey:

“Hypostasis is a Greek term that played an important role in the controversies out of which the doctrine of the Trinity emerged.  Before its meaning became fixed, it seems to have been capable of three interpretations: (1) that which defines something as belonging to a class, hence, essential being (ousia); (2) that which stands under a given set of properties; (3) a particular embodiment of certain qualities, hence, “individual being.””[3]

and

 “Gradually, its meaning became fixed as “individual being” and so roughly equivalent to the Latin persona.  The term ousia was rendered as SUBSTANCE (substantia). This enabled Latin and Greek theologians to agree on the formula “three hypostases in one ousia” or “three persons in one substance.” [3]

Lastly, from Charles Fillmore:

Substance:  “The divine idea of the underlying reality of all things. Substance is everywhere present, pervades all things, and inspires to action. It underlies all manifestation and is the spiritual essence, the living energy out of which everything is made. Through substance all the attributes of Being are expressed. It sustains and enriches any idea that is projected into it.

Divine substance is man's supply. Out of it he forms whatever he will according to his faith and understanding. By entering into the silence, acknowledging divine substance, affirming his faith in and oneness with it, man becomes conscious of substance.

Spiritual realization of divine substance enriches the soil or thought-stuff of the mind. Jesus considered divine substance the treasure field in which He could find the fulfillment of His every need. Every demonstration over mortal limitations is followed by a realization of infinite reality. When man puts away the belief in the reality of matter, there follows a realization of the presence of true substance, of which matter is a mortal concept. Hence this thought-stuff may be made active by holding an affirmation. The rich substance of the kingdom of God is pouring its plenty perpetually into my mind and affairs, and I am in all ways prospered.” [4]

Pulling some key phrases from the definitions renders this list:

• ·         three eternal and essential distinctions
• ·         Father, Son and Holy Spirit
• ·         “three PERSONS in ONE SUBSTANCE”
• ·         “three HYPOSTASES in one being”
• ·         mind idea expression
• ·         all-encompassing, all-loving, all-active
• ·         one fundamental Mind in its three creative aspects
• ·         divine idea of the underlying reality of all things
• ·         everywhere present, pervades all things, and inspires to action

Not so long ago, the religious idea of  ”the Trinity” did not “make sense” to me.  It was described to me as a “mystery of our faith” and to be taken on faith alone, not to be understood.  As the literal/figurative explanations seemed nonsense, the best I could do to understand the concept was to use the “water/ice/steam” analogy (which actually worked quite well for me for many years).  You know, H2O – that stuff.  It’s all the same at its core formulation, but expressing differently as needed for different functions.

There are many efforts to explain the Trinity concept- here’s a list of 10 ideas:  http://twofriarsandafool.blogspot.com/2010/06/10-explanations-of-trinity.html  As is pointed out in the article, each fall short in one way or another.

Fillmore’s statement “Three persons cannot be one, and theology will always be a mystery until theologians become metaphysicians.” [2] gave me a key.  I finally understood Substance (the One) as underlying all and expressing activity in, as, and through all things.  I began to get a glimmer of the concept of the Trinity that I could translate to the language as used in religious circles.

Do I think about the Trinity? Not much, as a collective.  Do I think about the various individual manifestations and activities of each expression (person) of the Trinity?  You bet.  Do I think about each in equal portion and abstract format?  Sometimes – but most often I relate to Spirit, as it is easier for me to conceptualize, and has less “baggage” attached than either of the other two aspects.  Does it matter to God?  Probably not.  God is still God, no matter which aspect I use/relate to/understand/pray with/etc.

It’s still a mystery, and it’s still active in my life, and it’s still useful to me – no matter how it is languaged.

There is no place that God is not!

In class, the either/or question was posed:  “Shall we pray to God’s Presence and Power in the Cosmos, opening ourselves to the infilling of Spirit?  Or   Shall we center on the Spirit within, allowing it to emerge?”

It seems to me that if we take the stand that there is One Presence and One Power, everywhere present, there is not room for too much debate on this issue.  If God is in fact everywhere present (there is no place that God is not) then either / both modalities of prayer will accomplish the goals of communion and reflection.

Thinking about a phrase from my childhood “ask Jesus to come into your heart”….  God (Jesus) must be “without” – and by the act of asking, then abides “within”?  So even in that theology there is an acknowledgement of the God-presence in both places.

Spiritual? Or Religious?

I have long held a distinction in my mind that religion and spirituality are not equivalent. My concept of religion has been one of institutionalized doctrine, dogma, practices and proscribed beliefs.   Spirituality described an orientation to life based on universal spiritual principles, and not necessarily as a part of any organized religion.

Discussion in class muddied this distinction for me. 

A quick web search turned up 20+ pages of links (200+ links) in answer to the question “what is the difference between religion and spirituality?”  https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+difference+between+religion+and+spirituality%3F&oq=what+is+the+difference+between+religion+and+spirituality%3F&sugexp=chrome,mod=13&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Obviously a question pondered by many.  Some selected perspective and quotes:

Religion = organized / Spirituality = Individual

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_religion_and_spirituality

Spirituality = humankind’s impulse for the Divine / Religion = structured pathway to the Divine

http://www.worldblessings.com/difference-between-religion-and-spirituality.html

Religion = an attempt to point the way to spirituality / Spirituality = direct communion with the Divine  http://www.wicca-spirituality.com/religion-spirituality.html

“…religion is a set of beliefs and rituals that claim to get a person in a right relationship with God, and spirituality is a focus on spiritual things and the spiritual world instead of physical/earthly things.” http://www.gotquestions.org/religion-spirituality.html

“Religion talks about God. Spirituality helps to make us godly. The two need not be at odds. Religion at its best is spirituality in community.” 

http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/articles/what-difference-between-religion-and-spirituality

“Spirituality is a form of religion, but a private and personal form of religion. Thus, the valid distinction is between spirituality and organized religion.”

http://atheism.about.com/od/religionnonreligion/a/spirituality_2.htm

“In general though, religion refers to a more organized practice, with some sort of human institution, whereas spirituality refers to a more personal experience, which may or may not fit within an organized religion.”

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_religion_and_spirituality

“Spirituality is something that we all possess or manifest simply by virtue of being alive in this human form. Religion, on the other hand, is something that we choose to take part in or not. Spirituality is a universal human experience or quality, whereas religion asks that an individual’s spirituality be brought into accord with its dictates – its rituals, teachings, and beliefs.”  http://crossingnebraska.blogspot.com/2011/01/spirituality-and-religion.html

Interesting…. And confusing!

So, in an effort to get some clarity, I turned to the definitions in the Revealing Word.

religion--A systematic exposition on the awareness of a deity who is the supreme ruler of heaven and earth; that which arouses reverence and love for a supreme being. There is a wide range of religious experience between the blindly groping faith that caused men to pass their children through the fire as sacrifice to their deities, and the divine consciousness of Jesus, who submitted His body to the purifying fire of the Spirit and came forth alive with a life that never dies.

In the study of things pertaining to religion we should keep in mind the three activities of consciousness: spiritual, psychical, and physical. The spiritual is the realm of absolute principles; the psychical is the realm of thought images; the physical is the realm of manifestation. The well-balanced, thoroughly developed man, of which Jesus is the type, comprehends and consciously adjusts his spirit, soul, and body as a whole, and thereby fulfills the law of his being. Those who are on the way to this attainment have various experiences, which are symbolically set forth in the Scriptures. (p. 166)

spirituality--The consciousness that relates man directly to his Father-God. It is quickened and grows through prayer and other forms of religious thought and worship. (p. 184)

So, pondering the relationship of religion to spirituality, some thoughts emerge:

·     Spirituality, as defined by Charles Fillmore, must encompass all of religion.

·     Each activity of consciousness (spiritual, psychical and physical) operates both within and outside of the boundaries of religion and spirituality.

·    With regard to spirituality, if the consciousness is undeveloped, is humankind still spiritual?  Since all humans are “created in the image and likeness” of Spirit –even those that profess no religious or spiritual leanings, is there anything outside the boundaries of “spiritual”?

A Venn diagram might display the relationships thusly:

So, the discussion in class left me thinking perhaps religion is about practices and spirituality is about belief… I am still not convinced that the two are synonymous.

On the other hand, many “spiritual” human institutions / organizations that have a “systematic exposition on the awareness of a deity…” may in fact, according to Charles Fillmore’s definition, be “religion”.

Hmmmmm………