Faith in the Commons

Reido,

Yes, I think so.

Of course, Munn was speaking to a conference on Commons, and so his title speaks of faith in the Commons, but the paper is really about a commons of faith, which is a subject that we have walked around a few times but haven't quite stepped into.

One notion that caught me early on is that enclosure is just another word for setting up boundaries to keep some people out, because fencing some people out is the same as hoarding resources by those remaining inside. So, much of our complaining about theologies and denominations and religions pushing folks out, could be reworded in enclosure language as these same entities enclosing faith and salvation for the sole use of those on the inside.

While so-called liberal Christians are now talking about taking Christianity back from conservative Christians, both groups are talking in terms of ownership, an ownership which neither has a right to claim. I knew there was something that bothered me about all of this, and I knew it had to have a simple explanation, but I couldn't't put it into simple words. Now I think I know those words. So-called liberal churches have always been owners; from Catholicism to Protestantism, they were always in the halls of power and fought each other for control of government and the faith commons, but they were never liberal at all, they were always conservative. What they are complaining about today is that the congregationalists and the non-denominationalists have found a way through their conventions and associations to take political power away from the High Church. That's all. Both groups need to take down their fences. They own nothing. Naked they came into this world, and naked they will leave it. They are only steward for a generation, and very bad stewards they have they been, burying their talents in the ground and building walls around them to protect them from the very commons that they should have invested in.

So, I hope we can develop this more. I need lots of help. I'm currently working on some descriptive pages telling newcomers what the site is about and inviting them to join in. These will be listed in the top right corner on the front page. Hopefully, current readers will critique these so they can be improved. There are over one hundred user accounts here, but very few people actually login. I guess there's no incentive to now, so that needs fixing. Also, I'm working on simplifying the site. You've probably noticed that I removed the left column and listing of content that was already on the page anyway. I'm also thinking of removing some of the menus. Another step is to send email to similar sites—once we have some description of this FaithCommon concept written out—and invite them to participate. This would grow "the commons" by sharing an overlapping readership and contributership (is that a word?). Eventually, an obvious node would emerge on the social network that others not even involved would come to recognize as the Faith Commons. And of course, some will steal the term and use it for their own benefit just as they have Emergent. But that's ok, because we have 'net precedent, anyway. Still, it's unimportant. If the term gets munged, we will just create another one.

bill 

Bill

Ever since early posting began here on the subject of Faith as Jesus demonstrated and taught -- that is, was Jesus demonstrating and commending living built on trust in God as center of existence, or was he speaking only in terms of doctrine as a narrow path of exclusion? -- I began to blindly palpate the elephant, fumbling and learning little by little.  Such is the path of struggle to freedom from mental bondage to ideas previously taught.

When we discussed universal faith a couple of weeks ago, the concept would have sounded foreign to most unless they had trod the same path.  Now, with the help of words that explain Faith as part of the universal air we breathe, I sense that people may be able to comprehend better that we are not discussing something foreign.  Rather, it is the opposite of something wierd and foreign to life.  If Jesus had called it living water, or the river of life, or the tree of life, or life in the ages, it would be describing the same universal that lives and breathes in all.  Ancients could understand the language because it was their own.  This language I understand.

That I understand it is only secondary though.  The Primary objective would be to let it be.  That is, to be what it is, and not just a doctrine.

reido

Reido said:

 The Primary objective would be to let it be.  That is, to be what it is, and not just a doctrine.

 Aha! The difficult part. It's so easy to take down old fences and replace them with new and improved boundaries. Of course there's always the Bill of Rights approach that restricts what government can do. But, that misses the point, I think you would say.

The Commons and the economic language only works to the extent of giving an abstraction and some language terms to match our postmodern, engineering, business-ified perspectives of the world economy. But as you said, in the end we must let be, what it will be. It cannot be complex or it will not be.

I'm still struggling to pull together in my head something that actually seems fairly straight forward. The Commons is the cosmos while the market is the control volume. Economists like to talk as if their markets are self contained but the math doesn't add up without some fancy work. The reason, I think, is that the Commons is where the oxygen for combustion comes from and where the waste heat (and other wastes) goes at the end of the cycle. Our cycle diagrams always ignore these as "negligible" but they no longer are. Not in present day ecology. Not in present day faith ecology. The outside volume is more important than inside because it's bigger and potentially more powerful. Still, it must not be concentrated or it ceases to be a commons, and becomes and army or a workforce.

So, if the Commons is the shared faith, or potentially shared faith, then the fenced off areas are enclosures of private domains controlled by incorporations. These we don't really need to concern ourselves with. Do we? The open areas are someplace wooded and overgrown with some superstition, much apprehension and too little contemplation. Other areas cultivate fairly healthy crop rotations of professionalism and community service as well as family devotion, with dedication to time tested courtesies and personal honor. But is there much of the kind of faith that brings all of these together and strengthens them? What is needed here? Living Water?

This is where my analogy fails. It's already too thin, anyway. Needs work.

bill 

Bill

Thinking on this...

"Other areas cultivate fairly healthy crop rotations of professionalism and community service as well as family devotion, with dedication to time tested courtesies and personal honor. But is there much of the kind of faith that brings all of these together and strengthens them? What is needed here? Living Water?"

Jesus often chose expressions that seemed to measure Faith.  For years I thought that was his role as Judge, but the redefinition of Faith causes me to question this.  The measurement would now seem to me to be more in terms of potential and possibility but same "air" to breathe, or not breathe so to speak.  Even with all the corporate ownership, real estate, fences erected and maintained, it would seem that Faith is available in the universe to any who seek it.  Also, even in times when my own Faith was shackled by legalism, there must have been sustenance.  There must have been living water there.  I think men attempted to control it and "own" it, but after all, they only possessed property (which is, imo something to squabble over rights of possession and wealth rather than a source of living water). 

In the real universe, can we say then that the source of living water is within the Spirit in contrast to all the material trappings of control freaks?

reido

Reido said:

In the real universe, can we say then that the source of living water is within the Spirit in contrast to all the material trappings of control freaks?

Yes. And our task I think is to find it.

You may remember that in The God We Never Knew, Marcus Borg quotes a BBC TV journalist interviewing the late Carl Jung asking him: "Do you believe in God?" To which Dr. Jung replied: "Believe?" "I know." But this is not the kind of faith that we normally think of. It's not the kind of faith that believes in the unbelievable. For Jung, God was a true experience and his faith or trust was built on his own experiences. That kind of trust and trustworthiness can't come from man-made edifices of brick and ink. Carl Jung was not your typical believer, anyway.

I agree whole heartedly. First we must identify the idols that attract our attention and set traps for our faith. And then we need to listen and watch for the Spirit to show the signs of God. Unfortunately for me and others, we've been burned bad enough that our senses are dulled.

bill 

Bill

Was Jung saying he trusts in God and knows that he does in a real way in his own life? 

Munn's descriptive language of Faith as part of the universe may be helpful in reaching the Universal Stage of James Fowler's  "Stages".  People in general I think have the idea that this universal faith stuff takes something away from, say Christianity, and casts it to, say the Buddhists.  This is where I think people confuse religion and Faith as the same -- it is not.  Nor can it be said that Christians or Buddhists are the only people who have it. 

Take nothing away from anyone, and allow all to drink from the source.  I think of this not as my being more open minded and gracious, but more like the native Americans who lived as part of the land and all of life.  It may something of a misnomer to say they did not believe in ownership -- I believe they would have thought themselves entitled to the land as their place to live.  But this is a far cry from the white man's kind of private ownership.

reido

Reido,

I think that Jung was merely answering the question of believing in God with a statement that he knows there is God. You may already know that Carl Jung was said to be a mystic. (Check out this, and this) His connection with the spiritual realm was real enough for him to "know" rather than merely trust in the existence of.

But of course, the question of the journalist is missing the point because "believing in God" is not about existence, but is about following. To "believe in" someone is to trust their word, like believing in my wife. I know she exists, I believe her trustworthiness. Our modern, truth-lazy society is so confused. I'm so confused. Maybe I need to repeat this to myself daily: "believing in, means to trust in; believing in, means to trust in."

Reido wrote:  Take nothing away from anyone, and allow all to drink from the source.  I think of this not as my being more open minded and gracious, but more like the native Americans who lived as part of the land and all of life.  It may something of a misnomer to say they did not believe in ownership -- I believe they would have thought themselves entitled to the land as their place to live.  But this is a far cry from the white man's kind of private ownership.

 That's a good way of describing it. When properly managed and used, the Commons provides for all. A Commons of Faith is like Living Water that springs forth with more than is used.

This is what the story of the Five Thousand Fed means to me. It's not about a miracle. Instead, it's about people giving freely of what little they have to produce so much that there is more left over than was in the beginning. Of course in gematria it means something else, I guess. I don't remember what the Historical Jesus folks do with it. But to me, it means that if everybody pitches in with what little they have, then all will be fed and filled. I  have experienced synergy and trust that it will come again. That is a faith in the commons. Human nature is another animal, however.

bill 

Dear Mr Bill,

When we talk  the term Faith in Commons, another word that strikes the mind is House of Commons that is one of the  house in the  British Parliamentary  system. In India too we have equivalent  system called Lok Sabha. Ameruca  too has  similar system where  people send  their representatives after elections. They represent aspirations of people and speak for the people they represent. Coming to the  subject under discussion, faith in commons  could be understood  as the conglamation of religious groups  with  tolerant existance. In this  gathering as described, no one can claim supremacy and  can claim that their scripture is the ultimate  or thie God is supreme and their religion is flawless.  Open discussion has to be allowed  without huring the sentiments of  individual groups. Language used  has to be polite and  discussions  should be aimed  at developing more understanding and acceptance  between groups than  pointing fingers  mutually. This requires great maturity and tolerance and open mindedness. Narrow beliefs, blind faiths  could cause  trouble too soon with  disintegration of organization.

Dr K Prabhakar Rao

Dr. Rao,

You make a good point. As you said, in houses of government there are rules and traditions that force tolerance and consideration for all opinions. This is exactly what must be, in order for there to grow a Commons of faith.

Today it is those with the loudest mouth and the greatest power, and I suppose it's mostly been this way in the western world since Constantinian conversion.

I have read books about mystics from most all of the world's great religions getting together in peace. They call it Interspirituality. Of course, these participants may be far along the path that you referred to in God Men. But even the least will do what their leaders tell them to do.

Religious people of the world should demand that their leaders get down from their high horses and practice what they preach.

Dr. Rao wrote: Language used has to be polite and discussions should be aimed at developing more understanding and acceptance between groups than pointing fingers mutually. This requires great maturity and tolerance and open mindedness. Narrow beliefs, blind faiths could cause trouble too soon with disintegration of organization.

So, can we think that possibly we have the least mature people in the positions of greatest power? It surely seems so to me. But it would not be a good approach to tell them that.

Another point that I get from your comment is that we now consider government as a sort of Commons. In many corners of the world today, people expect that government is participatory and that it should serve the people it governs.

As you already know: this idea was beginning to flower in the ancient world until it was stamped out first by Phillip the II of Greece and then by the Roman Caesars only to claw its way back into view when the classics were rediscovered about 1500 years later. That same Roman rule that had tolerated multiple religions, would later outlaw them and stamp out all but one flavor. Islam would of course use the unifying force of religion to take first the Arabian peninsula and then Asian Minor, North Africa and also into the under belly of Europe. Europe itself fought many bloody wars for centuries over religion and is mostly agnostic or anti church today because of it. Sectarianism is the death of religion

You may have pointed out the main reason that organized religion has for becoming tolerant—its own survival. It is making some progress as I understand in Europe because the government is forcing tolerance. But the people will eventually grow tired of religious intolerance elswhere as well. Especially after a big sectarian war. Organized Religion must change or die.

bill