Front PageWhat a Long, Strange Trip it's Been
Submitted by bill on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 20:26. faith faithcommons grateful dead hoffer literalism orthodoxy
What a long, strange trip it's been.1 After three years, an update to this thread might prove interesting. In it, I used terminology that I no longer use, nor can relate to. Brian was ahead of me, and made an important observation that is rather telling, in retrospect. If you've been following along these few years, or you're new to faithCommons and curious about the road we've traveled, then now is an opportunity to look back over the shoulder of the site called faithcommons.org
Although I was not reading scripture literally even in 2004, I was still thinking in the same clichés that I'd grown up with. Nevertheless, Brian was certainly ahead of me.
Brian wrote: Your pseudo-theology is consistent with a literal reading of scripture and I can't argue with it. I don't really read the Bible with a literal view anymore though (not saying it is a bad thing, I just don't do it). I try to see why someone in the first century would think this or that. I guess it is a more historical view of the Bible.
Over the past five years, I've been fortunate enough to stroll through a few sunny meadows, but have spent most of that time trekking through the dark and obstructed undergrowth of the forest floor, instead. This is what the journey is: weeks and months of questioning, interrupted by seconds or minutes of light and understanding. What do we call this journey?
Plato's Socrates called it “the love of wisdom,” or philosophy. However, like so many important words in our collective quiver of understanding-carrying-arrows, philosophy has lost its meaning and its sting. It's now a university department and a section in the book store. And, like so many useful words, philosophy has been munged into a sterile noun, from a once useful verb. When action words, like love and faith, morph into nouns, they harden into cold stone memorials to activities that once were living, but now are dead.
Eric Hoffer said something similar of religion:
In the past, religious movements were conspicuous vehicles of change. The conservatism of a religion—its orthodoxy—is the inert coagulum of a once highly reactive sap.2
Hoffer also wrote that: “Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves."3 Orthodoxy and other mass movements and causes give us a false sense of knowing and belonging in an otherwise lonely and puzzling world. But in the end, we must make the journey ourselves.
The paradox of the Faith Commons is that it is settled by aliens who've found themselves outside the protective walls of Orthodoxy. It is a Commons of uncommon folk. Not “better.” In fact, none who see life through the prism that separates good from evil and wave from particle could glimpse the Faith Commons. In the same way that Light is both particle and wave, Life is both weeds and wheat. We cannot separate them without upsetting the cosmos.
Similarly, scripture is both Myth and Truth. Reading it literally merely memorializes what was once Truth, into Facts, which are nouns instead of verbs. While Facts sit coldly in memorial gardens, Truths inform actions. Many are the arguments and proofs for Fact. But Truth must be sought instead of taught. And seeking is a lifetime occupation. It is never done.
What a long, strange trip it's been so far. I look forward to another day on the road. Keep on Truckin'.
1 See Truckin' by the Grateful Dead. This quote comes from the next to last verse, which all “Dead Heads” would know, goes like this:
“Sometimes the lights all shinin on me;
Other times I can barely see.
Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip its been.”
2 Hoffer, Eric. 2002 (1951). The True Believer, Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. New York: HarperCollins.
3 Ibid.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Wow!
Submitted by BLG2319 on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 22:48.
Umm...wow is all I can say. That was sooo long ago. I suprises me I had those views so early. When I go through the timeline in my head it seems like I struggled a lot longer than that. I suspect by the tone of my response to you that at that point I traded one version of certianty for another.
Not a day goes by that I don't have a least a passing thought about the discussions I use to have here. I feel bad about my lack of participation the last couple of years but frankly I really haven't had much to add. Well, except for my periodic nervous breakdowns where I share way more than I should of course. Hopefully now that I am being treated for depression that won't happen more.
In any case, I guess since I am taking the time to write tonight I will give my take on things now. It will probably change tomorrow, but what the hell?
I am not sure that I would agree with the person who wrote those words three plus years ago. To even try to make a judgment on which words you should or should not take literally versus metaphorically seems to me to be a huge waste of time. Either the message of the book means something to you are not. When I read the Bible now, which is not often admittedly, I do so searching for meaning not answers. I have learned over and over again their few if any real answers in life. Only more questions.
Did Jesus really exist? If he did, is the story about him factual or metaphorical, or both? The answer is no one really knows. Oh yeah, there are many people who think they know. I've read their books, listened to their theories, and comtemplated their solutions. What did I ultimately gain from all of it? Not much. I guess I am better informed, and I understand the setting or context of this or that. But at the end of the day did it make me happier or more grounded or better looking? No so much.
The only person that has said anything I found the least bit useful in my life recently is Brian Hines from Church of the Churchless. His almost oversimplification of things is refreshing to someone like me who thinks most people are full of excrement. He recently had a post that put forth the notion that one should not focus on right or wrong, but rather like or dislike. For instance, I like certain aspects of church attendance, but I dislike others. That doesn't make me better or worse than anyone else. It just makes me, well, me. A simplistic idea on the surface, yet deeply problematic the more you think about it. So once again it isn't an answer, only the start of more questions.
I was just struck with the thought that I am starting to sound more like reido the older I get. Hmmm...
Brian
» reply
The Church of the Upper Room
Submitted by bill on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 05:12.
Brian,
Welcome back! :)
Sometimes we have to look way back to recognize that we've suffered some improvement.
Those were the days of Emergent Church, and many other things Church. But today, you go (or were doing so the last time I heard from you), but I don't. Still, I think we can easily agree that tomorrow it may change again. There's a small chance that I might get involved in another church startup, in the coming year. That would be a strange reversal for me. But then, as you said, there are parts of it to like, and other parts to dislike. My family misses church a lot. My kids must think I'm some sort of outlaw who avoids all things church. I think my wife sees me as a recluse. But at the present, it presents to me, all the things that I don't like about power and coercion.
Speaking of Church, I have this idea that the most viable structure is modeled by the Upper Room, where Jesus celebrated Passover (or whatever feast it really was) with his friends. Every good experience that I've had with churchy organizations over twenty-five years, has been those centered around sharing a meal with a small group of friends. Breaking bread together is the most basic, yet most profound activity that humans can share. Theology has reduced it down to a very controlled symbolic thingy, successfully wringing all the remaining meaning out of it. Then some groups collect money shortly afterwards, which robs the activity of all the remaining wisps of sharing. A feast with real wine would make for something closer to what it started out to be. Also, any teaching should focus on parables, word play, and stories that connect with us at the Soul level—instead of the head level.
On another, unrelated point: I'm going to focus this site more on a forum type configuration. I've avoided that—I think—because of the recurring problems at another site that we used to hang out at. But, I'm convinced that there are hundreds of occasional readers who'd like to add something but can't find a way to connect. If that's true, then the site as is, is missing its mission. I know that I've claimed to be on the brink of such a change before. But I had some demons to deal with and never got around to it. What do you think?
bill
» reply
John's Version of the Upper Room
Submitted by reido on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 16:46.
Bill and Brian
There are many remembrances here, not so much days gone by as milestone moments of exploration, learning, and realization. No regrets for having set out this way. It may not be apparent, but each of you has had a great influence on this trek. Most of all, I credit this site for sharing a viable redefinition of Faith that continues to live.
It strikes me as significant that Bill has taken a rather unorthodox view of the Last Supper. He is not unlike John in doing so. The synoptic writers practically had the same things to say about it -- the time, the prophecy of betrayal, the sacrificial blood of covenant. John caused quite an uproar by not agreeing with the time and involving himself with Judas -- to this day debates continue over these. But I have to admit that Bill has touched on what really was central to John's account because he alone mentioned washing the disciple's feet as a prominent event in the gathering. It begs the question -- did John include this theme because he considered it part of the theme of the gathering? If so, then I think John would agree with Bill's use of "church".
reido
PS...to those who sound like reido... :-)
» reply
Seeking Oases in the Desert of Existence
Submitted by bill on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 10:57.
The discussions over the years with you all have had a significant effect on me. Although nowadays I frequently grapple with the question of whether to continue with this project or even to start something new, I just read in an M. Scott Peck book to accept and encourage this questioning of ourselves because it keeps us on the right road. But then, which is the right road? That also is an important question to ask ourselves. How else could we answer the question, if we don't ask it?
From our discussions I've learned Existential living. But I did not come to it easily. It's not a belief system for me, in the stereotypical sense of belief systems. But it is certainly a way of living, and therefore requiring of certain “beliefs.” And I'm now convinced that Genesis 3 is about the struggle of living in consciousness. We must struggle to live, while looking eventual death in the face. These two facts of life are the paradoxical seeds of abundant life. The more conscious we become; the more pain we realize; and (eventually) the more we appreciate and seek out the oases in the desert. If we instead choose to remain blind and lame, we will never see nor seek out these oases.
I could go on with more boring stuff, but my point is that discussing our existential struggles with others is only way to wholeness. Salvation comes from the root “Salve.” It is soothing and healing—not life in the hereafter. The stories of Jesus, the miracle worker are all about healing. Salvation is Healing. In this life. In the fullness and painfulness of this life. It is not about sticking one's head in the sand, but about continuing the trek across the desert, seeking out the oases. It is believing that they are there, and not giving up. It is not about locking ourselves in a building to sing songs of happiness while wasting our short lives away.
Anyway, I'm very glad for the journey; grateful for the company; and ready to continue on.
bill
» reply
Here and Now Directly Affects Hereafter
Submitted by reido on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 11:33.
Bill
You have put to words one of the most fitting redefinitions of Salvation I have encountered. While I admit that I am agnostic about the substance of the Hereafter, I am sure that whatever is is directly connected with Life. The connection is so sure that it really does not matter whether gates are of pearl or not -- what matters is what comes before.
Enjoying the connection with fellow man has to be one of life's greatest thrills (if we were in church eating fried chicken, we'd call it fellowship). What would be a more boring existence than to exalt oneself to the throne and continually talking to yourself? I would do like Tom Hanks and befriend a ball.
Methinks your point about the Upper Room typifies a lot of what it meant to be in the company of Jesus.
reido
» reply
Salve, Foot Washing, and the church of the Upper Room
Submitted by bill on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 22:20.
Reido,
Thanks for the credit, but I don't really deserve it. Amazingly, that idea came to me just one sentence before I read it from Peck. It was his context that I was reading, so I can't take credit. But there's more going on. It's as if this book were written for me, at this time in my life. I'll have more to say about that later, but here's what happened.
I was reading the following line:
“As I said before, the word salvation means “healing.”1
Then, as I often do, I drifted into thought, where it occurred to me that salvation and salve might be related. Salve might be the root of the word Salvation. If so, Isaiah's prophecies would have a different meaning than what I'd thought all these years. And the Gospels could be coded, or they could be confused interpretations of Second Isaiah. Or maybe just very poorly understood by me. Then I found my place again and continued with the next sentence in the paragraph:
It comes from the same word as salve, which you put on your skin in order to heal an area of irritation or infection. Salvation is the process of healing and the process of becoming whole. And health, wholeness, and holiness are all derived from the same root. They all mean virtually the same thing.2
So, I was wrong about salve being the root of the word salvation. However, they are not only related, but whole and holiness are related. I thought that holiness was the state of being holy, which meant “set apart.” So then it occurred to me that “church” means “set apart.” Wow! Then that problematic (for me, at least) passage in Matthew 16:18 came to mind. So, the keys to the Kingdom come in the remainder of that chapter. The Christ must suffer, die, and be raised again. After which comes the challenge:
“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?…”3
Wholeness is the Kingdom, and the key is a bit more complicated. Still, I suspect that you are far ahead of me on this one. Since you've already read this author, you've probably already considered and figured this out. But it's just beginning to congeal for me. And it would not have happened if I'd read these words last year. It had to be now.
So the Upper Room church is one of healing. The Eucharist is central, but not the one we've grown accustomed to these past 1,900 years. As you so brilliantly pointed out, the Feet Washing incident is also central. Humility is part of taking up one's cross. And the shared meal is where we crucify our selves, so that we can be reborn.
Does this make any sense?
bill
1 Peck, M.. Further Along the Road Less Traveled. New York: Touchstone, 1994. p25.
2 Ibid.
3 Matthew 16:24-26. ESV
» reply
Healing, Wholeness, and Relationship With Fellow Man
Submitted by reido on Wed, 04/02/2008 - 20:25.
Bill
Does Peck make a connection involving the assembled believers and love for fellow man as part of the wholeness of Life? This would seem to be a much needed part of our healing.
John writes this interesting account that the other gospel writers did not:
Jn 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, F27 when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. 28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him. 29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. 30 He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
Part of the interest for me is that no conclusions were able to be made by the gathered body -- likely because all had partaken of the same. But also interesting that Jesus goes beyond dining with a potential sinner...and hands the sopped bread to him. Usually the focus is on the prophecy of the individual to blame, but in light of the washing of feet, the gathering of the company (church), and the eating of a shared meal -- the movement of the actual hand to include one who is going to deliver his death says a lot about the nature of our Dilemma. You see, I believe it is very easy to love those who are like minded with myself because neither has to give anything up. The real test of love is in doing the more difficult thing.
Yes, your thoughts make sense.
reido
» reply
Hedging bets
Submitted by bill on Wed, 04/02/2008 - 23:33.
Reido,
I don't remember Peck mentioning anything about “assembled believers.” However, love for others is insinuated through his demand that we humble ourselves to others and to the process of painful growth. So, it seems that “group therapy” of some sort is essential. Which brings to mind all sorts of material like James' (?) insistence on confessing sins to one another. Church should be group therapy.
The Judas Factor is over my head. John seems to blame Satan and the serving of sopped bread by Jesus, as the impetus for Judas' choice. But, as you alluded, Judas must have had a predisposition that led him down the wrong path, that he would eventually regret. But another story seems to emerge.
The story of Peter and Judas seem to be major subplots here. Could it be that John (and maybe the other writers) is contrasting and comparing the choices made by two Zealots: one eventually made the right choice; while the other did not, and consequently took his own life. Yet, Jesus loved them both.
That would be a major story. For Jesus, the archetypal Adam, to treat both the same, while allowing each to choose his own route to glory or shame, seems a significant thread. How does he know which will do what? Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he expects that one, two, or none will grow up. And maybe he expects that one, or two, will fail.
One reason to choose followers from different backgrounds is increase the probability for failure while decreasing the probability for utter failure.
bill
» reply
Bag End
Bill
It's a lot like Tolkien's lore -- leaving the quiet everyday cycle and actively participating in the legends of myth. Time will be condensed into history and take on the view of the historians, but for those who experience the journey, it will be very different.
I still ask if the world will be a better place in the future for the questions we have asked... But most importantly, I think they are questions we have asked ourselves -- that is, the answer was not already hatched. Often I have tried to explain to another what I mean by the greatest question being the one you ask yourself, but it usually results in a queer look. That's where time comes in.
Keep on truckin...
reido