Particle or Wave?

Holy Hacks has been dedicated to the hacking into existing beliefs of theology.  Having disected (hacked) through much embedded theology, new terms and ideas, I can safely say that we have only just begun.  We are at a “Gethsemane” in the manner of which Jesus is said to have experienced just before his crucifixation.  While this may be the end of a term/semester or a belief, it is not the death of us, but an opportunity for a resurrection of sorts.  Not the reforming of a previously existing model, but the possibility of a new form of energy that is almost an unrecognizable non-object.  Just as the early new thought movement was into proving God in science in the 19^th century, we can look to what is now in our awareness to determine what is next in our theology and ministry.  Yes, we do have something to contribute from our conscious and critical thinking.  We can re-examine the Christian death-wish.  Rather than a spiraling downward of our Christian traditions, we could stand on them and learn from the Jesus model.  Rather that curse ourselves or others, we could surround ourselves with our twelve powers and in Divine strength stand and release those beliefs that no longer serve us.  We could forgive ourselves for any atrocities of Christian “behavior” and “re-assemble” around principles, theology that works in our 21^st century understanding.  We could recognize the limitations of the Newtonian physics with cause and effect and explore the quantum perspective.  Our choice, as in quantum physics, could be that we be a wave or a particle.  Or both!  Could Christianity be either?  Could we re-claim our faith from the ambush of mega-church televangelist of Christianity?  As we recognize our divinity, could we express that in our choices?  Will we become the dinosaurs?  I think not for me.  As creative beings we have the ability to adapt, not to the market place need, but to the adventure of pointing over the fence, as Babe Ruth and Jesus, and saying and showing “Look! Let’s go there!” 

Ethics? Choices? Art?

While we sort through the systems of how we decide, I see a “both and” system.  To say that we are always either deontologist or teleologist is too narrow of an approach.  These have been presented as mutually incompatible.  It may be useful to identify the general direction we lean into. However, the awareness of this may help expand our understanding of ourselves and others.  The deontologist bases her decisions of what is “right” thing to do.  It is a principle based perspective.  The teleologist bases her decision on what the best outcome would be.  Yes, ethics works in the gray zone and in controversial issues.  Here is where it gets messy.  Do we apply rules or envision a goal? 

As we study the four types of ethics, the theories appear to be much simpler than the practical side of applying them.  The Legalistic type of ethics is based solely on rules or principled functions from a rigidity that I find restricting.  Not only is this restricting, but also I find a lack of consistent principles.  Antinomianism is the doing whatever feels right.  How could I work/live in a world with safety if my neighbor thinks that whenever she feels a need she could violate my values, property or personal well-being?  While Situation Ethics begins to function with some common principle such as love, I still am asking for your definition of the principle.  What looks like love to you may be the very opposite to me.  For example, you may believe that the panhandler on the street should be given money, I know that I give my time and money to the organization in the next block that feeds him.  And, if he goes there he will get the medication he needs.  The fourth type is Contextual Ethics which is to do it if it appears right based on a matrix of values and the model of Jesus Christ.  Here we have a relational perspective and an interactive model to draw from.  I find this type most palpable for me especially in ministry.  We have a model of Jesus Christ as well as twelve powers, and our basic principle in Unity of there is only one power and one presence, God the Good omnipotent. 

If we are strictly a deontologist we confront a major question.  What rules are we deciding with?  My rules are different than the rules of the Chinese.  In China, when I visited in 1999, most people would seem to have a good life.  Their choices would invariably be from a deontological view.  I asked what would happen if they had a second child (this was not allowed by the communist at that time)?  The response was always “that is not allowed.”  There was no thought about a “what if” or any consideration of exploring beyond the law.  While this may be helpful in a country with millions of people in a very small area, this westerner finds it a bit uncomfortable to be without a choice and be unaware of the ability to discover options.

Who am I to tell someone what the “good life” or the “right decision” is?  The definition is so driven by experience, tradition, scripture, and reflection (read Unity Quadrilateral) that who can say what that is for everyone or anyone?  It is easy for me to say that certainly a spiritual life is required for the “good life.”  I am sitting here in a nice warm room with plenty to eat in a supportive environment in a country without the imminent threat of a bomb going off.  I think of the concept of the football stadium filled with people that are generally well off.  If we look at each one, though, are they really having a “good life?” just because they have managed to get to what others may consider a frivolous activity?

Who are we to judge? 

Is it really choice if we are driven to or by a specific view?  I think not.  This is a reason to call ministry an “art.”  As ministers what is our role?  To inflict our values?  Or be clear on what we base our choices or decisions?  I think it boils down to the best decision we can make which will, of course, engage our theology, our role and our values.  We cannot judge another for their ethics.  We can be aware of our tendencies to be on auto pilot for the decision.  We can step back see all possible ethics and choose from a prayerful place that hopefully includes honoring the divinity in us all.

Is Unity part of the “Church”?

We first explore the definition of church.  It is prevalent to be asked about one’s church.  We are typically asking where the building is that you go to on Sunday mornings.  Expanding our definition to include basilica, for the building, the ekklesia, for the clergy, and koinonia, for the community, opens up opportunities for being part of the “church.”  Given a church is ideas, marketplace, heritage, people, we begin to realize the enormity of ministry. Focusing on the church as people, we can build the marketplace of ideas.  What comes with the people is ideas to be exchanged, much like the format the Fillmores began with.  The people bring their own heritage of which we can explore within the Christian community.  Rather than simply being in opposition to whatever tradition we came from, we would have a committed and beloved group to explore.  Asking the questions such as “Does this still work?” within a safe environment with a dedicated minister who has explored these areas and is equipped to serve.  Here we break out of the shadow of our attack or defend which creates a further dependence on what we are not, to grow into a current theology and relationship with the divine.

We do not have to throw Jesus out.  We can excavate the deeper meaning of our life with the model of Jesus.  We can explore how the Bible can reveal a heritage and further our understanding of ourselves in our world. We stand on our rich heritage of Christian traditions to include ourselves in the community of faith.  That faith is of the Divinity of Jesus. This term has an evolutionary history to be acknowledged. We have an opportunity and a challenge to step into our grown up understanding of our relationship with Jesus. 

While the basilica provides the natural human want for a place, the world seems to be evolving beyond these limited spaces.  We are finding new terms to avoid being slotted into a church that may cause one to link it to a negative experience.  What about the lovely beloved community, the agape, being strengthened to be in the world as ekklesia?  How about using basilica as a “harbor” for ekklesia?

When we use oppositional statements like “we are not (fill in the blank) we set up a dependence upon the continuance of it and Unity then lives in the shadow.  Now is the time for Unity to step up and say what we are…at least for today. Can you say evolving?

Good, Good Times, Good Work

Is good determined by God? Is Good the principle that God must conform to? While this reminds us at first of the chicken and egg question, we find that it is crucial to our basic theology.  If God must adhere to a high standard of good, then it effects our entire belief system, especially our Soteriology, the study of the doctrine of salvation.  If we believe in the later, then how could we believe in a vengeful God who smites us?  We would be limited to the atonement theories of appeasement and ransom.  In appeasement, God is Holy but has wrath that Jesus is sacrificed to appease God. Would we need to placate a God that is principle of Good? In the Ransom Theory, where humanity is enslaved by the devil, Jesus is used to buy us out of our enslavement.  What kind of God would allow enslavement?  In the Penal Theory of atonement, God is judge accepts Jesus as our offering to suffer the consequences of our breaking the rules.  The fourth theory of Moral Influence holds Jesus as a perfect pattern for humankind to emulate.  This makes a Jesus that is relevant, and there is no need to change God’s mind.  However, we have had a number of special people but as in this theory, they are not unique.  The fifth atonement theory of Reconciliation theory allows us to have a God of principle goodness and a Jesus that is a relevant archetype to our being in the world and relating to God. 

At first the salvation plan to take it on faith that Jesus saved you seems to be the easy way out.  In this mystery cult perspective we can just let the good times roll because we are not capable of perfection anyway.  We can demonstrate an under-responsible behavior: “It ain’t my fault!”  However, if we shift to an ownership of a choice to follow Jesus, would that be demonstrating a responsible response to life.  Rather than an easy out, this may require more courage than an intellectual model.  Could it be that this choice is about growth? Could we consider that this leap of faith is in itself a reconciliation atonement?  Could this be God “reconciling the world unto Himself”? We have the possibility of a new understanding of those with such a strong faith that Jesus is their savior, not as a lamb slaughtered to appease an angry God, but as an individual making a responsive choice to accept Jesus is a wayshower.  Maybe next time someone asked if we are saved we could actually engage in a conversation! 

Jesus Who?

Who is this person named Jesus?  Did he really say that?  Was he a wise rabbi or a rebel rousing troublemaker?  Is what we have come to know been based on fact or fiction?

In Revealing Word, Charles Fillmore makes a distinction between Jesus the man, Christ the divine man, Jesus Christ the perfect idea of God for man, and Christ Jesus the fully ascended post resurrection man.  Before our heads start spinning, let’s dial back to Jesus the man.  First of all we have learned in our adulthood that Christ was not Jesus’ last name.  When our early learnings begin to unravel, we may be asking “What else is not true?”  While we may have been told that “Jesus said this,” how do we know if it is a fact?  Some of us have been told to just accept out of faith.  Sort of like when my mother told me to do something because she said so.  I usually had a hard time with that then, and now I am searching for the real story of Jesus.  Fortunately (or not) there are people who have spent a lifetime and career sorting through data, archeological, bible manuscripts and other documents to unveil that accuracy of the events.  Discoveries that have at least cast doubt of the accuracy of the New Testament have been made by numerous scholars such as J. J. Wettstein (1693-1754.) In the Codex Alexandrinus, the Greek word for God is abbreviated in two letters theta and sigma with a line drawn over the top to indicate that it is an abbreviation. What Wettstein saw was that this line had actually been drawn in different (later) ink which created a different word. Thus revealing the original meaning of the manuscript did not speak of Christ as God. Uh oh!

There is a mythology surrounding Jesus.  Mythology is used in a broader sense than we currently and commonly consider a falsehood.  Merriam-Webster defines myth as an idea or story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence. Here we are talking like fairy tales and fables.  Stories that may not be factually true but still have meaning.  The mythology around Jesus is so deep that perhaps the historicity is less important than the effects of the mythology.  Clearly the first century people were attracted to the story to the point that the culture was affected.  What scholars do know is that Jesus did appear at the River Jordan, and he was crucified.  From the writings of Paul we know of mystical experiences that impacted people in such a significant way that they were willing to risk their lives.  What we read in the Gospels is the account of the writers of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John.  Today we hear people say they have a “personal relationship” with Jesus.  I wonder if they are speaking of the guy that showed up at the River Jordan or the one written about in Matthew.  Or did they piece together their own Jesus?  Meeting the needs of the time is what the early followers did, like linking the experience of Jesus with the Israelite stories.  Why not allow that today?  While there were numerous claims during Jesus’ time of other messianic people, what made Jesus the king of the mountain from the heap?  With all the gaps in historic factual information, we are just as capable of filling in the blanks.  Some have debated whether Jesus was married or not.  How does it matter?  So we go back to our original question…Who was Jesus?  Then we get to the real question.  What is Jesus to us?   

Is God A Process?

As I listen to the question, I recognize the lens I have been wearing is that God is unchanging.  How could God be a process and be unchanging?   God as one Power and One Presence has been my mantra for a number of years.  Now I can use my creative thinking to listen and question this embedded theology. 

If God is creator, we cannot assume that all is already created.  So this appears to be a process.  If God is omnipotent, why would God need to learn and grow?  Here is the opportunity to distinguish between the adjective, omnipotent, and the noun, omnipotence.  The adjective is describing an object, God, and the noun omnipotence is the quality.  In our feeble efforts to describe the vastness and the indescribable, we can slip into adjectives.  God as a presence is clear in the statement that God is everywhere.  This is the OP2.  In Acts 17:28 Paul says, “We live and move and have our being I God.”  So God is in us and all around us.  As we grow, so must God.  However not in the adjective perspective, but in the essence of who we are.  I reconcile this with the distinction of becoming to being.  In being God changes, but not in becoming, because God already is.  The essence of God does not change ie the omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience.  Our Divine nature does not change as we learn and grow.  We are whole in our Divine Nature.  Where we learn and grow is in the world. 

I used to think that the God in the Hebrew Scriptures who was not necessarily a “good” guy, was just the author’s level of consciousness.  As I have read the Bible, I viewed it as the evolution of the soul, and we could see the “better” God as we grew. Abstract essence does not change when we include ourselves as growing, we cannot see God sitting up somewhere, as a deist would believe, watching with no involvement.  It is like there is no God.  So if we believe that there is One Power and One Presence, we must be a part of it.  If we are changing and growing, why wouldn’t everything be changing and growing?

God creates the Divine Idea of us humans.  Our essence is the same image and likeness as God.  Therefore, neither of our essences change. God as Principle is changeless.  That is the essence that does not change.  Rather than just thinking that it is our understanding evolving, with this Process Theology even God is evolving.  Still sounds a bit too much like God is a person.  And we, do not believe God is a person. Right?

Charles Fillmore in “Revealing Word” says

God, Spirit, is the only presence in the Universe, and is the only power. He is in, though, and around all creation as its life and s sustaining power. 

Sociology or Theology?

Opps!!  I just realized that I was looking at my research paper as a sociologist, not as a theologian.  I was seeking to explain the reason and approaches of different attitudes on society or psychology.  Now I see that this is an opportunity to change my lens! (Again!) With my background in Behavioral Science and the consulting work I have done in corporations in implementing change and working with the human side of that equation, I have a usual pattern of explaining the impact of change on people and systems.  Although the social science ideas can point our theology discussion in a useful direction, theology looks critically at religious beliefs

Sociology lens would ask “How did I get to be my brother’s keeper?” The sociologist wants to know how did this happen. The model of Marvin Harris can be used to see that this is not such a simple path, but one of an impact of multiple elements which may have eventually become a religious dogma that requires taking care of your brother.  That may appear to be the emic explanation, as the group describes its role. However, from the etic (more objective) perspective, it is perhaps the way the group survives. 

A theological question would be “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Here we are exploring our relationship not so much with our role in society, but that with the divine. 

How do I know it’s true? Now we get into the epistemology!  I actually love the simplicity of “because the Bible tells me so.” Now that scholars have been and are sorting out the pieces of manuscripts that were used to compile “the book”, the Bible may be to some just a bunch of cut and paste losing any validity. When I realize that these pieces of writings were carefully preserved in jars, survived hundreds of years, were important enough to be copied over and over for thousands of years, and were not even the actual writings in the first person but, in fact, really the ideas and memories of the author, I get even more interested!  These writings can be added to my circle of faith as I explore questions such as “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Now we are into theology!

Will the real Christian please stay up!?

To the question of whether Metaphysical Christians really have the religion “of Jesus”?... I say no. However, I can say yes to having “a” religion of Jesus.  To say “the” religion of Jesus at the surface level seems to have a claim that is unsubstantiated and arrogant. 

Since the religion of Jesus was Judaism, as a Christian, we do not follow the religion he practiced.  As a Metaphysical Christian, we do not follow the Judaic laws, wear sandals, preach from mountains, etc.  However, the term “Christian” has been used to describe a follower of Christ.  If we believe that Christ, as in the divine man as Charles Fillmore defined, existed before Jesus and Jesus was an individual expression of Christ, we could also call Jesus a Christian.  This may be a stretch.  Let us consider that we in Metaphysical Christianity do not use the terms Jesus and Christ interchangeably as other Christians often do.

 We speak with our own authority as we claim the term Christian, just as Jesus spoke of his own authority.  We in Unity also have a tradition, not only from the Fillmores, but also from the tradition of Jesus speaking from his own authority. We are to be cautious in the use of classic epistemology of tradition and not resort to glib statements.  This is where our study of theology serves us.  Theology can engage us in a dialogue with individuals with other perspectives.  Here is the opportunity to practice going beyond the shallow statements that separate us from others.  When we say we have found our “home” in the Metaphysical Christian teachings, we are declaring intuition as a source of Truth.  However, intuition is not a way to prove our knowing.  So we really are practicing “a” practice of Jesus when we speak from our own authority.

Feed or be fed?

Feed or be fed?

As we discussed the three spiritual needs of people I was struck with a couple of questions.  Where do those needs come from?  Embedded theology?  How do we meet those needs?  What is ours to do in meeting those needs from a ministerial perspective?

First, the basis of these needs are so vast it is difficult to postulate the source.  The religious tradition we grew up in would certainly be one of, at least, influence. Whether we embraced the beliefs are not, we have the possibility of carrying over preferences or expectations for our church and minister.  For example, I have heard a number of New Thought followers express a yearning for rituals.  If we consider aspects of our services to include music, for instance, these could fulfill these desires. 

The need of new ideas or perspectives on familiar ideas is often cited to be a missing element in a more traditional church.  These disillusioned souls come into our ministry looking to not necessarily topple their existing theology.  More often it is to refresh their thinking.  They are attracted to the “New” part of our teachings. I consider this an unspoken basic for our services and lessons.

Another essential of our ministries is to demonstrate what we propose in our mission values and purpose statements.  If we as in Unity describe ourselves as “practical”, we must offer principles to apply in life.  Platitudes are very shallow.  It is easy to say God is good and everywhere present.  However, it necessary for us to reveal this in a deeper way and propose useful messages.

These spiritual needs can be met just in a Sunday service alone.  I propose that we also provide the possibilities of meeting them in every other aspect of our ministries, such as classes and social activities. 

We are not in the business of “force feeding” the masses (no pun intended).  However, we are here to offer ways to access the Divine, in us and all around us.  While we in the ministry want to encourage spiritual growth, I believe we also are to provide the conduit rather than obstacles for that growth.  Oh, and by the way, this may be my embedded theology!  Always taking hacks at the Holy!  Blessings!

My basic belief about God is that God is energy.  This energy is neutral.  It is present in everything and everyone at all times.  Merriam-Webster.com offers this definition of energy as dynamic quality:  the capacity of acting or being active <intellectual energy>; usable power.  Wikipedia says this about energy- “It is impossible to give a comprehensive definition of energy because of the many forms it may take, but the most common definition is that it is the capacity of a system to perform work.”

 We as observers of the energy have an effect on the course. We cannot directly observe energy, only the “results.”  God is different for each person given we each have our own theology and therefore God may take many forms.  I consider an example of a vengeance God of the Hebrew Scriptures to be a reflection of the consciousness of the writers.  Yes, God is the capacity to perform work.  And, yes, we are this capacity also, given this energy is in us.  I find God in the spaces.

Sin is in the observation.  When we see the energy as a negative, it goes in that path.  Therefore, the resulting manifestation of the energy is in compliance.  Salvation is the changing of the direction to a positive route.  This is the meaning of the saying that we change the world when we change our minds.  There is no inherent “evil.”  We create or manifest the bad with our thinking.  I view evil as the opposite of “live.”  In other words, in “evil,” it (a person or thing) is not living and growing.  My interpretation of prayer is the act of connecting into this field of energy and allowing it to inform my thinking and feeling.  And finally, I must practice this connecting when living in a world that has a choice.  I personally do not want a shrinking anti-living world.  My practice is to reassure myself and others that we can have a world that works for everyone.  Heaven is not a physical place, but a level of consciousness, as is Hell.

A church is a support for people to practice remembering that God is good and always available to us.  It provides the teachings and community to empower everyone in the congregation to grow spiritually.  This implies that it is not merely a place for people to be told their truth, but where they can safely discover for themselves the Truth, meaning the changeless principles that allow us to experience a life of growth, abundance and understanding.  In this community, with our without walls, they can connect with others in this pursuit, hearing others, speaking, learning, expressing, and trying out theologies.  While I am saying this, I realize that a church has a commitment to teach their theology, but also I maintain that it has a duty to allow conversations and explorations as to the viability of those teachings.  As Thomas Paine said “It is error only, and not truth that shrinks from inquiry.”