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?