A Truly Fundamental Christianity

[earl]

My recent speechifying regarding fundamentalism-as well as my desire to get this little board into a more active mode-leads me to suggest some reflection on Jesus' message as relates to terms such as "fundamental" & "liberal." The Merriam-Webster defiition of "liberal" includes "marked by generosity, given in a generous or open-handed way, not literal, not bound by authoritarianism" while the definition of "fundamental" includes "serving as original or generating source, of or relating to essential structure, function or facts, of central importance." OK, here's my thesis: Jesus actually by recorded words taught only a very limited number of things in his all too short 3 year teaching career, (in fact I think his teaching mode was really his life and death-the transcendence of love over suffering-more than his words). He only taught 1 prayer-a prayer of thankfulness and forgiveness. He only gave 1 exhortation: to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. These latter two comprise the "fundamental" message of Jesus and if followed would naturally lead to a "liberal" way of living. Anything that furthered aims of connection to God and humanity via thankfulness, forgiveness, and love would be "kosher" with Jesus in my opinion. I think 1 of the reasons why there is so much interest in incorporating approaches from other religions into Christian life is unlike Gautama the Buddha who taught all kinds of methods over his 50 year teaching career, Jesus primarily taught by example and beyond devotional trust in him and God, did not offer other methods which can be of assistance-methods to relativize ego, connect with others, etc. This is why you find such folk as Huston Smith, the grand thinker of comparative religion engaging in such practices as yoga, zen meditation, and islamic prayers to supplement his Christian practice-he describes it as Christianity being his "main meal" while the rest are spiritual "vitamin supplements." But at any rate, if we truly kept in mind that the fundamental message of Jesus is profound(ly) simple and cleave to it, we could liberally engage ourself and our world with open-handed generosity of mind, heart, and body. have a good one, earl

 

[wil]

Namaste Earl,

I'm thinking I agree. I mean I believe that my thinking and understanding is more fundamental...more in line with the teaching of Jesus.

I don't hear worship me, I hear walk my walk. I hear love, and understanding and tolerance 90% of the time...not I am the only way, but I am the light that is here to help shine on your path...

Of course I believe a conservative movement includes conservation.

 

[InLove]

Hi earl--

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I can understand what Smith says when he says that Christianity is his "main meal". I tend to think of Christianity as my "native language". Not that I can really say I am fluent in any other, but I no longer feel threatened by the idea of learning about them. And I dare say that it is that beautiful Spirit that Christ displayed that has led me to understand just how much we limit ourselves when we start assigning limits to that which is boundless.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[flowperson]

I have often contemplated the fact that the physical world has all sorts of boundaries, and it really wouldn't work very well if it didn't. OTOH the spiritual world, as you pointed out InLove, is essentially without boundaries. This requires us all to make choices that are appropriate for our individual spiritual and religious behaviors while we are on the Earth.

Religion and its associated beliefs, being of and in the world, exhibit boundaries everywhere. Spiritual matters never do since they are not of the world. But as Jesus taught us, our spirit inspired mindset allows us to love others as we would have them love us while we are in the world. Just a thought.

flow....

 

[Saltmeister]

I think 1 of the reasons why there is so much interest in incorporating approaches from other religions into Christian life is unlike Gautama the Buddha who taught all kinds of methods over his 50 year teaching career, Jesus primarily taught by example and beyond devotional trust in him and God, did not offer other methods which can be of assistance-methods to relativize ego, connect with others, etc.

This is why you find such folk as Huston Smith, the grand thinker of comparative religion engaging in such practices as yoga, zen meditation, and islamic prayers to supplement his Christian practice-he describes it as Christianity being his "main meal" while the rest are spiritual "vitamin supplements." But at any rate, if we truly kept in mind that the fundamental message of Jesus is profound(ly) simple and cleave to it, we could liberally engage ourself and our world with open-handed generosity of mind, heart, and body. have a good one, earl

I'm kind of intrigued by this idea of "mixing Christianity with other religions." Some people have a problem with mixing Christianity with elements of other religions. Others do not. I believe the important point, though, is not whether it's right or wrong, but what it means.

The more I think about it, the more I come to think that Christianity is not a religion on method, but a religion on meaning. Christianity, therefore, best serves its purpose when its full meaning is appreciated and understood. If one feels that meaning is more important than method, then supplementing Christianity with methods outside the faith won't help a person appreciate or understand its ultimate purpose. If one considers methods more important, than such supplements won't undermine Christianity's purpose. Supplementing Christianity with Yogi, Buddhist or Islamic concepts won't be a problem for people who are more interested in methods, but those interested in meaning may want to keep that stuff out of their spiritual journey. If meaning is important in a religion, then one would prefer to preserve the experience of a religion derived solely from those concepts that come from the religion, and keep everything else out.

It just depends whether you're a meaning-driven or method-driven person.

I don't see meaning as a means to an end (ie. methodical). Method may be an approach to achieving or acquiring something meaningful. But some people, in order to preserve what has sentimental value, may consider methodology detrimental to what their souls are chasing. That's because what one pursues in life may be sacred.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me on Buddhism's stance on things that are sacred. Is the desire to preserve what is sacred, what has sentimental value unhealthy because it may be an obsession? Forget it and move on? Concerning Islam, my impression is that it's a way of mixing meaning and method. Islam seems to suggest that one must understand the meaning of things in this world (the sacred) and apply certain methods (Islamic practices, the Pillars) to that understanding and knowledge to achieve particular goals. Am I right? Any Muslims or people who know Islam here?

I guess it's a question of head or heart. Kind of reminds me of Star Trek. Humans are driven by emotion. Vulcans are driven by logic.

You might be wondering why I don't just go and read the Koran or read about Buddhism. But I have chosen to learn through comments made by Muslims and Buddhisms at CR and "hints" I received from glimpses of Islamic and Buddhist web sites I came across several months before. I think I get more of a taste of what other religions mean that way. You could call it "passive learning" as opposed to "active learning" (ie. deliberately reading about something).

I suppose that gives away what I'm driven by. I'm not so much interested in methods and practices as I am about meaning. That, I could say is why deliberately (strategically) reading up on Buddhism or Islam is not on my agenda at the moment . . . Moreover, I want to appreciate and understand what Christianity means as a religion before I start tackling anything else. That's got nothing to do with having a Christian upbringing. I was brought up as a Christian but it still doesn't make me a wiser Christian. I may be knowledgeable or unknowledgeable about doctrines, methods, practices and liturgy, but that counts as nothing if I don't understand what they ultimately mean. To me, all these things -- doctrines, methods, practices and liturgy are all references to "higher concepts." The doctrines, practices and methods themselves are not important. One must look beyond them at the higher concepts they represent.

You could say that you really don't have to know, beforehand, the methods employed by a religion in its approach to spirituality. The instant that it is explained to me, I know what it means. The method isn't important because it's just a means to an end. That would apply to any denomination in Christianity -- because the way I see it, they don't disagree so much over meaning but method. A denomination is a way of aligning people to the same methods. But when people realise the methods are just a means to an end, you could say the debates and arguments all amount to nothing. They never meant anything.

So I guess I can be lazy and not bother learning about Catholicism, Anglican teachings, Pentecostal teachings, Baptist teachings, Anabaptist teachings, Evangelical teachings, Mormon teachings and the Watch Tower Society. I may not know about their "methods," but I may get to understand the methods when I talk to some missionary who wants to convert me or when I discuss spirituality with a Catholic or Pentecostal (or some other kind of Christian) colleague I meet at work or college.

That doesn't mean I don't read books. I do. I read books from the church library from time to time. But my learning approach is mostly "passive." In other words, I just let things come to me. I have no clearly defined strategy or goals on exploration. I'm passive because I believe that if I try and force things into my mind, my understanding of a religion will be distorted. I am extremely skeptical about using a brute force approach to learning about a religion -- to just read, read, read. You could say it's a trade-off between knowledge and understanding.

 

[Paladin]

Hi Saltmeister,

With all due respect, if I tell you what eating an orange is like and you have never bit into one, what good would I be doing for you?

Peace
Mark

 

[Saltmeister]

Hi Saltmeister,

With all due respect, if I tell you what eating an orange is like and you have never bit into one, what good would I be doing for you?

Peace
Mark

To me, an orange is a bit too simple an object to represent a religion.

Methods employed by a religion are really just a way of preserving some higher concept. I would think of the "oranges" as the "higher concepts" that we want to taste and experience. What if we could bypass the methods used by followers of a particular religion, and access the "higher concepts" directly without using the same methods? That would be a different way of eating the orange.

Concerning what I said about appreciating and understanding religions, I don't believe one has to actually practice a religion, or apply its methods to appreciate and understand it for what it means. The methods are less important than what we want to experience.

When I was a kid, I used to get really fussy about how food was presented on my plate, or the order in which I ate my food. My parents would remind me that it doesn't matter how the food is presented or how it looks like, the order in which you eat it, what other food you mix it with when you're eating, it will all end up in your stomach anyway. I still eat that way, but only because I like the way the food tastes and I want to experience that taste in a particular order.

This is where you might get it wrong -- it's not about the method I use to eat the food, but what I want to experience from doing it that way. It's all about the taste. The taste of the food is sacred to me.

I bite into the orange, but how others might bite into the orange is less important to me. I am only concerned about my own way of biting into the orange. If I want to share my experiences of "biting into oranges" with someone else, we may gladly do so. Even if I don't do it someone else's way, I can learn something from someone else.

Yes, to me it does do good even if I don't do it their way. I get to learn what "biting the orange" means for them. Sometimes it even helps me understand my own way of biting into the orange, and it allows me to understand myself better as a person. Sometimes we have to find out what biting the orange means for other people in order to understand what it means for ourselves.

I wasn't sure how to answer this question at first . . . I wrote a lot of other things before, but I think what I intended to write was completely irrelevant to your question. Furthermore, I wasn't getting anywhere unless I thought about things in terms of your question. Thanks for getting me to do this. I think I'm starting to get to know what it means to be a convicted daydreamer.

To answer your question, I have probably already bitten into an "orange" before, so I think I already know what it tastes like. Every religion has its goals and some have methods to achieve those goals. But to me the goal is more important than the means of getting there. I hope I answered your question.

 

[Paladin]

Saltmeister,

You answered my question in a very succinct way, thank you. Your spirit of inquiry will take you far in reaching your goals, I might even go as far as to say that what it is you seek is nearly within your grasp. Funny thing about that though, as soon as I heft myself onto the ledge I was reaching for, I can see with great ease just how high the mountain is!
I really enjoy reading your posts, and like the way your mind works.


Peace

Mark

 

[Saltmeister]

Saltmeister,

You answered my question in a very succinct way, thank you. Your spirit of inquiry will take you far in reaching your goals, I might even go as far as to say that what it is you seek is nearly within your grasp. Funny thing about that though, as soon as I heft myself onto the ledge I was reaching for, I can see with great ease just how high the mountain is!
I really enjoy reading your posts, and like the way your mind works.

Peace

Mark

Wow. You must have been there already. What was it like? Let me know so I can imagine what to expect.

 

[Paladin]

Saltmeister,

I hope I haven't given the wrong impression, that I am in posession of special knowledge or attainment for certainly that is not the case. Re-reading your posts I find the most marvelous dynamics at work. What on first reading appears to be an inner conflict is resolved only to split off again. Like I said I really like the way your mind works
You most probably have come across the six syllable mantra of Buddhism in your explorations (Om Mani Padme Hum) The Jewel of the mind in the lotus of the heart. What do you think? Is this mantra another way of expressing the Hegelian Dialectic as applied to our being?
Since both method and meaning begin to dissolve at some point what then is left? Personally I like reading St. John of the Cross in this regard.
Venerable Geshe van Gyelstson in his Mirror of Emptiness teaches that meaning is imputed and method (as you have stated) can only get us so far.
So what then is left?

Peace
Mark

 

[Thomas]

He only taught 1 prayer-a prayer of thankfulness and forgiveness. He only gave 1 exhortation: to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. These latter two comprise the "fundamental" message of Jesus and if followed would naturally lead to a "liberal" way of living.

What about the instruction to baptize 'in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost' (and all that that implies)?

And ... most importantly ... and 'fundamentally' ... He gave the Sacrament of the Eucharist - 'do this in memory of me' (and all that that implies)!

Thomas

 

[wil]

He only taught 1 prayer-a prayer of thankfulness and forgiveness. He only gave 1 exhortation: to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. These latter two comprise the "fundamental" message of Jesus and if followed would naturally lead to a "liberal" way of living.

What about the instruction to baptize 'in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost' (and all that that implies)?

And ... most importantly ... and 'fundamentally' ... He gave the Sacrament of the Eucharist - 'do this in memory of me' (and all that that implies)!

Thomas

Namaste Thomas,

As we discussed elsewhere the concept of eating substance (bread) and drinking spirit (wine) was nothing new at the time or now amongst his brethren (Jews)...We've continued the same tradition.

John the baptist indicated he Baptized with water but the one who come after him, will baptize with the holy spirit...why do most churches still use water? Cannot Jesus baptize us without an intermediary?

 

[Dondi]

Namaste Thomas,

As we discussed elsewhere the concept of eating substance (bread) and drinking spirit (wine) was nothing new at the time or now amongst his brethren (Jews)...We've continued the same tradition.

John the baptist indicated he Baptized with water but the one who come after him, will baptize with the holy spirit...why do most churches still use water? Cannot Jesus baptize us without an intermediary?

May I point out that Jesus baptized no one. His disciples were the ones who physically baptized.

 

[seattlegal]

Namaste Thomas,

As we discussed elsewhere the concept of eating substance (bread) and drinking spirit (wine) was nothing new at the time or now amongst his brethren (Jews)...We've continued the same tradition.

John the baptist indicated he Baptized with water but the one who come after him, will baptize with the holy spirit...why do most churches still use water? Cannot Jesus baptize us without an intermediary?

Hmm, while Jesus was still on earth, he didn't baptize anyone with water, (John 4:2), but his followers did. In Acts 10, the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the Gentiles, and Peter commanded that they be baptized in the name of the Lord.

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Baptism in water was an important part of the early church, both before the death of Jesus, and afterwards. (See also Acts 2:36-39)

 

[InLove]

I am compelled to post the following. I truly do not know whether it will fall within or without the limits of orthodoxy. All I know is these are words I was given at one time, and they still touch my heart (or mind or Spirit, whatever you see here--I would love to know, Thomas, or anyone?)

I know that this thread concerns baptism, but I don't know how baptism can be only with water--and I am sure you agree, Thomas. I realize that what I am about to post will naturally take us into the subject of The Eucharist, or The Lord's Supper, or whatever else it may be called.

I have a hard time limiting The Spirit to what men (and women) or institutions say. I am one of those who wonders about the real Church. I know I belong, but it is not because a man or an organization says so. That does not mean that there isn't something great and in the Highest to find in these places. I just don't believe that the faithful are limited to these guidelines.

There is a line in here about death not existing. I understand that we are all appointed one death. But in the Spirit, death looks very different...

I'm just going to jump in here now and post--let the judgements fall where they may.


Sinner's Bread and Wine

Come, partake, if you are empty--
Fill your hunger with the body of your Lord,
And the Spirit Divine;
Come, drink if you are thirsty--
Quench the burning with His blood;
Plentiful you will find
Sinner's bread and wine.

Come, sit with the Lord at His table--
Fill your weakness with the nourishment He gives,
And the Spirit Divine;
Come, share--let the Lord make you able
To receive and believe in the blessing that lives;
Come, let your spirit dine
On sinner's bread and wine.

All thirst and hunger shall pass away;
No more will these mountains hinder the way--
But the pathway begins in the heart;
Come find His mercy, come ask your part.
Your Servant-King will guide you and live inside you;
Giving and receiving, living and believing are entwined,
And the Spirit Light shines
Through Calvary's dark and gloomy mist--
Death does not exist

Come, partake if you are empty
The blood that was shed by our Lord--
Listen to the Spirit Divine;
And know that the Lamb's broken body
Is by grace within you restored;
Bountiful you shall find
Sinner's bread and wine.

--InLove, but the words are not really mine, only given.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil –

Cannot Jesus baptize us without an intermediary?
Yes He can – but he chose otherwise – which is the whole point ...

As we discussed elsewhere the concept of eating substance (bread) and drinking spirit (wine) was nothing new at the time or now amongst his brethren (Jews)...We've continued the same tradition.

Indeed ... and as has also been discussed elsewhere, Jesus transcended both the symbolic and sacramental aspect of a common practice, both of the Jews and of the world at large ... scholars of all traditions note that this sacramental aspect is unique to Christianity.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Beautiful, InLove ...

+++

I am one of those who wonders about the real Church.

This is the crux.

There is an old Catholic joke – there's two types of Catholic, those who know it, and those who don't know it yet. But there's much to be said ...

... If we say the 'real Church' is the body of those faithful ... faithful in their own way to whatever, whoever, and however they understand what we (as Catholics) understand 'God' to be, then the 'real Church' exists only in a spiritual sense, largely anonymous, and unknown even to Itself, and in the material world it is an abstract – it remains secret and hidden ... but if we know this, and do not present its face to the world as a community then the world is robbed of its gift, its grace and its glory, the world is robbed of the Presence of Itself as something essentially 'good' as something essentially Divine – and we inevitably, inexorably, withdraw into some Platonic dualism of a 'real (spiritual and invisible) Church' and an 'unreal (physical and visible) Church'.

... I cannot bear that. I cannot bear the thought of a physical world, created by God like every other world, yet denied the Divine Presence within itself present to itself as the source of its reality, its goodness, and its beauty.

... it renders every art, every craft, every human achievement in the world ... hopeless.

No. I will not have it. The world is essentially and fundamentally good. Just beguiled and misguided.

It can be saved.

... Yet if I cannot bring myself to embrace my neighbour in the flesh, as I have been commanded, to embrace the world as the world is, to offer a healing hand ... what right have I to ask, what right have I to hope, that He will embrace me in the Spirit?

That I might be made anew?

The Church is my hope, and yet I nor She is under any illusion that in Her members we are willful, errant and prone to sin, my presence is an acknowledgement not of my faith in Her but Her faith in me – Her hope, Her faith and Her one wish 'that all men might be saved'.

She is the measure of myself. The Mirror of Being.

She is all that is best in my dialogue with God...

... And she suffers all my worst ...

Thomas

 

[InLove]

Thank you, Thomas, for that.

I understand.

If it sometimes takes the physical to help manifest the Spiritual, is that not what our Lord has done?

I am endlessly blessed wherever I find His Love.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[InLove]

And Saltmeister--I totally understand the orange thing.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[seattlegal]

Beautiful, InLove ...

+++

I am one of those who wonders about the real Church.

This is the crux.

There is an old Catholic joke – there's two types of Catholic, those who know it, and those who don't know it yet. But there's much to be said ...

... If we say the 'real Church' is the body of those faithful ... faithful in their own way to whatever, whoever, and however they understand what we (as Catholics) understand 'God' to be, then the 'real Church' exists only in a spiritual sense, largely anonymous, and unknown even to Itself, and in the material world it is an abstract – it remains secret and hidden ... but if we know this, and do not present its face to the world as a community then the world is robbed of its gift, its grace and its glory, the world is robbed of the Presence of Itself as something essentially 'good' as something essentially Divine – and we inevitably, inexorably, withdraw into some Platonic dualism of a 'real (spiritual and invisible) Church' and an 'unreal (physical and visible) Church'.

... I cannot bear that. I cannot bear the thought of a physical world, created by God like every other world, yet denied the Divine Presence within itself present to itself as the source of its reality, its goodness, and its beauty.

... it renders every art, every craft, every human achievement in the world ... hopeless.

No. I will not have it. The world is essentially and fundamentally good. Just beguiled and misguided.

It can be saved.

... Yet if I cannot bring myself to embrace my neighbour in the flesh, as I have been commanded, to embrace the world as the world is, to offer a healing hand ... what right have I to ask, what right have I to hope, that He will embrace me in the Spirit?

That I might be made anew?

The Church is my hope, and yet I nor She is under any illusion that in Her members we are willful, errant and prone to sin, my presence is an acknowledgement not of my faith in Her but Her faith in me – Her hope, Her faith and Her one wish 'that all men might be saved'.

She is the measure of myself. The Mirror of Being.

She is all that is best in my dialogue with God...

... And she suffers all my worst ...

Thomas

Isn't that what water baptism is all about? Isn't it about the open physical recognition of "the body of the faithful?"