An Episcopalian Pantheistic Quaker

Sorry I haven't been able to post with the regularity of last month. This month's teaching schedule has been busy, and I'm trying to finish my PhD dissertation. But, my love affair with Blogger continues....

I think I've said somewhere before that I am addicted to labels, despite my postmodern midset. I suppose it's a leftover trait from my fundamentalist, evanglical days. I've been thinking lately about what label to apply to myself. I'm sure some readers of this blog would be more than happy to jump in with "heretic" or "pagan", and they might not be too far off the mark~

There are three traditions that really appeal to me, though traditionally they have been at some odds: Episcopalianism, Pantheism, and Quakerism. God, I love to talk about -isms!

Though I have only been to a handful of Episcopalian worship services, my immediate reaction to the pomp - the sights and smells of worship - was one of sheer spiritual ecstacy. In worshiping a God as grand as He/She is, I cannot fathom there being too much pagentry in the process. The stained glass, the incense, the garments, the community of it all! Episcopalian worship takes my breath away, and leaves my feeling as if I have truly encountered the faceless, mysterious God.

Pantheism, though often at odds with Christian doctrine, has found a deep place in my heart as well. My recent subscription to ecopsychology (the topic of my dissertation) has even furthered that place. It seems evident to me that everything is somehow interconnected, and that the smallest action in one place effects other things elsewhere. I have always been a monist as well, which presented problems when I felt the need to belive in the Trinity. I see the earth as the body of God. Most characteristics that has traditionally been assigned to God can also be assigned to the earth & the universe (i.e. omnipresence, omnipotence, creativity, etc). Nature has been a sanctuary to me more times than I can remember, producing feelings of awe, inadequacy, and love simultaneously.

Modern Quakerism probably has more in common with pantheism than with Episcopalianism. Quakers believe in three main things that resonate with my S(s)pirit: the Inner Light in each individual, the value of listening, and a commitment to pacifism. Whereas I relish the ornate worship of the Episcopal church, I also find deep meaning simply in the practice of being still and listening to the Spirit within. Each person, as part of creation and a part of God, has the ability to hear the voice of God within. The gospel of John tells us that Light entered the world, and this Light is the Light of men. Quakers also take the teachings of Jesus seriously about loving neighbor as self, the neighbors being our fellow human beings.

So, I'm an EPQ, at least for the time being. I treasure parts of each of these traditions, and find additional meaning outside of these traditions. The journey continues....

Peace & Blessings.

(Re)Defining Sin

Ok - I can imagine that the title alone has already raised some red flags for some readers, and rightly so. It's one thing to talk about re-interpreting scripture, re-structuring the Church, etc. But don't mess with sin! I agree. Sin is a serious topic. Hang in a while, and I think you'll see that I treat it just as seriously as any evangelical would. My purpose here is not to reason away the seriousness of sin, but to do it more justice than is traditionally done.

One thing that all Christians should be able to agree on is the centrality of Christ and his teachings. In regards to spiritual law, Christ gave assent to two commands that sum up his view on how sin should be judged: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27). So often, Christians bring to the "sin discussion" various do's and dont's from throughout scripture. Christ simplified it for us. He gave us a love command to measure what is sinful and what is not. In Mark 12:31, Christ tells us there is no other command that supercedes these two love commands. So how should these words of Christ help us to redefine sin?

1. Sin is the absence of loving relationship with God and people. Sin is not first and foremost an act of commission, but an act of omission. Sin can be decided based on the lack of presence of love.
2. Sin is failing to love God, neighbor, and self. Loving God is basically living in the presence of God, or having our being in His Spirit. Loving our neighbor, at least in Luke's gospel, is loving the other (i.e. those we would traditionally have nothing to do with). A lover of neighbors is one who has mercy on the outcast/other (v.37). Loving ourself is first self-identifying with the other, then loving the self. In other words, loving the self is recognizing that we have as much standing in the experience of grace as the person we consider most different from ourself, and that we love ourselves as much as we love the other person. Most Christians get the "love your neighbor as yourself" command backwards, because they start with only loving what is easy to love about themselves. Starting the neighborly love process from the foundation of the other stretches the command to a new, and more difficult level.

Sin, therefore, is not about a list of do's and dont's, but about acts of love toward God, others, and self. Therefore, rather than the person who follows the most rules, the most sanctified Christian is the one who loves the most.

Peace & Blessings.

Called to Inclusiveness

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

Acts 10: 9-16

This wonderful story of inclusion has been interpretatively reduced as an inclusion of Gentiles into the family God. This, of course, is a comfortable interpretation because most believers are Gentiles. Few people, however, go beyond their own characteristics (i.e. being Gentile, being straight, being doctrinally correct, etc.) when it comes to inclusion in the Church. This vision of Peter's prompts me to ask some questions of myself, which, in answering, lead to fuller inclusion within the Community of God:

Q: What can God NOT make clean?
A: Nothing.

Thank God we are not the gatekeepers. The visible fellowship of believers would be so tiny if we had control of who's in and who's out. The grace of God is sovereign, and whoever (that a powerful word) comes to Him is accepted by Him. Human standards of "cleanliness" notwithstanding, God arms are open wide enough for full inclusion of all who come to Him.

Q: How do the animals shown by God in the vision equate to humanity?
A: Levitical laws of purity are done away with.

Legalists love to quote the verse, "I (Christ) did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." For some reason, they think this quote of Christ re-inforces a system of rules and regulations within the Church. Whether the law is destroyed or fulfilled, the point is that it doesn't exist anymore. By encouraging Peter to eat formerly unclean animals, God is giving the Church a new spirit of openness and acceptance. In effect, God is saying He accepts more people in His family than we'd ever consider accepting into ours.

Q: Why did Peter have to be told three times to accept the vision?
A: Conversation is everything to God.

The more I read scripture, the more I see how much God values conversation with His creatures. Even though Peter's exclusivism initially bothered me, it also taught me something: God withdrew the vision before Peter gave agreement. Peter was left to formulate his own decision on the matter of inclusion, and ultimately came over to God's side of the argument. This wasn't a necessary conclusion though. Peter just as well could have disagreed and continued being exclusive. God values freedom and conversation over acceptance and rote obedience.

Peace & Blessings.

Approaching the Bible as a Conversation

With all the examples of great fathers and mothers of the faith conversing, arguing, and fighting with God, I've always thought it strange that some people approach scripture as if God is finished speaking. What kind of relationship is so one-sided that for nearly two thousand years, only one side gets to speak, and the other must simply listen? The Bible is littered with examples of faithful people in real conversation with God. However, most modern Christians only address God in prayer, and then mostly with petitions.

If the Bible is a significant part of God's word to us, then why shouldn't we address it as we would a real conversation with any other of our friends? In real conversations, one participant doesn't just sit back and agree with everything being said. There are tensions and resolutions, and some questions are simply left unanswered. I know many people are uncomfortable with unanswered questions, but I cannot think of any real relationship in my life in which there is not a certain amount of ambiguity.

Apart from prayer, I see the Bible as God's biggest offering of conversation to us as His followers. It is so plain to me that scripture is simply a means to an end, that being a walk with God. Of course, I am not suggesting a biblical buffet, where each person just picks and chooses what they want to accept. This is an all-too-typical straw man argument against those who are really seeking to find truth through conversation. In fact, I believe conversing with the biblical witnesses treats scripture more highly than simply claming the Bible as petrified truth. It is so refreshing to start reading passages of scripture knowing that God wants a response, not just a nod in the affirmative.

Peace & Blessings.

Good vs. Evil, Part 2

If you know anything about open theism, you already know the main points I'm going to flesh out: (1) God is not omnipotent, (2) God is not omniscient, and (3) God is engaged in real war. Of course, most of the open theists within evangelicalism tend to want to keep the traditional terminology while re-defining what that terminology means. I think it's better to just discard the terminology for the sake of clarity. I have claimed what I believe God is not. It follows that I should try to attempt to explain what God is, at least in my experience of Her. Let's take it point by point.

God is not omnipotent, but powerful.

Traditional Christians are scared silly when they see this sentence, which is why there is such an uproar in evangelical communities surrounding open theism. Of all the open theistic writers I've read, Clark Pinnock does the most justice to this idea. [Disclaimer: just because I mention Clark Pinnock doesn't mean he wants to be mentioned in the vicinity of my writings]. However, as I mentioned before, he tends to want to keep the traditional word while re-defining it. Omnipotence, in its traditional reference to God, means He is able to do anything that does not contradict His own nature. In other words, He is able to stop the rape of the afore-mentioned 9 year-old girl if He so chooses. For any thinking Christian, it is easy to see where the problem arises. If God is good, and also omnipotent, then why would She allow such horrible, senseless things to take place? Now, I use the word senseless for a very good reason. Most traditionalists would argue that there must be some unrecognized good purpose to come of the girl's rape. That is why God allows it. Can such a rationalization, as much as it grates against everything we know of God, be true? Wouldn't the Spirit give some kind of assent to that view if it was in fact, correct? What do we feel horrible when defending God with this excuse?

I think the answer lies in its inherent falsity. As Christians, we all know God is good by our experience of Her. She doesn't give a stone when we need bread. She loves us more than our earthly parents love us. Would any earthly parent allow their child to be raped? Is there any good future thing that could come of that? No. God is completely loving, and limited in Her actions. There are some things She simply cannot interfere with. This has nothing to do with man's free will, but everything to do with real spiritual warfare (see # 3).

God is not omniscient, but learning.

Traditionally, God's omniscience means that He is able to know everything in the past, present, and future. Current open theists re-define omniscience to mean that God knows everything that can be possibly be known, then proceed to discuss what can truly be known vs. what cannot be known. I do not see the sense in sticking with the term omniscience. It's just confusing. For too long, the term has been used to mean that God simply knows everything. In other words, before the girl's rapist was born, God knew he was going to be a rapist, yet went ahead and allowed his birth. If omnipotence and omniscience are true as traditionally believed, then God is directly responsible for the girl's rape because He had the power and knowledge to put a stop to it. How could a loving God, who is also all-knowing and all-powerful, not put a stop to it? Yeah, yeah - the free will thing. But if God had prevented the birth of the rapist, free will would not have even been an issue.

Therefore, along with omnipotence, I also believe omniscience should be discarded. Because God loves freedom, and freedom requires real choices, God creates the universe in a way that She cannot possibly know the real possibilities that can occur in Her universe. She has to work with the things that happen. The rapist could have been a humanitarian with good character, but he chose to be a rapist. This occurred from an infinite number of possibilities, none of which God knew beforehand. God only knows the present reality, and a limited amount of future choices which she deduces from the current actions of free beings. This is basically what current open theists teach, though most of them insist on keeping the tricky work, omniscience.

God is engaged in real war.

Though I've already discarded two major traditional Christian beliefs, I think this third point is the most important. It also satisfactorily answers (at least to many pre-modernists and postmodernists) why God cannot be omnipotent as traditionally believed. Satan is a real being, and he has legions of real demons that follow his rebellious lead. I dare you to tell a friend you believe Satan is a real personality, and see the response you get. It's not a popular belief in our modernist-entrenched culture. However, it fits well with the entire biblical story (not that that's a prerequisite for truth), and makes sense of evil.

Think about the facts of war in our physical reality. There is rarely a winner or loser at the outset, though certain factors may give a side some advantage. Fighting must occur, losses and wins experienced, for a victor to emerge. Why would it be any different in the spiritual realm? Why would biblical writers describe battles of evil and good forces with such detail and life likeness if there was not some truth to it? More to the point, why would a young girl be raped if there was not some evil force fighting off God's protective hand?

Evil exists, not because God is capricious or ordains evil, but because She is involved in a real battle with the forces of evil, with free creatures of immense strength who want nothing less than to rule this world. Scripture and the Spirit give us hope that good will eventually prevail, but in the meantime, we as humans are in the crossfire. Not only that, but we are also called to participate by bringing love and grace into our own relationships and communities.

All of this doesn't answer every question concerning the existence of evil. It may raise even more questions. However, it does give us a congruent feeling with the Spirit that God is pure love, and only wants the best for all Her children.

Peace & Blessings.

Wrestling With God

I can see it now. The lights dim, people in their pews (chairs, whatever) waiting with bated breath for the ultimate smackdown. The mic descends slowly from the ceiling overhead the ring, a minister wearing black spandex waiting to make his announcement. D-Generation X blares over the multiple Panaray MB-4 modular bass loudspeakers strategically located around the periphery of the sanctuary. Mic now in hand, the ministers yells, "Let's get ready to rumble", drawing out "rumble" for maximum effect. Ah, I can only imagine.....

What if we approached God, more often than not, with an attitude of confrontation rather than submissiveness? What if we did this not just within the Community meeting, but also individually? I don't know about you, but sometimes I just get plain lethargic in worship services and in my personal journey. I am so used to saying "OK, God, have it your way", rather than "I don't think so. Let's go outside." I am not suggesting an attitude of defiance; rather, I am bemoaning our inability to question in order to discover. Take a look at the story of Jacob's wrestling match with God in Genesis 32: 22-32.

22The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23He took them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. 24And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. 25When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26Then he said, "Let me go, for the day has broken." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." 27And he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." 28Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." 29Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him. 30So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered." 31The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. 32Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh.

What has happened to this ancient tradition of fighting with God? It's not an avant-garde suggestion. All the prophets did it, and the wisdom books of the Bible are filled with questions, not answers. Why have we become so laissez-faire when it comes to following God? Jacob wrestled with God, breaking his leg in the process, and threatened God with continued fighting if he did not receive a blessing. How much more rich our journeys would be if would just learn to be comfortable with "fighting" God! It'd probably make His life a lot more interesting too.