- Conversations with Remarkable Friends (13)
- Faith & Practice (7)
- Flexing some forms (2)
- Food (1)
- Journal (33)
- Keeping low (12)
- Neighborhood (1)
- Physical activity (7)
- Prayer (5)
- Uncategorized (1)
- Monday, November 14, 2011: Simplicity and learning transfer
- Tuesday, September 20, 2011: What does Beanite mean?
- Tuesday, August 30, 2011: Honks and labels
- Monday, February 7, 2011: More autobiography in outline form
- Sunday, February 6, 2011: Outline of a spiritual autobiography
- Monday, December 6, 2010: Cucumbers, Advent and immanence
- Monday, September 27, 2010: about the Blog title (reprise)
- Monday, September 27, 2010: Disclaimers and assurances (reprise)
- Wednesday, August 11, 2010: It is enough
- Sunday, April 4, 2010: Intergenerational Worship
Blogroll
- A Passionate and Determined Quest for Adequacy
- A Silly Poor Gospel
- Embracing Complexity
- Gregg's Gambles
- Imperfect Serenity
- Julie
- Linda Johansen
- One Quaker Take
- Other Stuff
- Quaker Quaker
- Ride Herd
- stony run farm
- Tables, Chairs and Oaken Chests
- the Garden at Lincoln School
- The Good Raised Up
- The Quaker Ranter
- The Red Electric
- Travis
- What Canst Thou Say?
- November 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- February 2011
- December 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- August 2008
- January 2008
- October 2007
- September 2007
- September 2006
A deep insight or a flight of fancy
a deep insight or a flight of fancy by the early awaking mind….(one is never quite sure at 4:45 in the morning):
The language of the Christian revelation is deeply–very deeply–disturbing and frightening to some. Those who use it among liberals, including Friends, run the risk of alienating some whom we wish to reach and touch.
The language and images of unarticulated ‘spirit’ and new age understanding are easy for me to judge as incomplete and impotent. The authority is given to a God who seems to me no greater than ourselves.
But the God I sometimes try to relate to is so all powerful and distant that he can’t touch us (me?) in our (my) hearts–where we (I) live. That leaves Him ineffective for rendering real change in us (me).
The stories we tell ourselves and the images we use to render our perceptions of the divine on the canvas of our souls are very important.
I want to relate to and grow to understand a God who is transcendent–and also immanent. If I tell myself that my insights are from spirit, then I risk not knowing what spirit and may have diminished my understanding of authority so far that I’m in touch with nothing outside myself.
If I accept only the teachings of a heavenly Father, then perhaps all I will ever see is a stone tablet or a book with paper and ink. This may please my mind, but leave my heart unchanged–still chained to the shadows of my soul. When I use these images with those who’ve been hurt by them in the past–or by earthly fathers–then I may hurt my Friends again.
The way out for me is through the full Christian understanding. At the core is a person who is divine. Christ admits no illusions or mistaken leadings from my own thoughts. He’s too identified with God for that. He’s not a distant heavenly force, he’s my best friend and older brother.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 05:12
“If I tell myself that my insights are from spirit, then I risk not knowing what spirit and may have diminished my understanding of authority so far that I’m in touch with nothing outside myself.”
I’m curious about this statement. I find myself in the group that is uncomfortable with the word “God” and more comfortable with “Spirit”. For a while I’ve been trying to figure out what about the word bothers me. This passage helped at least a little. I think I am most uncomfortable with the notion of “A” God, and not a “transcendent and immanent” God. I am slightly more comfortable (though not completely) with the notion of a spirit that surrounds us at all times. I don’t identify with a singular being located in some far off place, no matter how loving He/She/It is.
I am most curious about your thought that there are multiple spirits that one could identify with or(hence?) give authority to. Do you speak of a god-like and a devil-like spirit, or more than two? My thoughts on this have always considered only a lone “spirit” that unites/surrounds us all.
-EMT
Friday, January 9, 2009 at 10:14
Thanks for the comment, EMT!
Our language includes multiple spirits: school spirit, patriotic spirit, the spirit of fun. I even understand Santa Claus as a spirit.
In order to be clear about what spirit we are acknowledging or invoking, I’m most comfortable if folks would modify or articulate it somehow. “The Holy Spirit” works for me. As long as we’re coming out of a mostly Christian culture, we might as well draw on the best of its traditions.