So, I guess that's not totally devoid of thought, but it is of any thought worthwhile to be written down.
I think part of this is because I find myself slipping deeper and deeper into some dark night of spirituality.
I recently took up an interest in reading Bishop Spong's "Why Christianity must Change or Die". His thesis is challenging me immensely. It has called into question my entire faith structure and theology. I haven't fully comprehended his understanding of who/what God is, yet he successfully called into question my own view of who/what God is. I find myself on scary, and shaky, ground. And I'm totally confused as to his christology.
Jesus to me has been at once, through the years, companion, friend, brother, savior, master, and most recently I've come to relate to Jesus as "lover." As hard as it may be for some to conceive of this, I've found some of my deepest moments of communion with the Divine Presence to be when I am enfolded in my earthly lover's arms, approaching that ecstatic moment of release...
But, if I permit Spong to de-deify the Jesus of History, then what does that do to my theology, my christology, my entire understanding of that Divine Presence. How long will it take me to process all that needs processing to reconcile my faith with this new picture of Divinity? Gracious, it's scary!
I began this walk into such uncertain territories last summer... 2003, that is, when I opened my mind enough to listen to a presentation of the concept of Original Blessing as outlined by Matthew Fox. Roughly and poorly summarized, the point of this is that God created all things and blessed them. Far from humanity being conceived in/through original sin as espoused by much of mainstream Christianity, Fox challenges us to accept that all things are created in/through Original Blessing. I think once I get my mind wrapped around Spong, I need to revisit this concept. Because, as I understand it, I have little problem wrapping my mind around this concept. Original Sin as a doctrine is an ugly doctrine... albeit seemingly necessary for an understanding of current Christology.
The other thing that brought me into contact with Bishop Spong was this doxological formula:
"I experience God as that which is beyond all human categories, the Infinite Other. That is what Christians call the "Father and Almighty Creator." I experience God as Depth within, closer than my breath. That is what Christians call the Holy Spirit. Lastly, I experience God as a reality flowing through human lives and, for me, uniquely present in the life of Jesus. That is what Christians call 'The Son'..."
This one resonates with me.
When I came to MCC Omaha, I was confronted with the UFMCC policy of "inclusification". I stopped hearing references to God as Father only, but also as Mother, as Parent, and a plethora of other images. It caused me to confront my understanding... I always knew "Father" to be metaphorical, that God is spirit, and thus Father was too limiting for the Divine Presence. But I continued on with that way of thinking. I still do... when it suits me, when it doesn't Mother often works, as does Parent. But when I truly consider this parent, I realize how limiting any of these images... ALL of these images... really is.
We used to say "God is no gender, thus we can't call God 'Father' or 'Him'... or Mother, for that matter." Yet that is so limiting in itself. God I think is ALL gender, perfect gender. God is the synergistic totality of both genders... God is more than both female and male... God is totally all. I'm not sure I know how to take it beyond that.
So. There!
No comments:
Post a Comment