Hi Edward. *(Edward's words are in Blue.) Thank you for your encouraging words. I am glad you are able to appreciate my personal story. It may be there is some similarity in the effects of the experience of prayer language( speaking in tongues) and mine which would be closer to the biblical description of 'visions.' I know what occurred with me had every sense of coming from outside myself by a power and source that I had absolutely no control of and that was far greater than my ego, conscious self. It was also 'friendly' and 'respectful' of my human nature. This was especially evident in that it presented a lively and endearing sense of humor. I have concern over any emotional religious experience where ego consciousness is totally surrendered or overcome. I think ones ego consciousness must be present even if only primarily as an observer of the encounter with the Sacred.
 |
| Moses' Vision of 'Burning Bush' |
Otherwise the 'uniting and coming together' of Conscious and Unconscious is aborted by the Unconscious overwhelming human Consciousness. (I see an example of this being threatened by the way the raging Yahweh seeks to overcome Job's nearly powerless Ego state. But Job's ego remained, even if barely, in tact.) And this, it seems to me, is the primary value to the Human community of any 'direct experience of God' by an individual. Some modern descriptions of 'prayer language' seem to raise need for this concern. But I do not doubt the reality of such experiences and how they display my description of 'numinous' below.
I have since come to understand my experience as actually having its origin within me, though a part of me that was beyond my conscious awareness and superior to my Ego alone.(I should add that it is my understanding that the Collective Unconscious is similarly an Unconscious part of each of us. It the depth foundation of psyche potential that connects every human to all others and to all that is.) And this reality of the Human situation can never become totally otherwise. Consciousness can never fully surround or include the Collective Unconscious but far more can become conscious to Humans than we would have ever imagined with our past and present levels of consciousness. Whenever something that is not fully conscious comes forward within a person it produces the experience of what has been called 'numinous' (see pics near bottom) ; meaning it has all the force of coming totally from outside oneself and carries a power that significantly changes or transforms conscious life and understanding. This through the ages has been what has been meant by a 'religious' experience.
 |
| Numinous Vision,The 'Red Dragon' Of Revelation 12...Wm Blake 1805 |
In quite recent times some , such as in typical Church of Christ belief and many others, ruled out such experience as impossible and sought to gain a religious experience that was totally intellectual. This limits one's religious experience to a matter of the head and leaves little place for an experience of heart and soul or one that makes one acquainted with what is 'numinous'. It only gives stories of others who have had such experiences. This makes much religion a 'second hand' experience which I do not think is enough to survive post-modern human spiritual need. I think considering the written word of scripture as the inerrant communication of the Word of God is very supportive of the effort to 'limit religious experience' to the intellectual, for reading and understanding words is totally an intellectual experience and a relatively recent experience for the masses of humanity.
 |
| Inerrancy Of Scripture...A Protestant Claim For Final Authority |
In earlier cultures God was more of an immediate experience. Such experience of God is generally seen as a threat to organized religion for it appeals to the direct authority of God rather than institutional authority. Obviously there is great danger in such experience because of its subjective nature. I would never deny that problem. But the consequences of trying to legislate it out of life is far worse. For it legislates(or attempts to) the Spirit of God out of life.
My understanding of it arising from within in no way takes away from its powerful and transforming effect or wonder but it gives a way of understanding the reality of God in ways that are not in conflict with all other legitimate areas of human knowledge including legitimate scientific knowledge. It provides a way of understanding which does not divide the human 'inner man' but rather heals and makes whole body, mind and spirit. This is what I hear throughout the NT with its emphasis on the metaphors of healing, wholeness, 'perfection', salvation, oneness, 'new creation', 'abundant life' etc. Religion gone astray becomes a divider and separator of God's creation and of God's human rather than a healer, nurturer and bridge that unites all that is a part of the human creature. The metaphor of Christ as 'great physician' is a powerful statement of what I seek to describe here.
The parable that to me has hardly begun to be experienced among humans is that of Luke's 'prodigious father' image of God. All common sense tells us that the irresponsible son should be denied a place at the table or at least a less honored one. But instead it says that which 'should' be cut off as of little value is raised to as high a level of importance as ones already accepted. I see historic Christianity as very often going the route of trying to 'toss out' and of 'devaluing' that which God has already made a full and mutual part(ie Peter's dream teaching him to not devalue what God values.). I see this as applicable to a whole range of things whether it be ones attitude to the opposite sex, various sexual orientations, scientific knowledge, the Unconscious(commonly experienced in human dream), the human body and matter in general. I could go on and on. I see the movement of God as always being 'conservative' i.e. nothing of creation is discarded or considered of little value. This is especially true of all things human. God is one and is the source of all that is and all that exists is
The parable that to me has hardly begun to be experienced among humans is that of Luke's 'prodigious father' image of God. All common sense tells us that the irresponsible son should be denied a place at the table or at least a less honored one. But instead it says that which 'should' be cut off as of little value is raised to as high a level of importance as ones already accepted. I see historic Christianity as very often going the route of trying to 'toss out' and of 'devaluing' that which God has already made a full and mutual part(ie Peter's dream teaching him to not devalue what God values.). I see this as applicable to a whole range of things whether it be ones attitude to the opposite sex, various sexual orientations, scientific knowledge, the Unconscious(commonly experienced in human dream), the human body and matter in general. I could go on and on. I see the movement of God as always being 'conservative' i.e. nothing of creation is discarded or considered of little value. This is especially true of all things human. God is one and is the source of all that is and all that exists is
 |
| Here A Sense of 'Ultimate Source'..by William Blake..179 |
essentially necessary for the the process of whatever was before creation to eventually be one again. Humans not knowing this, and under the influence of institutions and religions that support 'separation' over 'oneness' , are quick to cut off and attempt to get rid of whatever seems 'other' or 'foreign'. This causes a split in the human's innermost being(as well as separating humans from each other) and such humans(all of us to various extents) contribute to the split and separations in the rest of creation and to all we put our hand to.
I realize that I am stating many things above but I think you might agree that many of these ideas and symbols are present in the Biblical record, especially when the metaphors of the bible are taken seriously and not reduced to being literal, physical or primarily historical. I find that reducing the biblical documents to those categories greatly reduces the depth and value of what can be learned from them. It denies the very nature of these precious gifts and so limits their healing power and potential. I've said enough, probably too much.
Have a good evening, Jim
Throughout all cultures in all times much of the art, architecture and literature seek to communicate the 'Numinous Experience' that some humans have been sensitive to:
Thanks for the feedback. Regarding I do not think a theoretical view of Scripture as inerrant presents a danger. The danger I see is that if written word is viewed as perfect and whole Word of God it places a limit on what one's mind allows oneself to experience as the living and unwritten Spirit of God. That is usually in fact the argument often given for the need of an inerrancy doctrine ie.,' all living experience must be validated and be fully consistent with the written words'. Inerrancy of written word becomes the final test of the living Spirit. It must I think, as frightening as this may seem to some, be somewhat the other way around. Actually balance is what is always the golden mean. Otherwise it always makes intellect and reason reign superior over the heart and soul; and thus over the wellspring from which God actually enters human consciousness. Hebrew, Christian as well as other world religions all present themselves as coming out of the human experience of heart and soul -not primarily intellect. Scripture themselves no doubt are the product of humans experiencing the living Spirit within themselves. So why would we arbitrarily decide that the quality of the experience they had be limited only for them personally and not potentially
 |
| Sacred Written Text.. What Is It's Proper Place In How We Connect With God? |
for all believers in all times? It is my judgment that no spiritual experience can ever be fully communicated by either written or spoken word thus no literal words can, by their very nature, be inerrant or fully able to 'deliver' a complete and whole image of reality or truth.
This concept of inerrant written word is what I cannot accept. If I had done so I would have cut off the most significant religious experiences of my life(And many friends would have been more than happy and relieved for me to have done that.) That was my temptation in fact for the experiences did not 'seem' to fit any views I had from scripture. It was very scary, and I sensed a spiritual courage that allowed the Spirit 'free course' by reducing the authority of scripture. These 'views' of Perfect Scripture had always kept me comfortable and protected against directly experiencing God. I see that as a key( not an admirable one) motivator in the Protestant Reformers' declaring inerrancy of scripture. The church's authority no longer served that protection for them. I understand their fear but 'fear is not what is given by the Spirit of God' but rather a 'sound(undivided) mind.' I can now see very strong parallels in scripture for my experience but I could not at the time because of my conditioning and because of the way I read and interpreted scripture. I now highly value and appreciate scripture but do not make of it an ultimate and final authority for the Living Word of God.
The only way I could receive the experience that came to me and thus not destroy the delicate balance of my inner being(become schizophrenic) was to confess in effect, " This is far greater authority from God than how anything has ever struck me, including the gospels or Paul, or that I have ever read or can imagine reading".
Like a child I had to 'give up' what had before seemed, and was, necessary for spiritual survival. This is how many are still related to Sacred Texts whether the Bible or others. If I had clung to inerrancy of what is written I would have for conscience sake 'had' to deny the actual living experience of God. I cringe to think where my life would be now if I had made such an arbitrary and fear-based decision. I'm quite certain I would be dead, certainly spiritually if not altogether. I would have been victim to what Paul warns when he says, ' the letter kills but the Spirit gives life.' God, I believe, refuses to be captured in written word in any complete fullness but is potentially far more fully manifest in direct human experience. This is part of my understanding of the God 'in whom we live and move and have our very being'.
I'll leave my comments to these. God bless. Jim
*Note:Below Edward copies parts of my writing above (in intallics) and comments on them:
This through the ages has been what has been meant by a 'religious' experience. In quite recent times some ,such as in typical COC belief and many others, ruled out such experience as impossible and sought to gain a religious experience that was totally intellectual. This limits one's religious experience to a matter of the head and leaves no place for an experience of heart or one that meets the definition of 'numinous'.
I agree.
I think considering the written word of scripture as the inerrant communication of the Word of God as very supportive of the effort to limit 'religious' experience to the intellectual for reading and understanding words is totally an intellectual experience and a relatively recent experience for the masses of humanity. In earlier cultures God was primarily an immediate experience. Such experience of God is generally seen as a threat to organized religion for it appeals to the direct authority of God rather than institutional authority. Obviously there is great danger in such experience because of its subjective nature. I would never deny that. But the consequences of trying to legislate it out of life is far worse.
For it legislates(or attempts to) God out of life.
I also agree with this for the most part. I do not think a theoretical view of Scripture as inerrant presents a danger, so long as one remains honest in acknowledging one’s own ability to err in understanding and applying any particular Scripture. It is a legitimate question then to ask what value the theoretical inerrancy is, and a question to which I am still trying to understand a complete answer.
My understanding of it arising from within in no way takes away from its powerful and transforming effect or wonder but it gives a way of understanding the reality of God in way that is not in conflict with
all other legitimate areas of human knowledge including all legitimate scientific knowledge. It provides a way of understanding that does not divide the human 'inner man' but rather heals and makes whole body,mind and spirit. This is what I hear throughout the NT with it emphasis on the metaphors of healing, wholeness, 'perfection', salvation, oneness, 'new creation', 'abundant life'. Religion gone astray becomes a divider and separator of God's creation and of God's human rather than a healer and nurturer and bridge that unites all that is a part of the human creature. The metaphor of Christ as great physician is a powerful statement of what I seek to describe here. The parable that to me has hardly begun to be experienced among humans is that of the 'prodigal father' image of God. All common sense tells us that the irresponsible son should be denied a place at the table or at least a less honored one. But instead it says that which 'should' be cut of as of little value is raised to as high a level of importance as ones already accepted. I see historic Christianity as very often going the route of trying to 'toss out' and of 'devaluing' that which God has already made a full and mutual part(cf Peter's dream).
I agree.
I think you might agree that many of these ideas and symbols are present in the biblical record, especially when the metaphors of the bible are taken seriously and not reduced to being literal, physical or primarily historical. I find that reducing the biblical documents to those categories greatly reduces the depth and value of what can be learned from them. It denies the very nature of these precious gifts and so limits their healing power and potential.
I agree, except that I insist that taking a narrative literally does not prevent one from also taking it seriously and understanding the metaphor that is present. I learned this in seminary when I was reading Reinhold Niebuhr at Eden Seminary and studying under Francis Schaeffer at Covenant Seminary simultaneously. Both discussed Genesis 1-3. Schaeffer took it literally. Niebuhr did not. But both men explained its meaning the very same way!
Cordially,
Edward
No comments:
Post a Comment