ACCEPTABLE TO GOD... august 28, 2011..response to Edward Fudge

Hi Edward.(Edward's full essay below.)  I fully  feel the thrust of your beautiful statement of a response to The Christ and its emphasis that we can never attribute our human ego consciousness for any ecstatic state and connection we come to have regarding God. But without elaboration here are some reasons that I do not believe such an explanation will be sufficient for the future of Christian faith for  post modern people.

Christ said ,'My yoke is easy(it fits)

1. It strongly suggests that there is a way we can fully identify with God through the intellect alone. I'm sure if someone said, 'Yes ,I hear what you are saying and I believe that what Jesus did alone is what can and does make me rightly and fully connected to God.' You would feel compelled to congratulate them and suggest, 'Well then you are just as saved as can be and what you now believe is more important than anything else you will ever learn or experience in being connected to God through the one life and death of Jesus His Son."  I'm saying this would be a perfect example of 'salvation by intellect' and thus salvation by the 'work and assent of the ego consciousness.'  No unseen and unknown factors from the unconscious or spiritual realm are being  solicited or expected in this model. It is pretty much all about the use of human intellect to become 'accepted' with God. It is a model of responding based nearly entirely on being able to comprehend evidence given and consciously 'agreeing' with a particular intellectual interpretation of the meaning of the ancient Sacred story of Jesus. If we could go back 2000  years I doubt that we would ever hear it laid out like this in church history until relatively recent times. 


I think a person could respond by 'believing and even trusting ' this layout and never be actually touched by the unseen and indescribable forces of the Sacred, the forces that can now be explained as coming from the Collective Unconscious. The 'gospel' message above seeks a conversion by reason with the most significant feeling involved  being the relief that, 'now I do not have to wonder or worry  about being OK with God.' I do not say that is a small thing, it was a great awakening to me in the early 1970's,  but I fear it tends to shut down any serious search for a relating to God that involves the human at a much deeper level than primarily the intellect or reason. I'm glad I hear in this message that a strong use of ego-consciousness is expected to be maintained. Which is not the case with some versions of 'gospel response'; such as those emotional ones often referred to as charismatic where often reason is fully abandoned giving one a strong emotional rush not unlike an episode of being drunk or under the influence of a mind altering drug.

Peter's vision transformation to accept 'all as clean.'

2. I'm suggesting that neither Jesus, Paul, Peter or other personalities close to Jesus made their assured connection with the Sacred through the nearly pure intellectual way you are suggesting one might today. For it  solicits no living and direct experience and encounter with the Sacred, that which at first appears to be the total 'other'. We may have little to go with about Jesus' encounter with the Sacred but it may have been a 'vision' of a dove and a 'voice' of God at his baptism or the 'appearance of angels' and 'visions' after a long period of fasting that were involved in his transformation to a conscious awareness of the Sacred. We have stories of both Peter and Paul being  practically overwhelmed by disturbing 'dreams and visions' that were central to their 'conversions.' It may be that after the formal Christ movement was underway a less complicated 'pattern' and 'ritual' of response was suggested to others that then became a standard for the masses. This may be the 'kind of conversions' we are reading about for example in Acts of an intellectual response to a specific 'message'  about the Christ story, like the 3000 being baptized.  These hardly compare to the ominous appearances of the Sacred that the three individuals above had. 

Other Acts conversion stories are more spontaneous involvements of the human ego with  nearly overwhelming Unconscious forces. These would be  ones involving visions and voices. Surely these latter ones have to be considered 'deeper' and 'more thorough'  and 'more compelling'   transformations of the individual's  inner life. These are the kind that might send the  transformed person into isolation for years such as Paul's  three years in Arabia after his visions. Such direct experiences of the Sacred are sure to set one reeling and having a need of much serious  inner reflection to establish 'normal' emotional and spiritual equilibrium.  Such personal transformations are always the basis for new human religious movements. After that the movement, no matter how grand-even that of Christianity- risk becoming  intellectual , routinized  and institutional followings and eventually an 'ism.'  (I am not at all minimizing  the good that comes from such movements  but emphasizing they become less and less effective avenues of  'deeper personal transformations' as time goes on.)

Once again consider the  compelling and far more than intellectual visions and dreams of  Jesus, Paul and Peter.  These three even in scripture descriptions  experienced direct 'never exactly like this before' encounters with the Sacred and the others more of a 'one mold fits all' experience. Such watered down versions of the original  always runs the risk of something becoming a movement and later an institution. This does not say any of this latter development is without purpose, meaning or transforming power but it is still second hand and can then be 'packaged' to pass on through the generations. It never began like that is the point I wish to make. The 'original' conversions were not primarily an intellectual 'pattern or request to believe' that was experienced by the founders, including for sure Jesus.

13th Century Painting of Jesus' Baptism

3. If you were to suggest to a person that 'The Christ ' you are speaking of here is not only the human Jesus of Nazareth but also a collective 'image of God' such as 'messiah' and 'son of man' etc that became attached to him after his death; and that image potentially can live within a person.. e.g. the 'Christ who  lives in me' of Paul; then I think you would be more likely offering a person a general  yet informal path for the connection of their Soul with the Sacred. But the person would need to develop some ' spiritual practice' to explore and 'seek' for the 'Christ Within' and sincerely be expecting, but not demanding, a revelation 'now', not in the past, of the 'grace of God.' I think in your model you promise too much too soon and the only thing you suggest that one 'use'-which is also a kind of 'doing', no matter how you cut it- is their reasoning/intellect factor. If they asked you for evidence of the 'truthfulness' of your claim and its 'one and only' certainty you would begin to give them 'reasoned'  and 'materialistic' evidences. At least this is what I assume. That's what I would have done 30 years ago.

4. You suggest basically for  one to look on the 'outside of themselves' and 'to the past' rather than to the 'inside of themselves' and 'the present' to find their connection to God. I don’t think you can justify such an approach to ' acceptance and salvation'  with God from  the NT picture, as best as we can know it, of the  life and words of Jesus. Nor is the path you suggest one that has come down to us as examples of serious mind altering  religious conversion in either the Bible or other Sacred or secular literature. (I think of William James' classic look at religious conversion in Varieties Of Religious Experience(1902). This is a must read for all serious students of individual religious transformation. James was likely a 'believer' in the deepest sense of that word himself? )All these examples involve a dynamic of the numinous(there is no better word) forces of the Sacred being active with and upon the ego, leaving the person 'knowing'- not 'believing' -that they were fully engaged and  thus accepted into the world of God. This 'new' world compels one to full awareness that there is more to reality than the ego alone can establish. I think such direct assurance can frequently be missing in your general presentation of a response to the gospel. Most hopefully the kind of 'conversion' I describe assures her/him of the benevolent nature of the Ultimate God.  But somewhere it will confront a person with some shadow sides of the Sacred.(Another thing most orthodoxy simply does not allow for.) A consultation with  the Old Testament Job  personality would put  us on the unwelcomed but appropriate path in this regard.

William James' Varieties of Religious Experience

5. This description of 'receiving God' via an intellectual assent  to an interpreted 'meaning' of an ancient historic event  is a great example of the kind of influence the Age of Reason, beginning in the 1500's,   has had on all Western people, including our religious thinking. The thrust is that 'reason and intellect' is the preferred and reliable path to any kind of truth. The Reformation was part of this same emphasis so protestantism leans far more on reason than did the prevailing Catholicism which was much more informed by intuition, feeling and image. But much of that had become superstition and no longer anchored in actual religious experience, so there had to be a swing to reason to counter balance what had become religious magic and  superstition. Then our 'restoration movement ' beginning in early 19th century America continued this move toward the elevation reason and intellect as the correct approach to the Sacred. Some have considered that indigenous movement as a microcosm of  the macrocosm of the social, political and religious spirit America of that era. For the 'restoration movement' was not obligated to the protestantism of Europe or to Catholicism but could take on the rugged, independent and for sure 'thinking' emphasis that inspired the American pioneer spirit. You and I admire all that but have now seen how the 'good news' , even as an intellectual construct you suggest here, got rather lost and convoluted in the various parts of that religious movement. We may now be seeing a winding down of the energy of 'that' American spirit(and its sponsoring archetypes) as we have also seen the parallel religious movement dwindle from its original life and appeal.


Edward, you and others have found a systematic intelligently reasoned way that seeks to avoid an attitude of  'pride in works and accomplishment' that is quite  counter to early America and its religious views. That is a great and positive accomplishment but as I have noted above it remains now out of balance by relying on 'correct reason' and an overly intellectual approach to religious themes that are far more matters of the heart and inner experience in their deep and distant beginnings. We need in our day a 'restoration movement' but one that seeks a restoration of a more balanced use of our fundamental human psyche potentials. One that seeks to honor both the hard won capacities of the ego consciousness via science and critical thought and one that humbly returns to our ancient human origins by taking seriously the 'inner man' , the heart , including the unconscious psyche, the place that Jesus and other on-track spiritual teachers have always pointed to as the place to find God and His Kingdom. This, among other things, means a restoration of our capacity to hear 'symbolic' language in both our ancient texts and in our dreams, intuitions and occasional visions. I would add also our experience of what seems to be those moments when 'matter and energy' or 'spirit and matter' intersect leaving the human observer stunned and in religious type awe. Such are those moments when events in our environment are just too 'so-so' for one to assess it as simply coincidence. This kind of 'meaningful coincidence' was named 'synchronicity' by Jung. It is a phenomenon that seems to be universally reported in the anecdotes of all human culture. These things together are the balance that the natural world, it seems to me, is now demanding out of great need and that the Collective Unconscious is seeking from us all. 
 
6. I also think your 'one and only' view of 'understanding and responding' to  'gospel'  entirely under rates the Sacred's higher estimate of the Human. It suggests to the human that all that is important about God and oneself  is on the outside of themselves, both in actual space(out there) and in  History(back then). It leaves the human with 'nothing to contribute' which is not what the deepest and best part of our humanness desires and longs for. We want to give something to the relationship, something that sustains the relationship just as much as it depends on the Sacred doing its part. This is not something that falls into any category of 'prideful works' but is the 'need to love', in Tillich's definition to 'reunite with that from which we have experienced separation .' The human needs to know they are an essential part of that process and that God also sees it that way and is mutually appreciative.   I see Jesus going about accepting the gifts and contributions of others  as just as important as what he brought to them.

William Blake's Job And God Almighty

Your presentation( and once sincerely mine) tends to make the Human an empty shell with nothing to do in the face of an all powerful, un-needing , even if benevolent, God. (The Book of Job can help us to understand why 'such a God' would eventually not be one that humans would have any yearning or good cause to relate to anymore. But the Job story also can imply that God is about changing Himself as well. And the Book of Job shows the beginning of the need in God's self for a higher consciousness and moral standard.) The primary human responses that are suggested in your model are to 'believe' some metaphysical statements ( e.g. Jesus died for/because of your sins) and  the physical reality of an unnatural , supernatural, past historical event(e.g. a literal physical resurrection from the dead) that is counter to our best reason and reflection on the creation.  The only other response that is admitted for the human is  to 'obey',  to 'submit'. This pretty much says to the human, 'do and believe as you are told' and  'step out of the way' for the important one in this relationship is God.(That sounds precisely like the God that Job dealt with.) All of this flies in the face of what we  gather from most of the Jesus story who saw himself, as human, in full cooperation with the Sacred('I and the Father are one.'), not an insignificant something to be pitied and rescued from its own self-caused misery and sin. This conflicts with the fundamental idea of Christianity that we 'are to be' and 'can be' like The Christ.  

We can learn so much from the story of Job. Job is pictured throughout  as  being consciously aware that he has done nothing to deserve the horrible way this 'out of control' egoistic  aspect of God is treating him. Yet he also knows he is in no position to force the All Powerful One to see  that Job's righteousness and sense of justice  is exceeding that of God. Job  can only hope and trust against this negative aspect of God that God will consult His own omnipotence and 'repent' and evolve to a higher state of consciousness  Himself. To do that the story strongly suggests that 'God would need to become human', thus setting up the incarnation of God in the Human which later the central theme of the Christ story.

 The gospel appropriately  tapped would assure the human that the real and needed 'miracles' lie within him/herself, even the kingdom of God. And that God's great motivation is to nurture this unfolding of creativity and consciousness of  Human personality to the Glory of God. And furthermore that God is in great need for this unfolding of consciousness in the human in order for God to unfold and be the fully conscious God that has always been God's potential. 


In short Edward, this sincere 'view of gospel'  you present rather strongly moves against the possibility of a human learning that the relationship that the Sacred seeks , longs for and needs with him/her is a fully mutual one.(Recall that Jesus asks toward the end of his ministry for his admirers to call him, and be his, friends; and not servants of a master. This would have been a great challenge to them and is just now one that humans may be capable of accepting.) This demonstrates the great importance of the individual Human person and what lies in him/her waiting to unfold for the benefit of God and Humanity. This is speaking of truly  'right relationship' whether between humans or between God and Human. If it is not this way(mutual) between God and Human how is it possible for any Human to Human relationship to advance to this higher place in spiritual/psychological development? And does this not explain why most of the human to human encounters thus far in the world have been and are 'non-mutual', even  as we debate like this about just how Human and God can genuinely find and embrace each other? 
Blessings, Jim

Christ said ,'My yoke is easy(it fits)

Note: If what I am saying on this subject sounds like something 'harder' to do than Edward’s thoughtful description, let me assure you that anything that sounds unduly 'hard' about it is completely modified by it being so totally 'natural' to our human nature's needs and longings. Or as Jesus put it, contrasting his ideas to the religion of his day. "My 'yoke' is easy(or it fits.)" When something truly 'fits' it completely ceases to be hard. It becomes most rewarding and quite amazingly simple. It is just that when something  which is very much in harmony with our deepest nature has been nearly completely lost to us,  it sounds complicated  and foreign when we try to describe it.






On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 03:59:00 -0400 "Edward Fudge" <edward@edwardfudge.com> writes:

gracEmail® Edward Fudge MORE ACCEPTABLE?

---

---

Through the years, various Christian groups have claimed some unique understanding, experience, or application of original Christianity that makes them more acceptable to God than other Christians. This claim often becomes a selling-point for persuading other believers to abandon their own groups and to join the superior group. So what should we make of this? Is one's acceptance by God made any more likely by joining a particular Christian group?

* * *

More acceptable? In the entire history of our race, there is only one short period, in the life of one man, that God accepts and approves without qualification. It consists of approximately 12,000 days -- "the days of his flesh" (Heb. 5:7). It is the earthly lifetime of the incarnate Son of God. In this unique sequence of human today's, Jesus of Nazareth heard God's voice and did God's will, never hardening his heart even once (Heb. 3:6-8; 10:7-10). Here alone is seen the perfect "doing" that can pass unsinged through the fires of judgment. Only here is seen the perfect "dying" that exhausts the curses of a broken covenant and offers the Father the flawless fruit of a faithful heart.

This, not our own experience, comprises "holy history." God accepted the life that Jesus lived and offered. He accepted Jesus because he lived it. And God accepts us because Jesus is our representative. His obedience, his blood, and his now-risen and glorified life secured our acceptance by God and assure God's approval of us. Jesus obeyed, and we are pronounced righteous (Rom. 5:19). He died and we are reconciled (Rom. 5:10). He arose and we shall pass safely through the great judgment day (Rom. 5:10).

The performance that makes us acceptable to God is finished -- the gospel proclaims that news. All we can do is believe it and respond in trusting obedience and praise. Seen in gospel light, our own achievements are as ephemeral as morning fog. The everlasting gospel frees us to die to our own accomplishments and claims and to trust wholly in Jesus Christ. His faithful life and death are the grounds of our acceptance. We could not possibly be "more acceptable" than we are in Jesus Christ.

____________________________________________________________

DREAM: SOPHISTICATION AND EARTHINESS.. sept. 22, 2009

DREAM: I was a new member into a high class educational system. I was perhaps a teacher at an exclusive high school. I boarded there. The environment was an old but very updated and renovated building. One part of the dream was in a social room. I realized I had been there before but noticed changes that had been made inside and out. Some excavating had been done on the outside with a good six feet depth of dirt being dug out to make a nice parking area with nicely landscaped block walls added. Unearthed stones from the excavating had been used for the walls. These limestone walls had fossils all through them. There was another more experienced but younger man present. He was elegantly dressed in formal wear and was extremely good looking, polished and had an wide vocabulary. I liked him but knew I was far more homely and less sophisticated. Then his petite enthusiastic and friendly wife came in. She was more real, down to earth and made me feel much more comfortable. She was not beautiful but very attractive. She seemed very comfortable and in touch with her body. This appealed to me . I liked being around her. It also made me feel closer to him knowing that he had chosen such a person for a spouse. She complemented his sophistication with some earthiness. We were killing some time waiting to leave to attend a evening dinner somewhere in the city. I was going to follow them for I did not know the way. Then I recalled I may not have enough gas in my car. I did not dwell on the potential problem trusting it would work out.

Montgomery Bell Academy

Another scene in the same building were some older sophisticated women who were having their high brow conversation. I guess they were financial supporters of the school. They too were chatting while waiting to leave for the dinner. As they talked and gossiped they spoke of some male person that they were impressed with because he was so down to earth and practical and not at all pretentious. They were drawn to such a person. I thought that was nice to hear and demonstrated their own common humanity.

I was suddenly very bothered that my billfold was missing with seventy dollars cash and all my cards in it. I ran to the dormitory room where I shared space with a dozen or so other men. I was sure I had left it there in my pants hanging in a shared closest. At first I felt sure that no one would have taken it. But when I went to look the other males implied that to leave a billfold here was the same as having it stolen. At first it seemed they were correct and I was very bothered to think it was stolen. But I looked some more and found it.

REFLECTION: This reminds me of my time teaching at Montgomery Bell Academy in Nashville(1974-76). I felt so out of place in the 'high brow' social situation. People were highly educated and socially polished. I had an M.S. but I had never built up a sophisticated social vocabulary , and still haven't. I felt out of place most of the time so only stayed two years before, even to my own surprise, entering full time ministry in Springfield, ILL. The dream reminds me to remember that such people are indeed human and looking to meet the same needs of more common people like myself. The wife was an anima figure, always providing an earthy, down home, but very alert and sharp presence. I had no conscious awareness of the anima figure at the that time but this shows she was quite active all along. The anima function of my psyche generally makes me feel more at ease and at home. Even the older ladies expressed their appreciation for the  unpretentious which  they maybe seldom saw in their circles.

Painting--Sophisticated Woman

This reminds me of how important 'down to earthiness'  is for the Christ story's future. If it is to survive as a living tool of human transformation, it must make great strides in describing Jesus as truly and fully human. This has not been done consistently no matter how much one says it has. Jesus as a sexual being has, for example, been totally ignored and pretty much denied. That problem alone, if not acknowledged, takes the story out of the contest as a shaper of humanity's future. It does not have to be that way but those who claim to own the story, the church, must come forward with a truly human Jesus. There are movements in the within the church and culture that are pushing the church in that direction. This has happened on stage and writings such as "Jesus Christ Superstar', 'The Last Temptation' and ' The Davinci Code'. The gnostic gospels discovery is also a well spring of help and challenge in this area. But if the church derides these gifts and directions from post modern scholarship and  present  cultural consciousness it can only blame itself for the real decline in the Christ Story's ability to connect and transform. The story is still alive in me I think because I have come to see and accept a much fuller humanity of Jesus. Otherwise I would have lost interest. But to the strictly  orthodox this is generally considered heresy.

The idea that I'd 'been there before' along with the excavating theme bring to my mind some kind of reincarnation process in human living. The idea that we have been here before is very common for people to hold. It must represent a rather dominant archetype of the Collective Unconscious. Moderns pass it off as non sense but it is a healthy concept. If given credence it gives one a greater sense of being connected to life and even implies some kind of continuance of  consciousness likely continues after earthly life. I find nothing in the Bible that discounts it. In fact the Bible has stories of the reappearance of figures long after they had died. I feel it is a shame that orthodox Christianity has latched so strongly onto the idea that there is 'one final judgment' and no chance of development after that. Catholicism has managed to circumvent that idea in some ways the doctrine of purgatory. It seems that the idea of second chances and opportunities for improvement and for 'getting it right' is such a solid configuration in the present human disposition that it should be applied to whatever happens beyond this life as well. It is a healthy and hopeful way to see ourselves. It is consistent with the concept that all things are in processes of change, of evolution.

 I was encouraged in the dream that even though there was the prevailing idea that billfolds would always be stolen in the dorm, I found out that was not always the case. Humanity is potentially  better than its own estimate of itself. That too shows the dream presenting a positive, hopeful view of us and that we are ones who sometimes, 'get better' and eventually may really 'get it right'. But such a process requires multiple opportunities which reincarnation  and evolutionary ideas supply. The dream shows that we are 'on our way' to a 'great dinner' and that we, through our relaxed interactions, are getting to know each other better, accepting  each others differences and preparing to make a better world. A world where all are accepted and welcomed at the common table of humanity.

Ancient Rocks Containing Fossils

The 'excavating' project in the dream I think refers to the ancient aspect of life and human development. The 'fossils' in the rocks are permanent  reminders at this  School of the long-time evolutionary development of life. Such an ancient beginning and long term process reminds us that the human mind has also had a unimaginable long time in evolving. And that all the past is still alive in us. This is the land of the 'Collective Unconscious.' The still common still alive unfounded Bible interpretation that creation and humanity has been a short time project leads to oversimplifications as to who we are and a lack of appreciation for how 'complex and sophisticated' we humans are. It is appropriate that some human communities actually give the appearance of such 'sophistication' , like the one in the dream.

The dream again reminds me that my principle orientation of life is that I am designed to be a 'follower'. In the dream I am waiting to 'follow' others to the 'great dinner'. I have always looked for persons and ideas that seemed worth following.  That does not mean at all that I am a blind follower or have ever fully accepted anyone's ideas and views without coming to truly own and be responsible for my own beliefs. Obviously Jung has been a person whose writings have been an immense help to me and I have followed many of his ideas in my effort to find solutions to my own questions and needs. I too have been a serious follower of Jesus and of the Bible. I have had to reconsider how both of these have been interpreted and have continuously revisited how these resources are appropriately 'followed' by someone like myself. I have seen life in general as a process that must be followed as unconscious forces nudge and sometimes out right push us in the right direction to fulfill our destinies.  I have 'heard' somehow promises that have seemed to come to me from the depths of life. I have lived expecting such promises to be fulfilled. I think this is an archetypal theme that is frequently seen in the Bible stories where the sacred is presented as the source of promise making to humans. And by accepting those promises the human is able live his days on earth in hope and real expectation of his life fulfilling very real meaning and purpose along with experiencing much joy and gratitude.

That I did not 'see' how I had enough gas to make trip may be asking me to appreciate that when I began in earnest my trip of opening up to the Collective Unconscious that I had no way knowing the 'energy',  effort and personal suffering would be required to make the full journey. I had a lovely young family and felt my personal values and religious perceptions were solid for the long haul of life and not subject to serious change. When I look back I can not fathom all the different aspects of the inner ( and to some extent outer) journey I have been on for more than three decades. If my taking the teaching job in Nashville is what is referred to in the dream as a beginning of my first reaching out to unknown sources that was 37 years ago. There is no way I would have begun that journey if I had been warned of how long and complicated and life changing it would be. I would have lacked the courage and will for such a journey. Fortunately, as in the dream, I did not dwell on the potential problems but trusted.

Again, a dream that seemed rather useless at first has given me an opportunity for spiritual reflection and I'm sure my conscious outlook for the day is better, more realistic and more hopeful than it would have been without this inner message. I'm grateful for it and promise to continue to ponder it as my spiritual discipline for the day. . Jim H

DREAM: DOG HOUSE.... april 4, 2010....edited August 30, 2011

I was with a male friend. We were walking down a sunlit country road carrying a well built dog house. We arrived at our destination. A little dark hair girl was happily playing in the yard and greeted us enthusiastically. I knew this little girl from before but suddenly was so much more 'aware and appreciative' of her. I commented, 'My goodness she is pleasant and so beautiful, isn't she?' My friend expressed full agreement.

Introductory Thoughts: Another dream which at first seems not worth noting. I also wondered did I "miss" part of the dream? It is hard to keep in mind that every dream is important and worth taking time to note and that any 'missing' or even any spontaneously added detail or image to the dream is also part of the work of the unconscious source. It is all about always taking what is there and knowing that is what is suppose to be there. This the closest I ever get to there 'being no question about God's will.' When one is seeking truth and is sincere there are no mistakes made or you can say that mistakes become a part of the actual message. This does not mean that the message is to be taken literally or is taken or followed without any question. The power to say "no" should never be stolen from the ego, even and especially by God. The ego must work with the content of the unconscious responsibly and with it's own limited level of authority. What it must not do is to ignore the unconscious and its difficult- to-accept truths and its sometimes demand of a full conscious sacrifice of the ego's position.

The unconscious is far bigger, stronger and wiser than the ego it has birthed. But the unconscious and ego must work mutually together for the right direction and the right attitude to be found on the human journey. This is what is being referenced in the gospels regarding 'dying to self', 'denying family and friends', 'loving God with heart, mind and strength', of having a 'single eye', choosing the 'narrow way' and 'seeking first the kingdom of God.' It is even the richer meaning of my religious heritage's slogan of 'seeking the old paths.' This is the meaning behind the apostles 'dropping their nets and following' when they heard a relatively 'stranger's voice' saying ' follow me.' To take these expressions literally or even as the sound response to the the human/god man Jesus is to give horrible advise to young or adult people in our day. To surrender to any ' person or god' unconsciously or to render ones ego consciousness disengaged or unneeded is to arrive at some level of personal or mass tragedy. Nazism and the 'Jim Jones mass suicide' are two contemporary examples of surrendering the ego to an outside authority. Something always tragic happens when a human negates their own ego consciousness to any 'outside of themselves' person or deity.

I realize it is hard to explain and know when the ego is responsibly yielding its 'right' to the genuine demand of the 'collective unconscious' or when the ego is , out of its need for certainty and protection, negating itself sacrilegiously by surrendering to some outside power. The force to appropriately and naturally surrender to is not a god of the 'group' or 'mass', the god of orthodoxy; but one that is unique to the internal personal psyche. It is possible for many individuals to surrender to their internal deity only to find that others have as well and that those individual 'gods' are in harmony with each other. A message and voice that deserves such surrender of ones ego consciousness must always be an inner one and one that is unique to each human person it addresses. Jesus, nor any other genuinely mature spiritual leader, was never about laying down group rules in order to build a strong and cohesive external organization.(Such may sometimes happen but never as a direct goal of any kind of grounded and godly spiritual teaching. Such are the goals of politics and dictators, not of healthy religion.)

Any desire that Jesus had to 'build a church' would be that more individuals would hear their inner voice that 'calls them out' of their ego being  as the center of their personality to the broader 'Self' being the center. This would be where both consciousness and the unconscious are united and incarnated in human experience. The process of that change of center for the human personality(from the ego to the Self) is what has always been the goal of spiritual discipline and practice. Jung simply brought fresh and needed attention to this and gave it the name 'individuation.'  The Jungian 'Self' is essentially a way of conceptualizing the ultimate Sacred. It is an internal 'image of God.'  It is an internal 'activity of God.'  The 'Self' is a way of describing the condition of the human personality and psyche when it has reached( momentarily or consistently) the ideal(which is never fully realized) goal of being in personal harmony with God, of God and Human being one. This is the meaning that became attached over time to Jesus of Nazareth. His memory, and more the archetypal expansion of his memory,  became an expression for his era and beyond of the 'Self'; and for his own people's inherited expression for the 'Self'- Messiah,  the 'son of man', or the 'I Am.'

REFLECTION: This little dream, upon reflection, is very significant to me. It is a summarizing dream I think. I and my male friend, whom I take here as a symbol of the Self, are in harmony on life's road. For a man a highest symbol of wholeness is frequently a male image, often the 'wise old man' of many myths. Here is a more contemporary 'Self' image pictured as a helpful and mutual male traveler. I was not aware of his 'face' in the dream. I'm reminded that 'no one has seen the face of God and lived.' This is an image of the human and God being in harmony, walking together in mutual support and mutual reliance, the 'best of friends.'

I hear the dream saying , "Jim you are no longer 'in the dog house' but with God's help you now carry the dog houses that have so often entrapped and isolated you." This message comes as a most needed one. Some days it is difficult for me to do anything, to have any interest. I sometimes have doubts about a deceived or wasted adult life. I have felt very much 'in the dog house' at some point  in every aspect of life. To be 'in the dog house' means, among other things, to be isolated with ones own thoughts and beliefs. It is a very 'lonely place to be' says the popular Whitney Houston song, 'The Greatest Love Of All.'. The song continues that 'learning to love yourself, is the greatest love of all.'

The little girl brings tears to my eyes in a way that I know she must  be a reference to the faithful 'anima' figure. Here she is just so sweet and innocent and joy filled with the simplicities of living. How can I not adore and love and appreciate her? The same inner force that has been at times so strong , forceful, demanding, and even frightful is here being the way she really likes to be and can be once she is integrated into adult consciousness.  And my God I saw how beautiful she really is and how impossible it is for me to be fully conscious of her value and preciousness. I can only try. I was moved to nothing less than a worshipful disposition filled with gratitude and wonder at this amazing inner creature.  That has happened for me on many occasions, once right outside Edward Fudge's Houston home two days after the first 'vision' experiences came to me.  She was a beautiful woman presented clearly to me in the moving leaves of a tree. She was chattering to me non stop as if she finally had my attention, and she did. I remarked to her  with tears, " This is how you have been trying to speak to me for years but I have not listened. Never again." What a magnificent way this dream offers me now to image  my anima friend, a precious girl welcoming me home for simply who I am. A figure who has been rescuer, goddess, leader and counselor now is just pleased and contented to be with me, no strings attached. She will tell me where to put the 'dog house' and we can retell the stories of how she helped me get out of it a thousand different times and ways. For me the truth of the old hymn lives that says, compared to her ..' Nobody knows'.... She knows all.

The emotion imaged in this dream reminds me of that in the gospel story of the men and Jesus walking on the 'Road To Emmaus.'  They suddenly recognized the Sacred was with them and the story implies will now be forever. The dream pictures me having such an epiphany that is brought into my awareness by the presence of the  young anima figure. For Jung the purpose of the 'anima' figure in human dreams is  to provide a bridge from the Ego to the Collective Unconscious which effectively is the  Ultimate Sacred,  God.  This can lead to a direct experience of the Sacred, not one that is based on someone else's story or proved by rational argument. This is the meaning of 'gnosis' that the Christian Gnostics were rejected and persecuted for reporting, and the reason their gospels were mostly  burned. Well organized religions usually have a doctrine banning gnosis for they fear one will, and they likely might, find an authority that is higher than any religious program. For Catholics this became sacred church tradition and for protestants a Book of writings. Both of these are important sources of wisdom but not an ultimate authority as the actual 'voice of God' is. Though denigrated by most Christian orthodoxy 'Gnosis' ironically is the kind of knowledge that most of the Bible stories are referring to when they speak of 'knowing or encountering God.'

Before the 'gnosis'(direct unreasoned knowledge) on Emmaus Road

 The Self figure, in this dream, simply agreed with my high estimate of the little girl. To him it had always been obvious what a value to me she is. But now He no longer needed to sell me on that. I know it as fully and surely as He does. We are together on that also.

DREAM: PAST IS SANCTIFIED...may23, 2010..(edited august 26, 2010)

Introduction. I did not expect to recall this nap dream. I got busy with other things and completely lost consciousness of it's details. I realized I could do nothing but be available should it return. While I was eating a veggie burger at Burger King it popped back up with all the details I had remembered earlier. I immediately wrote what follows. Placing this kind of material on this public blog is a significant step in my allowing others to more fully 'know' my deeper heart regarding personal history. I pray that it may some day serve as a positive and reconciling purpose.

Dream: I was with a large gathering of the United Church of Christ. One of my older brothers sat by me. During announcements his wife ( I will call Jane*) very warmly reminded everyone of various dining opportunities they had following the service. Astonished I turned to my brother and asked, " Jane is comfortable partaking in a program with the UCC?"

The scene then shows a very large modern  conservative Church of Christ building. Brent and I are  eating together but I let myself get lured away from him into some of the activities taking place. I finally begin walking across the campus to find him and realize that I am naked. I was very bothered and irritated at myself for allowing this. But as in a previous dreams no one seems to notice in any negative way. As I get back into the main COC building I greet my Dad and Jane's father. They had served as elders together in my home childhood church.

The final scene is Brent and I reaching  a very fine restaurant where others who have been in the dream are also gathering. At first we are asked to order from the menu but then food is brought to Brent and me. We are told that Jane had ordered and paid for our meals. She was sure we would like her choice. And we did.

Former Poplar Street Church Of Christ- Florence, AL

REFLECTION: My dreams seem to go back for more detailed images on issues and people I have considered over and completed in my life story. I have a tendency to not place much ongoing importance on 'where I have come from' and how it continues to shape my consciousness. It  seems like something that was 'long ago' and could easily  become nearly lost for me. I can fail to realize how these early experiences still serve as personal foundation in very concrete ways. The dream source makes it clear that I had best always see the importance of my childhood religious and family formation. That I must take time to recognize that my past, and those in it, are Sanctified. Sanctification is indicated by all the scenes being in a church environment.

I think my dreams as a whole demonstrate just how practical and conservative the teaching methods of the Unconscious can be. Patiently the dream source selects areas from my past experience  and persistently in slightly different ways and symbols reminds me of the importance of what I could consciously so easily dismiss and forget. Is this not what we would expect of a genuinely wise teacher and counselor? When my experiences of the Collective Unconscious first came they were like thunder, overwhelming,  frightening and awe inspiring. But now the need for the storm is past and the same source becomes a serious persistent teacher of fundamentals. The Collective Unconscious can be close to boring in this respect. It nearly makes one ask, 'Where are the thunder bolts and shocking visions like at Point Park in Houston?' ** But life can't be all on the mountaintop, full of fresh dominating dazzling emotion and vision. There must also be a settling down and settling in time, time to absorb and fully integrate what the thunder proclaimed. Life sometimes has to teach with a jolt but it also then needs to be lived in a thoroughly human  and intentional fashion. It seems to stress that times of 'ordinary' life which  were highly formative are ones that need to be returned to, worked with and never forgotten. This applies to the negative emotional experiences and the positive. For the completed life involves a bringing together and connecting these seemingly opposed happenings..

Jane Hibbett's father was on the opposite side of a church split from my Dad. Before that the families had been good social Christian friends. Jane's family and another of my brother's families left with others  to form a new Church of Christ. I was in high school when all this happened. Church became a  divisive issue in the family life of these two brothers, who initially agreed with their Dad on the 'issues.'  Jane was very firm in the belief that our family was seriously wrong doctrinally and felt it was wrong for her to even visit our church much less attend it with her husband. My Dad was on the 'liberal' side of the debate so was more able to give his sons his blessing for them being members of the 'other' church. Jane I think struggled to be happy about my decision to become what from her viewpoint was  a dangerously  'liberal' Church of Christ preacher.

I Was A UCC  Preacher Here for 20 Years

I no doubt, more than I was conscious, found out the hard way that religion can be very hideous. Just as hideous as any witch presentation of the anima personality in a dream. Such a frightening anima figure though, if stuck with, turns out to be a most trusted and needed friend in ones inner life. There are parts and moments, I have found, of all religions  which contain some element which seems to  care little about the ugliness and harm it sometimes brings to human life, as long as one can maintain the conviction that , 'I am  theologically or Biblically  right.' In the dream Jane(along with my childhood religious experience) represents to me the sadness of religious division as well as the seeming irrationality of it. At one point during my 'creative illness' and while staying at my brother and Jane's home who graciously gave me room and board, I shared with  Jane, 'Some of our religious heritage on both sides is a lot of B.S.' She did not react favorably to my  comment. It was not considerate of me to be so blunt.

Here Jane appears to be fully involved in a UCC event. The UCC represents the other and most 'liberal' end of the protestant spectrum, so Jane's behavior was a totally unpredicted harmony of two 'opposites.' It was so pleasing to me to see her using her attractiveness and natural charm to be friends with a far greater range of Christians than her, or my, previous theology would have allowed.

Modern Southern  Church of Christ- similar to the dream image

But the dream then switches to a COC environment. It is now 'modern' in its facilities but the dream does not say whether or not the theology has developed further. It does show that I am able to participate with them and to enjoy the fellowship. So the dream is bringing my 'opposing' church experiences together in an attempt to picture a 'union' of these opposites within my own psyche at least; if not pointing to the hope of some future outer communion between the two. I see little evidence of that in the outer world at this time. The dream also includes the adult men, Daddy and Jane's father, who were on opposite sides of the church conflict. Both were considered good and upright men in their hometown and by their respective churches and families. It seems an ugly joke of the unconscious that some opposing religious archetypes( such as liberal and conservative) could take over their friendship and turn them into serious religious opponents. This is just one occurrence of where this has happened to individuals and groups throughout religious history and in every religion.

Having some conscious way of understanding such dynamics of 'opposites' and how the unconscious in time is eventually aimed at reconciling all opposites was to become a central challenge of the second half of my life. This was a primary emphasis of the 'visions' I experienced beginning in August of '85. A primary power of early Christianity is that it claimed 'reconciling' ability, the power to bring into union the 'opposites.' It's actual  history of fracturing and seeing other world faiths as 'the enemy' shows how it lost touch with that 'reconciliation' archetype. Scripture says ' God was reconciling the whole world to himself.' That archetype could still be a determining one were it elevated again to higher consciousness. Unity and inclusiveness would then become the more strongly felt need, rather than  being 'right.'  I have seen that archetype grow in importance in my development these last 2.5 decades. And this dream is a reminder to me of what I have leaned regarding such things; and the dream source obviously considers these as important matters, not ones to be forgotten with 'oh well.'

St.Paul United Church Of Christ- Ohlman, IL

I have another harmless 'naked' attack in this dream. By bringing this symbol up again I think I am being asked to 'face the fact' that I do live in some significant fear of 'being fully known' about what I believe and think regarding the dynamics of this dream. There are down sides and humiliations connected to any forward progress spiritually the dream is acknowledging. When I was first being affected by the contents of the unconscious in August '85 and  many months to follow  I wanted everyone to know just how 'free and liberal' I had managed to become. I cared little how anyone , especially the conservative background from which I came, thought or reacted to my new situation. I knew I had been propelled far from the orbit of my religious roots and it  swelled my ego. I am sorry for that yet it seems to have been unavoidable in such a trans-formative experience which came upon me. I was dealing with surges of what Jung calls psychological 'inflation'. This is where one identifies too closely with the powerful archetypes and loses touch with their own humanity and the limits it imposes. In short , when one experiences the archetypal world directly s/he is at risk of  practically  thinking s/he is nearly God. Such inflation is certain to be balanced later with bouts of self defeating depression. I had that experience also.

But these extremes of 'high and low' emotional states has all but ended from those earlier days. I may not care so much as I fear(or am concerned) of  'being known',( the nakedness) for who and what I am.  Simply becuase I know the 'newer me' is often no welcome in my former settings. And yes, it is people's reaction to me that I have concern about.( Placing this kind of material on this public blog is a significant step in my allowing others to more fully 'know' my deeper heart, much of what I think has come from what is our Collective Unconscious. I pray such information may some day serve a positive and reconciling purpose.)

This is not anything that shakes my hard-won  and somewhat compelled changes in belief and values but I see how unlikely my viewpoint will  effect or change those who believe as conservatively and sincerely as I once did. And I do not any longer enjoy the  prospect of the 'opposites' confronting our culture being fully united in my life time. I sadly know from childhood experience that something far more valuable and precious can and usually is lost when individuals are (usually unconsciously) under the influence of 'opposing religious archetypes'. This is the foundation for the larger part of the wars of world history and a primary threat now to human survival not to mention the continual splitting of churches and religions from each other. So I will try to not kid myself that I do feel very 'naked' in the sight of the religious groups and family that formed me and were my youthful psychic foundation. I realize more than ever the gravity , danger and sadness of what it means to move significantly away from the religious beliefs with which one was first nurtured. But I also know this was a matter of essential fate for me. And I pray for good to come from this to myself and others, certainly including those persons and institutions of my past.

'Eating together' is an emphasis of the dream. Eating together symbolizes what we allow to nurture our inner selves as well as our physical bodies. The dream is saying the contents of my dreams are themselves the 'food' that I need to be eating. Also, when people or even ideas that seem very opposite 'eat together' and are nurtured by each other a union or 'sacred marriage' is potentially able to happen, truly a 'uniting of opposites.' Such is an answer to the central prayer of Jesus that , 'all be one.'  Such oneness can never come by sheer will power and reason, it must be brought into reality by the Spirit of God and what I now understand to be the deep archetypal forces that connect all humans together.

The final part of the dream is a 'celebration' scene. It is one of fellowship and one where my conservative past is being just as generous to me now as it was in my youth. I cannot grasp this at a rational level for I have no reason to think that those minds and hearts represented by Jane have the freedom, even if at some level the desire, to treat me with such friendliness and genuine fellowship. But the dream gives me permission, and is likely insisting, to think of it being this way and thus to give such good will in return as I have any opportunity. I believe I had a dream several weeks ago where this same conclusion was reached but from a  completely different symbolic direction.

*Note: I again emphasize that when an individual 'real' person appears in a dream it does not tell the dreamer anything specific about that person. That person is a symbol chosen by the dream source which is the best way to communicate to the dreamer certain important themes and values. I think usually a person should feel complemented , and not appearing without their approval,  to be included in someone's dream. I know it always makes me have a renewed appreciation of a person who appears in my dream.
**  http://jhibbett.blogspot.com/2011/10/god-man-woman-and-lovedecember-12-2010.html

INTUITIONS OF REINCARNATION... august 20, 2010.

Hi Edward, (I've not yet found Edwards Essay that prompted me to write this response.  But I think this can stand on its own and make sense.) You say your reader speaks of her 'intuition of reincarnation being a reality.' I have no strong or determined belief regarding reincarnation but I feel it is important to keep an open mind regarding such possibilities and the potential  meaning behind such ideas. Most agree, the best I can tell, that  early church father Origen, Christian leader of the 3rd Century,  stated a belief in reincarnation. It was not until the sixth century that the church, as it often did, drew a line in the sand declaring any  such considerations heresy. There are N.T. references that can be read as reflecting some kind of reincarnation, all depending on  ones perspective and expectations.

I appreciate that you indicate that some kind of reincarnation has been a very strong and consistent intuition of people across most all cultures and religions, including  now your gracemail writer. From my perspective that alone is enough to not make an arbitrary statement about its possible meaning and reality. Reincarnation can be visualized in many different ways, not necessarily a direct transfer of one person from one time to another. It may be more like  our personal experience is translated as part of all others'  previous life experiences.  Or something along that line. This would mean that our personal experiences and learning are not lost to the whole of humanity but become a part of the resources of the Collective Unconscious that links us all together in a common psychological/spiritual foundation. Maybe nothing of meaning and value is ever lost through a reincarnation type of process.  There are some things that I have a hard time explaining without some kind  reincarnation being part of the mystery.

To cut off one's intuition regarding such deep ideas  is to shut down what has always been a primary avenue through which religious ideas and beliefs have  entered  human consciousness. As the church institutionalized and power fights began, any ideas of personal revelation(though admittedly they had been the source of Christian foundation) were demonized and labeled heresy. Such dogma is clearly a restriction of the Spirit of the Sacred which never accommodates dogma boundaries established by human power sources.  Intuition is a primary way by which  all of us have some measure of 'opening' into the world that is 'not of this world', the 'realm of the Spirit.'   It is natural for any religious hierarchy to deny and demonize any 'knowledge' that is attained this direct way for it undermines its attempt to maintain power over the system. This is, in my view, exactly what has happened to any suggestion that reincarnation may have a real basis and that it is  not  contradictory of  Bible story which it simply is not.

Jesus displayed the function of intuition, which your reader is seeking some support for his own, when  the story says he asked, "who touched me?' without seeing the woman who touched his clothing but being aware of 'power' coming from him.  To deny a person  taking seriously their own intuition(which means to also question it  when it comes.)  is another example of  distracting people from their awareness that they are indeed fully human 'like Jesus.'  John has Jesus describe  the nature of the Spirit as, ' like the wind, our not knowing by sensory knowledge from where it comes and where it goes'  All of religion is  originally based on a claim that  through non sensory avenues, such as intuition,dream and revelation,  the Spirit's reality can be  to some extent directly 'known'.  To discourage intuition and any direct knowledge or 'gnosis'  of the Spirit, is basically to discourage the aspect of a human that is at times able to perceive aspects of the totality of reality that is not available through sense perception alone. This has always been what the actual meaning of  'religion' is: to observe closely(beyond the pure sensory) any unconscious forces and powers that might become conscious. To discourage, to demonize, to declare  as heresy such openness and effort is to encourage a person to live as a pure materialist, which is where Western culture has fully come. Someone has said that, " to live with the attitude that sensory perception is the only kind of knowledge is to willingly live in a 'broom closet' when the door is open to the whole universe." Hopefully such 'sensory only' blindness  has begun to change in the past century and  intuitive notions across cultures and religions regarding such things as  reincarnation, near death experiences, out of body experience and  UFO encounters are part of the psychological  evidence of this change. I have no definite beliefs about such things but I sense the very fact that they are so broadly reported, even if as obsessions or hallucinations, that they reflect  important movements in  human collective consciousness.  That should interest and humble us all.

I am of the basic opinion that most of these  'experiences' and  'intuitions' are best explained by what we  are coming to know of the dynamics of human psychological(soul nature)  make-up. To me these things are likely  not a matter of  'physicality' and experiences of  'time and space.' But  as Jung insisted,   all  genuine experience is a 'psychological fact'.  To our materialistic minds that is heard as ' they are unreal.' And if anything is clear by all kinds of  related science it is that  'everything, even the material, is first, foremost and always psychological.'  Nothing is admitted into our consciousness except through the psyche.  Acknowledged  or not such 'psychological facts'  have been and are changing the perspective  every human who has any real interest in growth and change, and probably even those who don't. Such ideas have begun to powerfully  affect our daily lives. This makes 'believing in' the 'retiring religious myths' more and more of a determined effort expressed as defensiveness and argument.  And it makes the possibility of  'birthing myths' to have their effect on human consciousness and to be shaping  forces as to what our species will come to believe about ourselves and our total environment. In my view we are definitely reaching toward new understandings of ourselves and our world.  Yes these new reachings are 'tantalizing'  creating all kinds of exaggerations but the future has always been tantalizing to those who want to enter it as consciously as possible.  To take the intuitions that come seriously is not to swallow them whole but to let them be important tools and resources, to let them effect our powers of imagination which is the source of  our creativity, another primary aspect of God's image within us.   My heritage infused me with such  living beliefs that  we are 'made in the image of God.'  I now realize that image to be something  humans are to continue always to find out more about, and thus to find out more and more about who we are.

Edward, I wish you could  have been less discouraging to your reader so that she might be able to take that part of herself, that must be also part of the image of  God, i.e. her intuition, more seriously. Such intuition is a  sign of a grace that we Western humans need  to develop, exercise and take more to heart, not less. But I will acknowledge you are being very loyal to historically developed Christian  orthodoxy to give her the kind of 'get over it'  answer you did.

I recall the response from  D.R., my CPE supervisor, when I shared an experience in CPE. He  congratulated me on acting on the intuition I had while waiting for a hospital elevator. It was about the need that an unassigned patient had indicated a barely noticeable desire for my pastoral attention.(Is that similar to a 'who touched me' moment? It was for me.)  I heeded the intuition, unlike me up till then, and that began a  change in my attitude toward what I now consider to be the ' moments  of the Spirit.'  This was about two years before the breakthrough of 'visions' I was to later encounter.   So I have learned that 'intuitions' should be taken seriously. We can always learn something from such moments. These to me are 'windows to the unseen' and   'learning  moments' for us from the Sacred.
Blessings, Jim

LOVE, THE HIGHEST PRIORITY... june 8, 2011..note to Edward Fudge

Hi Edward.  Your headline is 'more on  love/doctrine.'  Is there an article or essay being referred to here that I have missed?

The message concerning Jesus and his saving accomplishments is gospel (the good news of what God has done for sinners), not doctrine (how redeemed sinners are to live in response to what God has done). Boyd and the Bible, which he cited, speak of doctrine and not gospel. This is not a clear statement for me.  Not sure what its emphasis is? Whatever the meaning it reeks with  reasoned intellect and what I think of as doctrinal tone.  If doctrine if taken as  'sound teaching' then it serves a very important and essential function for religion. If it refers to systematic intellectual formulas(which I think is  how most of us think of it) that become common convention it has little to offer modern people and certainly cannot contend for 'highest priority' of  one's faith experience  

Eros and Psyche

Yet for love to be recognized as the central message and 'good news' of God, I'm convinced,  it must solicit and reek of  Eros. Christianity, shortly after Jesus died, began to separate itself from Eros fearing its element of 'strong desire' was somehow inherently evil and nonspiritual. What a tragic loss that has been for Western Civilization. All the other loves, including Agape and Phileo to a lesser extent, are intellectual phenomena  and can be experienced without the accompanying Eros.  But Eros is the part of love that is 'living' , 'life and  perception altering' and 'desiring'  to genuinely engage another: mentally, emotionally and yes, as appropriate, bodily. 

The love of parent say for a long separated  child  is naturally erotic in the way I've described above, unless that love has been repressed which is  sadly often the case. But I think many parents actually experience a 'living', 'life and perception altering' love that longs(desires) to engage that child at a mental, emotional and bodily (touch and embrace) way.  This is living(not a head activity but one of the heart)  Eros not in anyway  directed at any sexual union but surely at a heart union. All of this is also what is involved in a fully loving  and mutual human sexual encounter. See  the Song Of Solomon  in the Bible for a vivid description.  So vivid many avoid its intended effect and implications for the Spiritual life. Though Eros  is not  necessarily  sexually directed it is always coming from the same place that sexual desire comes from so brings with it the emotion, joy, anticipation and desire that we associate with sexually directed love. In that sense it always has a sexual quality to it.

 Love without Eros is love without significant Joy, positive emotion and without  any strong desire.*   And  'love without Erotic joy' may be 'good news' somehow intellectually but it can't transcend to a matter of the heart  which it must if it is to be the 'priority', if it is truly to be 'the greatest of these'  Paul sings of  and the central experience of religious life.   Love that includes Eros does not need or seek to control others in their thinking or their behavior. That is simply  not its interest. One of its desires is to 'know' the other not as a matter of curiosity but as a matter of  valuing the other person. Interestingly  'to know' is  one of the old English translations  for sexual love in the Old Testament. If one will read the Song of Songs(Song of Solomon) near the center of the Bible as poetry and let it be sensed and felt  viscerally s/he may get in touch with their own broad Eros and get a 'feel' for how Eros, even if not sexually directed, is experienced by the human and involves some measure of ecstasy. 

Unfortunately orthodox Christian teaching has usually  advised that  Christians beware of  Eros and certainly not take the  Erotic Biblical material seriously.  Song Of Solomon  is surely at the heart of the  Bible for a good reason and  I think it helps fill in the reason  why  'love is always the highest priority.'  The very best , I've found,  and exceedingly excellent commentary  on  Song of Songs and  Eros in the Bible is  The Erotic Word by  Seminary professor  David E. Carr. I can highly  recommend  it  for those interested in Love. Eros must be present in all Human/Sacred love that is approaching fully developed love. Then it can be said, 'Love of everything and love of the world' can be realized and experienced by us humans as that which is 'the highest priority .... more than any of our inherited orthodox doctrines, more than intellect and reasoned knowledge and surely more than any love without Eros.' 
 

*http://jhibbett.blogspot.com/2011/08/dream-loves-troubleseptember-4.html

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 03:59:00 -0400 "Edward Fudge" <edward@edwardfudge.com> writes:

gracEmail® Edward Fudge FAMILY NOTES EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE, IN THE YEAR OF GRACE 2011

---

MOUNT ARARAT? + MORE ON LOVE/DOCTRINE + TFTC READY ON KINDLE + UPCOMING SCHEDULE

---

MOUNT ARARAT? -- What's the latest on Mt. Ararat, identified in English Bibles as the site of landing of Noah's Ark after the Flood? In his blog titled "Down from Ararat" (June 6, 2011), biblical scholar Ben Witherington III offers well-founded thoughts based on data from Genesis, non-Israelite ancient neareastern literature, history, geography and archaeology. One teaser: "Ararat" is actually the name of a range of mountains, not a single identifiable peak. For more, click here.

---

MORE ON LOVE/DOCTRINE -- I recently quoted Greg Boyd who said: "Whatever else might be said, I honestly don't believe we'll even begin to move in the right direction until we resolve that loving one another (and everyone else) is a higher priority than proving, protecting and enforcing the rightness of our doctrines."

Alongside anticipated kudos and affirmations in response, good friend and gracEmail subscriber Robert Dozier demurred, inquiring why the person and work of Jesus, for example, does not outrank our loving each other. It is a good question to which there is a good answer: the message concerning Jesus and his saving accomplishments is gospel (the good news of what God has done for sinners), not doctrine (how redeemed sinners are to live in response to what God has done). Boyd and the Bible, which he cited, speak of doctrine and not gospel.

---

TFTC READY ON KINDLE -- The new third edition of THE FIRE THAT CONSUMES (3rd ed.) is ready to order from amazon.com .

---

UPCOMING SCHEDULE -- God willing, I will meet the following schedule during the next 90 days.

JUNE