Showing posts with label Metaphysical Christian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Metaphysical Christian. Show all posts

Friday, June 03, 2011

Turkey Worship & the Church in/of the Future

Why did people build the first towns? Seems like an easy question: they found places where economic factors made it possible to produce and store more food, safely raise their children, and carry on the shared, diversified responsibilities of village life. As these rural communities grew, walls were needed to protect small towns from human mauraders and wild beasts, especially in the night. Gods and magical spirits were invoked to guarantee fertility, enhance the harvest, and protect these proto-cities from natural and man-made calamities. The ancients believed the balance between heaven and earth must be maintained by human action to demonstrate fidelity with the divine forces. So, altars of sacrifice blossomed, and religious semi-professionals (shamans) became priests and priestesses. This led to the construction of permanent shrines and temples for this purpose.


Next question?


This is a rough outline of what most archaeologists and anthropologists have believed about the sequence of civilization. The movement toward urbanization was driven by economics and security, i.e., the need to share resources for the common good. Humans abandoned hunting and gathering after they learned how to plant and harvest grain. They settled down near a source of water because fields cannot travel with nomads. These small settlements grew into villages and towns, which required common defense and a division of labor. More complex art and pottery flourished as people had time to spare for the finer pursuits. Religious institutions and the structures to house them--shrines and temples--came later in support of the spiritual and ritualistic needs of an established community.

If you have taken a course in the history of civilization you are probably nodding... Yeah, yeah. And your point is?

Warning: Fasten your cultural seatbelts. All of the above is most likely wrong. Not just wrong, but backwards-wrong.

Gobekli Tepe: World's First Temple?

German-born archeologist Klaus Schmidt has discovered a vast and artistically delightful temple complex in southeastern Turkey near the Syrian border which, according to a growing number of scholars, is older than the pyramids. No, that doesn't say it stongly enough. The complex is seven thousand years older than the Great Pyramid and six thousand years senior to Stonehenge. The ruins are so ancient they predate villages, pottery, domesticated animals, and even agriculture.

Schmidt has discovered over fifty sites buried safely beneath the soil of Turkey, where they were built about 11,500 years ago. What's more amazing is the nature of the ruins. There is no water source, no trash heaps, none of the telltale signs of human habitation. The sites were not lived in; they were ceremonial centers--temples. That means human raised temple buildings first, then they figured out how to service these religious complexes by domesticaing grain, raising herd animals, and constructing groups of family dwellings in the area.

Schmidt's thesis is that people must have been gathering at ceremonial sites for ages before they decided to formalize the place of worship with stone structures. The temple came first.

The need to worship drove people to find stable food sources and create permanent settlements. Writing in Newsweek, Patrick Symmes observes:

"Religion now appears so early in civilized life—earlier than civilized life, if Schmidt is correct—that some think it may be less a product of culture than a cause of it, less a revelation than a genetic inheritance. The archeologist Jacques Cauvin once posited that 'the beginning of the gods was the beginning of agriculture,' and Göbekli may prove his case." [1]

Lyceum 2012: The Church in/of the Future

It is worth noting, when considering the Lyceum 2012 theme above, that people have been predicting the downfall of organized religion since writing was invented. But the temples at Gobekli Tepe predate writing by thousands of years. There appears to be something hardwired into humanity which requires us to give thanks, to offer gifts to the divine--first fruits of the field and flocks, devotions of our minds and hands, acts of service in support of something immeasurably greater than ourselves. It was not simply the whimpering of frightened people in a thunderstorm when our ancestors cried unto their gods for deliverance; it was faith that a moral order exists in the cosmos, and that something like justice must eventually prevail. Klaus Schmidt is under no illusions that humanity has gotten religion right through time, but he does seem to believe in the evolution of collective consciousness when he asserts that new ways demand new practices. The people who managed the Gobekli Tepe complex decided to bury the site with dirt, which makes it one of the best preserved Neolithic sites. "When you have new gods," Schmidt says, "you have to get rid of the old ones." [2]

It sounds like theological reflection is at least as old as civilization itself...
______________________________________________________________

[1] http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/18/history-in-the-remaking.html
[2] Ibid.

Friday, May 13, 2011

God and the Quantum Clematis



These pretty blue blossoms are the result of Carol-Jean's dilligent work outside the Shepherd Estates on Trailwood Street in Lee's Summit.

I looked at them and displayed my vast store of botanical knowledge by asking, "Honey, what's this?"

"They're Clematis," she told me.

I said, "Nice flower."

"Vine," she said.

"Yes, divine."

"No, Clematis is a vine."

"Hmmm...still looks like a flower to me."

"Theologians," she muttered.

I began pondering the nature of Clematis as she returned to gardening. It has been a fertile Spring, for flowering vines and great student discussions at Unity Institute.

During my Unity Institute course HTS 552 Metaphysical Theology II, students divide into small teams to lead their classmates in a theological analysis of the seven basic books written by Unity co-founder Charles Fillmore. Each team gets two class periods (five total hours) to present the essence of the Fillmorean book assigned to them, a daunting task when you consider that whole courses could be taught on each book. And this is professional theological education, not a church discussion group on Thursday evenings, so the methodologies employed must reach graduate level standards.

I have taught this course for several years, and the pattern has been remarkably similar. The students have great reverence for Mr. Fillmore's accomplishments, but they often wrestle with his methods and conclusions like Jacob and the angel. That willingness to explore and critically analyze marks the boundary line one must cross to become a true professional in any field.

I repeatedly urge them to let Mr. Fillmore be who he was, without feeling the need to prove their loyalty by rescuing, rehabilitating, or repairing his ideas if he goes somewhere they cannot venture. Charles Fillmore was a 19th century man who lived in a Newtonian universe, a spiritual teacher-healer whose practice was located deep inside a conservative Christian world. I often find myself agreeing with him when he says what works but disagreeing when he tries to explain how it works. He is extraordinarily consistent throughout his writing, from the early years to the end of his life. He unwaveringly taught certain ideas--like regeneration and the dangers of sensuality--which are problematic for many people today. Despite this steadiness throughout a long life, he actively encouraged his own students to find answers which worked for them.

"Do not dogmatize in creed, or statement of Being, as a governing rule of thought and action for those who join your organization. These things are limitations, and they often prevent free development because of foolish insistence on consistency. The creed that you write today may not fit the viewpoint of tomorrow." [Twelve Powers, pp. 111-112]

I think one of the greatest examples of his spiritual genius shows itself in the inconsistent way Mr. Fillmore addresses the nature of God.

During the course of student led seminars this year, a new emphasis emerged. Students became engrossed in the historical-theological question about whether Mr. Fillmore taught that God is personal,--i.e., a Supreme Being to Whom one can and should pray--or impersonal, understood as Divine Law or Principle. (Hint: If an easy answer comes to mind, you probably haven't spent a lot of time studying the problem.)

Sometimes, Charles Fillmore speaks of God as impersonal, almost a like a Platonic philosopher discussing concepts like truth, beauty, or goodness:

"When we pray in spiritual understanding, this highest realm of man's mind contacts universal, impersonal Mind; the very mind of God is joined to the mind of man. God answers our prayers in ideas, thoughts, words; these are translated into the outer realms, in time and condition." [Christian Healing, p. 78]

Other times, he begins to sound like a mystical Catholic, like Meister Eckhart:

"Prayer is the opening of communication between the mind of man and the mind of God. Prayer is the exercise of faith in the presence and power of the unseen God. Supplication, faith, meditation,silence, concentration, are mental attitudes that enter into and form part of prayer. When one understands the spiritual character of God and adjusts himself mentally to the omnipresent God-Mind, he has begun to pray aright." [Atom-Smashing Power of Mind, pp. 11-12.]

Here he describes God as both impersonal and personal, capable of creative action (personal) yet functioning uniformly (impersonal):

"God is Mind, and man made in the image and likeness of God is Mind, because there is but one Mind, and that the Mind of God...This one and only Mind of God that we study is the only creator. It is that which originates all that is permanent; hence it is the source of all reality." [ASPM, 93.]

And again:

"Being is not only impersonal Principle as far as its inherent and undeviating laws are concerned, but also personal as far as its relation to each of us is concerned. We as individuals do actually become a focus of universal Spirit." [Revealing Word, p. 22]

One last quote:

"Our Bible plainly teaches that God implanted in man His perfect image and likeness, with executive ability to carry out all the creative plans of the Great Architect... God is free to do as He wills, and He has implanted that same freedom in man."

In the midst of their spirited discussion, I asked the class whether they heard Charles Fillmore describing God as an impersonal Principle or personal Supreme Being. Some said impersonal, some personal. Some said both. Both? How could God be both personal and impersonal? And then it hit me--quantum physics explains both the nature of the Clematis and the Fillmorean view of God.

Quantum theory holds that the observer literally shapes that which is observed. For example, if scientists try to determine whether light is a wave or a particle, the answer will depend on which phenomenon they study. Look at light as a wave, and it's a wave. Look at light as a particle, and--lo!--it's a particle. Except it can't be both; they are mutually exclusive. Yet it is.

When I look at the blue plants outside my house, what they are is determined by what I'm looking for. The Clematis climbs on my wife's white metal trellis, and therefore it is a vine. But it has big, star-shaped blooms, and that makes it a flower. (I know; it's actually a flowering vine, but I can only do the equation one way at a time. I'm Pennsylvania Dutch.)


The observer shapes what he/she sees. When I look at God as One Presence/One Power, the Principle of Being-Itself, then God is impersonal. Fillmore quotes an excerpt from Robert Browning: "What I call God...fools call Nature."


But when I stand under the night sky and look into the Cosmos and feel the Presence of Infinite Love, when I am in need of what Jewish theologian Martin Buber called the I-Thou relationship between myself and God, when my God-within reaches out and speaks to the rest of the Divine Mystery--then I recognize God as not merely personal or impersonal but transpersonal. More than impersonal and personal combined. I look at the flowering Clematis vine and celebrate the Creator-God and the Principles of Nature which produced this blue blessing by my front door.

Monday, December 13, 2010

A Metaphysical Christian Statement of Faith


I believe in God,


One Presence and One Power,


Who speaks to me


..........personally, as a still, small voice within,


..........transpersonally, as the power of Omnipotent Goodness, and


..........historically, through teachers and prophets of all faiths


Wherever consciousness arises in God’s vast Cosmos. .


..



I believe in Jesus the Christ,


understood and reinterpreted through time as


the man of Nazareth, the Wayshower,


who calls people to serve all God’s children with compassion,


And in Christ Jesus, the crucified and risen Lord,


who demonstrates that all life is eternal


and points to the imago Dei in every sentient being.



..


I believe in the Holy Spirit,


the God-energy which empowers the Cosmos to be,


inspires creativity and understanding,


and leads people by holy wisdom


to discover the many paths to Divine Truth.



I believe in the equality of all God’s children,


in the rich diversity of their physical and spiritual expressions.


..



I believe in the unity of purpose


which gathers a community of people


to experience the power of affirmative prayer and


share the challenges and celebrations along life's path;



I believe in the communion of soul growth


by which all will one day participate,


And the eternal possibility for Oneness with God


through an endless, innovative union of joy and love.


..



Blessings and peace, divine order and refreshing inspiration, healing power and prosperity, wholeness of life and love eternal will accompany us now and forevermore, through the power of the Christ within. Amen.


_________ .




Written by - Thomas Shepherd, D.Min.



Disclaimer: I am opposed to formal statements of faith published by religious organizations. This is a personal view, not meant to be a final declaration; more psalm than creed. First draft 2006, re-written 2007, updated and posted 12-13-10, re-edited 12-14-10...You get this is a work in progress? Suggestions and corrections invited. Dialogue invited. (If you use it in your work, please cite the source--it will give you somebody else to blame.)