don’t forget your heart

don’t forget your heart and the promise that we are to be led by, and taught by the spirit – this was and is god’s idea – not any of ours
the ‘word’ is a person (even the text tells us this itself and again, this is one of god’s ideas, not ours) – even the ‘words’ we speak are not letters but a person, they are us, and we are far greater than the combination of signs and meaning the symbols appear to be

the biggest trap with the ascendancy of the written ‘word’ (textualization) is that it is politically worked out as language in a symbolic way (a set of signs)  -  deployed to attempt to try articulately convey the fundamental essence and practical nature of meaning through an agreed upon form of communication which in reality pre-dates even speech, possibly even thought itself
speech and literature are culturally defined, determined and interpreted and culture is an ever evolving thing as we know and meaning naturally shifts through and with time and changing context

this is a very scary thing and needs to be taken seriously as it has dire potential for those who are not all that fully aware as all too often unscrupulous individuals have wittingly or unwittingly used this process as a tool, a weapon even, to manipulate others for sometimes quite sinister motives

at other times even innocent, caring people have unwittingly become servants of a cultural groundswell of historical circumstance – religious institutions of all kinds are an obvious example of this

even our scriptural texts tell us to guard our hearts above all else, for it is the wellspring of life – this calls for great courage and an ever sensitive ear and eye for the leading of the spirit.
perhaps it is better to err on the cautious or at least practice great circumspection rather than to rush in where even angels would fear to tread

yes, most people are trying to be good, but good is clearly seldom if ever good

the closest are still far away

There was this man named John who walked with Jesus for a few years.  He was one of the inner circle in the life of the Christ and seemed to somehow successfully develop a very close relationship with him, apparently significantly more intimate than the other eleven had managed to do.  There are no great details as to what this relationship really was like other than the few suggestions centred around the fact that he and Jesus are recorded to have shared some peculiar intimacies.

On one occasion as they were all reclining during a meal (as was the custom of the day) he was recorded as lying back on the breast of Jesus.  To me this is clearly indicative of a level of personal shared space that is not common amongst most men (at least not in our modern, western culture).  On another occasion he was requested by the others to approach Jesus about an issue that was obviously very sensitive amongst the disciples in that theyapparently felt they were  unable to ask Jesus directly for themselves.  To me this is sort of like the other brothers and sisters asking the favourite sibling to speak to their father as to whether they could all have ice cream as the favourite, being the favourite, had far better chance of success.  John was also the only recorded apostle at the scene of the death of Jesus.  Whilst breathing his last Jesus entrusted the care of his own mother to him, indeed a privilege and a deeply intimate request of anyone.  There are other occasions but  think these suffice for now in painting an interesting picture for us.

According to tradition John had a fairly long life in comparison to his fellow disciples and near the end of his days he penned a letter to the churches that we have come to know as “Revelation.”  This letter was written as a result of a vision, or a series of visions John received whilst exiled on an island called Patmos.  Interestingly, in this letter he writes how he saw Jesus and heard him speak of things that were, and also of things that were still to come.

The thing that really grabs me is that John, the closest one to Jesus, the “Beloved”, who walked alongside him for years and was openly known as the “one whom Jesus loved” at first never recognized Jesus at all in the visions.  The appearance of Jesus took him by surprise and if not by surprise it was like nothing he had seen or imagined before.  It was either revealed to him that it was Jesus in his vision or he understood it slowly, bit by bit, as the visions progressed.  In these visions Jesus was somehow represented by something very un-worldly and even at times frightening, definitely amazing, often confusing.  … and this to the man who knew him arguably better than any disciple at the time.

This is amazing to me.  John penned this letter possibly only a few short decades after the actual events and did not even recognize Jesus.  He was caught off guard and never recognized his great and dear friend and long time companion.  … and this after only a relatively short period of absence.

… and here we are, over 2000 years later, with a whole cluster of wonderful letters and stories and even the transliterated copies of the original legal contracts the Jewish leaders had at the time of Christ (even rendered in our day into English, even into multiple different English versions of the same texts).  And somehow, as I think of these things I cannot help but wonder just how much we might be exactly like those poor, devoted, yet blind men whose hands, hearts and minds successfully plotted the murder of Jesus?  … what with all our very systematic, ordered, detailed doctrines of Christ and things heaven and God related… .  .   .

It also makes me wonder about the legal qualifications we pursue and obtain to legitimize our ministry of the grace of Christ.  Alongside this I cannot help but think of how fully qualified or socially endorsed church leaders build perfectly trimmed and water-tight theologies and doctrines, even attacking those of very similar faith who may differ, if only ever so slightly on certain specific aspects of the nature of grace and godly servitude  ( … and just how one can legislate grace is logically beyond me – but that’s perhaps for another time).

What really alarms me though is that the Jewish religious leaders and teachers of the law themselves never recognized Jesus even though he was clearly spoken of in their sacred texts in the law of Moses as well as in the prophets and even though they were diligently searching and eagerly waiting for the revelation of their beloved prophet, the promised Messiah.  In fact, they were so unable to recognize him that when he appeared they, as has been said, actually plotted his death as an act of worship and honour to the God they loved to the fullest of their natural ability.

We love to speak, even to preach about the folly of the Scribes, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the Priests and the legalists.  But just how similar are we to these infamous rejecters of our Lord and Saviour?  I make no personal judgments, …. I merely ask the question, of myself, …. of you…  and quite frankly,  speaking of myself,  I am truly found wanting.

Maybe, just maybe, it might be an idea for us to re-visit our emphatic theology and the air-tight doctrines we hold?

Now I have no clear idea of what we might find, but maybe it might be that God really is far bigger and so vastly beyond our human ability to comprehend with these natural sensory limitations we all so frailly share?

And maybe, just maybe, God is far more gracious, powerful, wise, and faithful than we could ever imagine – even to the extent of not being at all concerned with the almost exclusively cognitive, intellectual manner in which we have allowed our minds to develop into, and with which we have so robustly legislated and documented our theology and doctrine? … .  .   .  or maybe not?

Perhaps the creator of all things is sitting down somewhere, relaxed and happily content to trust the power of the invincible seed he has sown into the human pods who walk about like ants under the blazing sun to germinate and proliferate according to his divine instruction and ability?  (regardless of our efforts to help or not).

If John was surprised, confused, even terrified after a short gap of only one or two decades what do we think we might be when it comes to a good old face-to-face in possibly the not too distant future?

Can you imagine if we were wrong?  WOW!!   … on the one hand it could be devastating … but on the other, it could be literally out of this world!!

and we still haven’t found what we’re looking for

I have been thinking and speaking of love of late. It’s a difficult one especially in light of recent research findings.

The human reference points with regards to what love is are very limited especially if love is divine in its origin.

It has been stated that God is love. There is lots of agreement on this idea from all different religious views. This suggests that love and God are possibly synonymous, even one and the same thing.

However, the only reference we have experientially is from our own human point of view. We can only approach love from our experiential level of understanding yet it is believed to be of Godly origin (unless of course love is merely a figment of our imaginations – electro-chemical neuronal firing sensations interpreted as stimulus? which we in turn have agreed to represent what we have come to call “love” …. then possibly it really doesn’t matter either way).

I know that most of us will say that God’s view of love is clearly revealed in the scriptural texts we cherish for ourselves as God’s inerrant truth to us, but the interpretation of these texts are as diverse and intimately personal as the number of people who read them. And there are many texts. After all, we can only process input based on our personal experiences … and culture is made up of patterns handed down from one to another, from generation to generation … and patterns form other patterns …. and then ….. the bible itself tells us not to be conformed to these patterns, but rather to be transformed by the renewing of our minds …. a difficult one to get around, at least it is so for me.

Sadly, we tend to gather people around us who agree with our own conclusions of “truth” rather than pressing in to those who posit a challenging or “fresh” view of what we believe might be out there …. or “in” here.

Maybe ‘churches’ are not really representations of God at all really? Sadly I would say rather that possibly they are more like social groupings aligned to some semblance of agreed upon values filled with people seeking others who agree with them. Maybe this is a bit harsh? Maybe not.

I’m not so sure that we seek the truth. I tend to feel that we seek people and things which endorse and support our view of truth. Logically speaking how else can we explain so many people claiming to believe the same thing, or at least faith in the same creator (can there only be one creator?), yet expressing it in so many multitudes of different ways, and in so many different yet similar little clusters, each with their own significant name and each with their own history, dominant sacred texts, ‘constitutions’, statements of faith and values, architecture, styles of singing, speaking, praying, acting, dress code, etc? Logically, how else can we explain the way so many shift between these social clusters simply because they are seemingly ‘offended’ in some way by a perceived contravention of one or more of these seemingly agreed upon values? If the agreed upon value was really a belief in God and God’s love surely everything else would be clearly inconsequential? Not so? For one, we would embrace each other as we all believe God embraces us – unconditionally and regardless of differing orientation. Yet this is clearly not the case. We even seem to compete with those who think exactly like we do – if that were indeed possible?

Love is very culturally specific in its definition as well as in it’s practical outworking. In historical texts we see strong suggestions revealed of very different types of love – love practiced by God and even love practiced by humans. Some great heroes of the faith had many wives, some treated their wives in strange or shall we say – unusual ways, at least with reference to our present modern interpretation and understanding of love. Some never had wives at all. It’s all very relative.

Some psychologists have suggested that we extend love as we would like to receive it. In other words we have worked out a pattern inside our thinking that has established what love is for us. We extend this type of love as we wish it to be extended in return to us. What do we want God to love us like? How would this shape our picture of God? How would God like to be loved?

Even in the Judaic/Christian biblical texts the height of relational love is captured in the story of marriage. God is spoken of as referring to his ‘bride’ and many scripts point to this as a metaphor for the love between himself and his people. The relationship is filled with concepts like faithfulness, intimacy, devotion, sharing, surrender, mutual pleasuring, reproduction, ecstasy, etc. etc.

Most would possibly agree that marriage is the highest representation of devoted relationship and that the sexual act could be an acceptable representation of the height of loves physical and practical intimacy in that relationship. An ideal sexual encounter might be accompanied by intimate mutual selfless service exchanged by the lovers. In this there is a giving over, a surrender and an accompanying ‘out-of-body’ experience (orgasm).

Now before we allow our cultural patterns and paradigms to offend our quest for understanding let’s try look at what this might mean. For a start the definition of orgasm is interesting; orgasm – 1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Physiology) the most intense point during sexual excitement, characterized by extremely pleasurable sensations and in the male accompanied by ejaculation of semen 2. Rare intense or violent excitement [from New Latin orgasmus, from Greek orgasmos, from organ to mature, swell] orgasmic , orgastic adj Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Perhaps love is a resonance with the totality of what is really out there and finding a state of rest in the balance of it all? Perhaps love is a sensation of deep and intense pleasure and belonging, a ‘oneness’ with the creation. A ‘swelling’, an enlarging of size and capacity as a sense of ‘completion’ that settles in?

Our cultural, social and political surroundings make this a very interesting sojourn do they not?

WE make this a very interesting sojourn.