Pastor Jeff has been talking for the last couple of weeks about the False Self and finding your True Self. Rather coincidentally, Richard Rohr's meditation this morning was about the very same topic.
Richard Rohr is a Franciscan Friar, ordained into the priesthood of the Catholic Church in 1970. He is internationally known as an inspirational speaker and has written several books. He provides a daily meditation each morning, which can be received by email.
Today's meditation was called "Divine DNA"
"The True Self is characterized by communion and contentment.
It’s okay. It’s all right here, right now. The True Self is the self that is
connected with Being itself. It is the realigned self. Christianity would use
the word “saved” to describe this state, and Jesus would speak of the grain of
wheat which has died to its small boundaries to become the large self, the God
Self, the Christ Self, the Enlightened Self. It has to do with participating and
resting in the Universal Being (“God”) that is bigger than your own small being
and yet includes it. You are inherently a part of it. Your life is not about
you. You are about life.
"The True Self needs only to uncover or discover itself. It’s
already there. We are all tabernacles of God, as Paul says in several places.
We’ve each been given the gift. And there are no degrees of givenness; the gift
is equally given to all, but we must admit that it is received in
varying degrees. The only difference is the degree of conscious realization, the
degree that you now draw your life from that Source. You are the dwelling place
of God. Your deepest DNA is divine. God is not out there. Your deepest you is
God, is good, is okay. The True Self cannot be hurt; it’s invulnerable, it’s
indestructible. It’s the Great I Am continued in you.
"The True Self is inherently satisfied and overflowing. It lives
an abundant life. “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full”
(John 10:10). Spiritual gifts increase by use. If you love, you become more
loving. As you learn to call upon the True Self, you draw life from that which
is the Big Self, instead of the small ego. That’s probably why Jesus commanded
us to love one another. Love is something we have to do to be who we are, to
reconnect, to be realigned, to be in communion."
Adapted from True Self/False Self, Disc 1 (CD)
Churches and church people have long been heavily preoccupied with seeking truth; searching the Bible for truth, making claims of truth based on the written word in the Bible, and, well, you get the picture.
There is one niggly little problem with this: how we define truth. For the last few hundred years, since about Isaac Newton, we figured truth, logic and scientific evidence tied together. So if we say the Bible is "true", then according to this kind of thinking, what the Bible says is to be taken as scientifically factual and with the same authority as a legal constitution.
That kind of an approach ends up with glaring inconsistencies between common understanding and things written in the sacred text of the Bible: people have there battles arguing whether the Bible is wrong or science is wrong. Neither are "wrong", the problem is that the yardstick we use to measure truth is a very narrow one, not appropriate for the sacred texts, and certainly far too restricting in the view of the ancient Jewish society for whom these texts were originally written.
Richard Rohr, Franciscan Friar, has a great meditation today, which really helps open up this whole dilemma:
"I think we learned the Sic et Non ["Yes And"] approach in the early Christian period
from our Jewish ancestors. They called it midrash. Midrash was
a different way of coming to truth. It was simply where you get together and
look at Scripture in an open—but faith-filled—way: It could mean this; it could
mean that. It might challenge you in this direction; it might invite you in that
direction.
"Jewish midrash extrapolated from the mere story to find its actual spiritual message. We all do the same when we read anyway, but Jesus and his Jewish people were much more honest and up front about this. Fundamentalists pretend they are giving the text total and literal authority, but then it always ends up looking like what people in that culture would want to believe anyway. (Remember, good Bible Christians in the U.S. Confederacy and in South Africa were quite sure the Scriptures justified oppression and enslavement of black people.)
"To take the Scriptures seriously is not to take them literally. Literalism is invariably the lowest and least level of meaning. Serious reading of Scripture will allow you to find an ever-new spiritual meaning for the liberation of history, the liberation of the soul, and the liberation of God in every generation. Then the text is true on many levels, instead of trying to prove it is true on just the one simple, factual level. Sacred texts always maximize your possibilities for life and love, which is why we call them sacred. I am afraid we have for too long used the Bible merely to prove various church positions, which largely narrows their range and depth. Instead of transforming people, the Biblical texts became utilitarian and handy ammunition."
Let's chew on the statement "sacred texts always maximize your possibilities for life and love, which is why we call them sacred." Think about that a minute.
Literal truth, instead of being the ultimate truth, is the lowest level of meaning; what really makes texts sacred and valuable are the hidden and deeper meanings that maximize possibilities for life and love, deeper truths that transform lives.
A yardstick for 2014? That which maximizes your possibilities for life and love.
"Doctrine" is a word that doesn't exactly bring on warm and fuzzy feelings when it is mentioned.
Just think about the word "indoctrinate" and the first thing that comes to mind is "brain washing"
"Doctrinal statements" are used as tests to see who is in and who is out; if you can recite your denomination's "doctrinal statement", then you are fit to be part of the in-crowd there. (If you can't then, well, perhaps you need to be "indoctrinated"!)
These aren't very pretty ideas, but it was never intended to be that way. Jesus spoke words of healing; a far cry from the litmus tests of right belief according to one denomination or another
In her book Christianity after Religion (New York: Harper One, 2012)
Diana Butler Bass has this to say about "doctrine" on pages 134 and 135:
"Indeed, the word doctrine, a word fallen on hard times in contemporary culture, actually means a "healing teaching", from the French word for doctor. The creeds, as doctrinal statements, were intended as healing instruments, life-giving words that would draw God's people into a deeper engagement with divine things. When creeds become fences to mark the borders of heresy, they lose their spiritual energy. Doctrine is to be the balm of a healing experience of God, not a theological scalpel to wound and exclude peole."
What do you suppose we can each do to help "doctrine" to be used for healing, rather than as a tool to sort out who is in and who is out? Something to think about.
How many times have we heard the saying "love the sinner, hate the sin"?
And often good people mean well when they say that.
Hmmm. Tony Campolo points out that what Jesus taught us would really be more like "love the sinner, hate your own sin".
If you have any doubt about this, check out Matthew 7:3, where Jesus says "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
And if that isn't clear enough, in verse 5, Jesus says "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
That looks a lot like Tony's quote: "love the sinner, hate your own sin".
Expanding on what Tony says, might look like "love the sinner and hate your own judgmental attitude for looking at the sinner as 'the sinner'".
Something to think about next time we might be tempted to look at someone in a judging sort of way.
Next year, Community Life Church will be celebrating 150 years as an organized church in Grand Harbour on Grand Manan Island. Over that time many changes have occurred and a lot are still occurring. Even the name has changed a number of times, but changed most radically recently from "Grand Harbour United Baptist Church" to "Community Life Church".
So we have much to celebrate in our 150 years, pioneers to honour, accomplishments to marvel over, a rich heritage of service to the people of our Island. Does our service today look different? Of course; but that should not take away from the celebration of our past.
No doubt some of the people who faithfully attended this church years ago might be astonished if they were to drop in on a Sunday morning now. Worship would look very different to them to be sure. In fact some of them might feel we are wrong not keeping with the strong traditions of the church established by our forefathers.
So as we look back at our 150 years, how important is tradition and what role does it play?
One of the best quotes I have found on tradition is in McLaren's book "Naked Spirituality" in which he says (on page 189):
"Similarly, we must celebrate the rich heritage of our religious traditions, but those traditions are now the foundations on which we build, not the ceilings under which we are trapped".
Let's think about that as we reach forward and as we remember back. Let's celebrate the rich traditions we have, lets build on these, but let us also be sure not to let them become ceilings under which we are trapped.
Some people are "morning people" bouncing out of bed and excited to start the day; others are grumpy until that first cup of coffee gives them a boost. Whichever way you lean, how you start your morning shapes your first attitude as you face your day.
Brian McLaren, in his book Naked Spirituality, gives a great piece of advice which is a sure way to get your day off to a great start.
"Give God the first greeting every morning"
Brian notes that as he emerges from sleep into awareness, even before opening his eyes, he turns his attention to God with this little prayer of thanks and worship:
"O Lord! Good morning! Here I am, with you for a new day, and here you are, with me as always. Thank you, Living God, for this fresh installment in the gracious gift of life! O Lord! I worship you for who you are, gracious and compassionate, just and good, holy and forgiving, almighty and gentle."
How could anyone be grumpy after that!!! Starting the day with a little silent meditation like this puts everything in perspective.
A "fresh installment in the gracious gift of life": what a great way to shape your attitude for the day!
(From Brian McLaren's book Naked Spirituality, page 77)
How many times have we heard people say "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual".
Essentially, they often mean "I don't buy into all the trappings and rules of religion, but I know that the secular world with its science, politics and economics doesn't fill my inner being either".
Why is it that religion and spirituality are looked at as being so different by many people? Why is it that talking about someone being "religious" isn't always seen very positively by people who would look at themselves as being "not religious".
Let's look at one view of the origin of the word "religion". The root of the word is "lig" from which we get the word "ligament" which holds together bones in a joint. So the root "lig" means to connect together, to unite, to bring together into one body, one wholeness. And "re" means again. So "re-ligion" in its purest form, would be connecting us together again, making us whole again, one body with God. It would be about bonding us with all creation.
But what we have often seen in "religious" organizations is a setting apart from others, judging others for behaviour that religious people won't tolerate; a "disconnect" from others as we huddle within the confines of our own belief systems.
A "re-ligion", which is supposed to be connecting us together with all God's good creation, has morphed into a "de-ligion", a separating from other, especially from those who need reconnecting the most, those who are having a real tough time with life struggles.
So let's focus on trying to "re-lig": to reconnect with God, with one another and with all God's good creation. And in that pursuit, we will find God's spirit encouraging us on.
"Re-ligion" or "de-ligion"; which will be our goal?
(Adapted from the book "Naked Spirituality", by Brian McLaren)
