skyyyy

Intimacy v Scientific separation

The western scientific world view does not lend itself to participation/intimacy with God. It needs to separate in order to observe. Behind this we can detect the need to control.  Theologically I understand the Desert Fathers went to the desert to continue in their relational/participational interpretation of the Trinity rather than formulating doctrines. The Trinity was not to be understood through analysis and categorisation but through participation and relationship. Their theology was not conceptual but relationally intuitive and thus was best defined by how they lived their lives as a result.(Karen Armstrong’s book 'The case for God' I found very informative on this)
At the other end of the timeline (I'm no scientist) I understand that advances have been made in quantum physics - the study of subatomic particles. All sorts of weird things happen on that level that indicate intelligence and relationship between observer and the observed.
 If we are not careful we can be so non-dualistic that we reject dualism to the extent that we have created another dualism! ... After all any 'non'-anything is potentially creating duality. OAnother way of puuting it may be "We can be right in that which we affirm and wrong in that which we deny". We are right in affirming the non-dual dynamic participation in God but wrong as a consequence in denying the value of scientific observation even if it merely serves to show its limitations and  its existential emptiness in order that we may explore the ways that invite the dimensions of intimacy.
Truly we all long for intimacy and Centering Prayer is that consenting to the activity of God's presence within. In so doing the false self must surrender to the Cross. Awakened by His risen power we are empowered to love and to serve.
And it is not our doing but we are being 'done unto' and He gets the glory!

Richard Rhor - "The Naked Now" - Movement and Stillness

On page 23 of Richard Rohr's book "The Naked Now" “God becomes more of a verb than a noun, more a process than a conclusion, more a personal relationship” (ref a message by RR on the Trinity)
This  has been reminding me of some thoughts I have had recently about prayer being a dynamic participation with a Living God. We all instinctively relate contemplative prayer with stillness and there has been at least within me the intention of looking for that ‘still point’. However in prayer we are entering into ‘perichoresis’ (“ dance around") of the Trinity and therefore also entering into movement - a self emptying movement (kenosis). This became very clear when I heard a message by Cynthia Bourgeault on Kenosis as well as reading her books. My intention now in prayer is not static or containable but to, in the stillness,  recognise ‘not the noun but the verb’ and 'not the conclusion but the process’ referred to by RR. As the Psalmist says in Psalm 46 ‘Be still and know that I am God’ indicating stillness ... yet earlier on there is the verse that says ‘There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God’ indicating movement. Furthermore on reading TS Eliot’s ‘Burnt Norton’ from the 4 quartets he says so brilliantly ...

At the still point of the turning world. Neither flesh nor fleshless;

Neither from nor towards; at the still point, there the dance is,

But neither arrest nor movement. And do not call it fixity,

Where past and future are gathered. Neither movement from nor towards,

Neither ascent nor decline. Except for the point, the still point,

There would be no dance, and there is only the dance.

I can only say, there we have been: but I cannot say where.

And I cannot say, how long, for that is to place it in time.

The inner freedom from the practical desire,

The release from action and suffering, release from the inner

And the outer compulsion, yet surrounded

By a grace of sense, a white light still and moving ....

In the mind of God stillness and movement are not opposites but are held together in a way only He can do!
Praise Him!

Psalm 131 - Resting like a child in the arms of God

 My heart is not proud, O LORD, my eyes are not haughty;  I do not concern myself with great matters or things too wonderful for me. But I have stilled and quieted my soul;  like a weaned child with its mother, like a weaned child is my soul within me. O Israel, put your hope in the LORD both now and forevermore.

We have just had the addition of Lola to our family … the image of a baby with mother is clear in my mind. In the first month I saw her about 4 times. She did not open her eyes and she looked so peaceful in the arms of mother. To her nothing else existed and nothing else mattered … and so this verse causes me to think that in some way that is to be an important aspect of my relationship with God. The Greek word for that early need of affection is ‘Storge’. Here is a description from C.S.Lewis book “Four Loves”
Storge ... ‘affection, especially of parents to offspring’; but also of offspring to parents. And that, I have no doubt, is the original form of the thing as well as the central meaning of the word. The image we must start with is that of a mother nursing a baby, a bitch or a cat with a basketful of puppies or kittens; all in a squeaking, nuzzling heap together; purrings, lickings, baby-talk, milk, warmth, the smell of young life.
Herbert Ratner, M.D. tells us:
Research shows that the newborn is responsive to the face from birth. The response is initially elicited by the eyes and forehead, and subsequently, by the full face. This coincides with the focal length of the newborn's vision which is about nine inches, a measure that approximates the distance from the baby at the breast to the mother's eyes and face. In contrast to the perceptual ability of primates whose young are mobile and clinging, the eyes of the immobilized infant, during the early months of nursing, are steadily fixed on the mother's face. When the Psalmist pleads to God to turn His "shining face" upon him, he echoes the acceptance the nursling seeks from its mother, its source of security.
The infant's need to be held, carried and comforted bespeaks the woman's cradling arms, arms that contrast significantly with the throwing arms of the male. The difference is not only evident in sports, but is even seen in the way children carry their books: boys at their sides; girls in front of them with flexed arms. The girls' inclinations to encircle and encompass foretells the future cradling of the nursling close to the heart and breast of an initiation of a bosom friendship.
Now, I am aware that the idea of ‘weaned’ implies a weaning away from the mothers breast but I feel a liberty to see in this the image of a child at its mother’s breast.
PHYSICAL BUSY-NESS
‘I have stilled and quieted myself my soul’ … Whereas the baby has no choice in the matter we have a responsibility to still and quieten our soul … but we find it so hard to rest in God in such a way.
‘Be still and know that I am God’ says the psalmist. First of all there is a physical element in this. We can be so busy – we need to simply sit down and be still – have some time out. We can be so busy as though our lives depended on it.  If we are not busy our lives have can have no meaning. Our identity can be wrapped up in our work which is fine until we retire or are made redundant … but then we soon find things to fill the time … keep our selves busy. We don’t find the idea of ‘stillness in God’s presence’ very appealing. Praying is hard enough but at least it has some purpose! Working for God is sometimes so much easier than resting in Him. Perhaps that is why he has to allow us to get to such a point. We do well to take heed to the saying: “Some desert the saviour and enter his service instead”.
“We have forgotten how to exist – to be – we can only think about being.”
MENTAL BUSY-NESS
But maybe yes we have lost our energies we do get weary  ... the truth is we do spend a lot more time being still physically resting. … but OUR MINDS are so busy … there is so much mental noise. Far from being still in Gods ‘present – ness’ our minds are either reliving the past which is unreal because it is now only an interpretation of the past … or racing ahead into the future … it can be very subtle but I know a person who was so irritated by the person they worked with in the office that even before the workday had begun his predictions based upon past experience almost made it a self fulfilling prophecy. He was living in the past experience which so coloured his present he could see things in no other way until the light dawned and he realised that each day was new in the presence of God and he discovered that things were not bad at all with that person – he had created accumulatively … so our past can so often control our lives that we are no longer living in the present and the love that is contained therein.
SPIRITUAL BUSY-NESS
But perhaps I am being unfair there are those who spend a lot of time in study and in thought about God and Scripture … Still I would say there is room to simply put all that to one side so we can say:  But I have stilled and quieted my soul; like a weaned child with its mother, like a weaned child is my soul within me.”
Remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees “…you diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”(J 5:38) John Wimber after giving a sermon was shaking hands at the door. A lady shook his hand and waved a piece of paper up in the air saying, “I’ve got the notes!”. “Poor lady” thought Wimber,” She ate the menu but missed the meal”. So our academic readings and knowledge of the Bible are no substitute for an intimate resting in God. Reading the Bible is good but it can be so conceptual and fail to take us to the place of intimacy with God. We need to learn to be like a little child again.

Cataphatic Apophatic a healthy mix

Perhaps the distinction between the two is unnecessary but for academic purposes some like myself like the distinction as it relates to prayer. Basically apophatic approaches to prayer are more contemplative including alot of silence and appreciation of God who transcends the limitations of rational thought. Cataphatic is more related to what is called discursive prayer which is verbal and involves rational thought. Because of the over heavy leaning of our western culture towards cleverness and headiness it is natural for a spiritual seeker to gravitate at least at some part of her spiritual life towards the apophatic prayer. however when the dust is settled we realise it is unnecessary to put one against the other but rather to value both as important aspects of prayer. One informs the other. we need to think about the fact that God is bigger than we can imagine. We need to think about who it is we believe in. we need to recognise that worship does include our mind. Conversely we need also to take one step back and in awe and wonder recognise Go's transcendence. After a little excursion away from the Cataphatic I am now seeing its value and have decided to incorporate it (if I had ever really not) into my daily prayer life and not regard it as something inferior. Most 'sensible' people probably do both without realising it. It is only the anal types such as myself who feel the need to make these distinctions!

Maximus the Confessor Apophasis and the Incarnation

I am reading at the moment a book by Andrew Louth on Maximus the Confessor a 6th century Eastern Orthodox Monk. I was interested in a reference to him by Karen Armstrong in her recent book 'The case for God'. As with these things one discovers so much more in the process. However the particular piece of content I have found in the introduction and look forward to more detail in Max's writings themselves. It is basically his use of the term 'apophatic' as it relates to the incarnation.
Apophatic Theology is also known as Negative Theology - basically it is discovering God through negation. So if for instance I said "God is great" I would then say "yes but not great in the way we limited humans could understand it. think of the greatest thing you can ... He is not that ... so Yes He is great but not in the way we can conceptualise it". by negating the concepts we hold in our minds about God we draw closer to His reality through our intuition.
But ... who would have used the incarnation as illustrative of Apophasis? Isn't the fact that Jesus became flesh distinctly cataphatic (Which is the opposite of the apophatic - ie a conceptual tangible approach to the understanding of God)?? Well no according to Maximus.
So God becoming man is a further demonstration of his transesnsational uncontainable unknowableness! How interesting! How breathtaking! The closer God comes to us the more uncontainable He becomes to our rational minds! Another great paradox.
So how does Max come to this?
Well first of all the reason he is looking into this is because he is wrestling with a poem by a Desert Dude called Gregory of Nazianzus who uses the term 'play' for the nature of Jesus Christ ... Is He God or Man? Well says Greg its a kind of paradoxical movement between both Deity and Manhood. Whereas language of apophatic and cataphatic theology is a way of classifying our knowledge of God, for Maximus it is used in relation to the Incarnation. "To ascribe ‘play’ to God is already to embark on apophatic theology, for it is only by denial, Maximus asserts, that play can be ascribed to God."
Max gives the example of the term used by the Apostle Paul 'foolishness of God' (1 Corinthians 1) Here is an example of apophatic theology in that any privation of something which is considered as favourable to man must be apophatic in that it is clearly refering to excess. Foolishness of God is a contradistinction to the wisdom of man which is as good as saying it transcends the human conceptualisation of wisdom.
So back to the incarnation. In the same way Max refers to the word 'play' used by Greg. The act of God becoming man using the term 'play' is apophatic.
Andrew Louth goes on to say that the Incarnation seen from the Divine side (John 1:1) vears towards the apophatic spiritual theological view of the Trinity and from the human side (John 1:14) towards the fleshly cataphatic side ... this reflects a patristic distinction between the theology (Doctrine of the Trinity) and economy (Doctrine of Gods dealings with the world) of God.
So 'play' = dynamic incarnation reality = apophatic
but broken down to the term of God becoming flesh = cataphatic.
but ... in His origin as Word wrt the Trinity = apophatic.
Anyone reading this may be slightly confused but at least it may get you thinking as it has me!

Rob Bell - Resurrection

Resurrection: Rob Bell from The Work of Rob Bell on Vimeo.

Ken Wilber - The Great Search

I read an article on the Integral Life Website which is a portion from a book by Ken Wilber. In it he makes the statement that “The Great Search is the great enemy of what is”. To be searching implies that “you have not got” so to be in a searching mode you never actually arrive. It is only when you stop the search you begin to realise all you need is all you have and all you are. There is no longer any separation – no dualism – just being and connecting with all that there is. “This realization undoes the Great Search that is the heart of the separate-self sense.” This realisation affects our relationship with all that ‘is’ around us: ”… you simply are the mountain, you are the sky, you are the clouds, you are everything that is arising moment to moment, very simply, very clearly, just so.”
This is great stuff and a much needed call to awareness and to the present moment in which we become conscious of our aliveness and the goodness of all that is. It also helps us to come to terms with the pain we suffer as we in the words of Byron Katie ‘Love what is’.
As an addition and further development of these thoughts I would like to consider some words that Jesus is recorded to have said “Seek and you shall find”. In this case it is quite clear that seeking is a favourable thing and certainly not seen to be an enemy. Admittedly Ken uses the word ‘search’ and not ‘seek’ but I do not think this matters. The Greek meaning for this word ‘seek’ is actually in the present-continuous-imperative … literally ‘Seek and keep on seeking’. Sadly our own language does not have such verb distinctions so we often miss it in translation. I believe that a good interpretation of the passage above would be ‘As you keep on seeking you will keep on finding’ or  conversely ‘The moment we stop seeking is the moment we stop finding’ … almost like saying the moment the water stops flowing out the water stops flowing in. It seems in this context the enemy is quite the opposite of seeking. It is FINDING! … because once you have found you have stopped seeking and therefore you no longer are finding … Yo! Well actually to be more precise it is not the finding but the grasping that is the problem ...  finding is perfectly acceptable provided we do not seek to possess what we find for then we have returned to the egoic as our centre. There is a dynamic in Jesus view of God not dissimilar to the concept the Desert Fathers had in their perception of the Trinity in the word perichoresis which means to dance around … one part of the Trinity flows into the other in continuity … a constant movement. Another popular word used is self emptying the Greek word being  “Kenosis” used once by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Philippian Church where he says Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but (Kenosis) emptied himself. So as long as the seeking/ finding dynamic keeps moving all is well but as soon as egoic grasping and spiritual possessiveness kicks in there we have our “enemy”.
So it seems that another dualism is broken by Jesus – that is the dualism of seeking and having by making them dynamically mutually co-existent. Ken Wilber has created a dualism where there does not need to be.
“Should we simply cease the search?” Asks Ken. I would agree and answer” No”, but for a different reason. In Jesus teaching we do not have to. The activity of searching is accommodated for and anticipated by Spirit which pre-empts our searching. The moment of searching is the moment of finding.
Instead of saying the Great Search presumes the loss of God I would say the Finding of God Assumes or even CONsumes the great search.
Ken is left with the meaninglessness of all the effort made through prayer and other disciplines. If God is immediately present any act of seeking is perpetuating the lie that He is not. Eckhart Tolle perpetually makes reference to wasted effort in attempting to attain to that which is already here present in this moment. Ken’s argument is that the only use of such discipline is that it ‘speeds up the folly’ but surely better still not to enter the folly – let’s throw all the millennia of spiritual seeking away as one big collective enemy. However if we take the kenotic view above we find that we don’t have to because the seeking is the finding ... there is no dualism here.