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!