A few scrambled thoughts are floating around in my mind. So, in an attempt to exorcise them, I’ll write some of them down here:
- I don’t know how many people have said to me that they can’t read my blog AND go to my church. The blog upsets them too much. What does that mean? Does it mean that, even though they know from my blog that my thinking is considered unorthodox and that they have major disagreements with me, they’d rather ignore it and hope it goes away? I suspect that they are not really hearing what I’m saying on Sunday morning because I’m not two different people on my blog and in public.
- I agree with Wendell Berry that it is unfortunate for gays and the rest of us that the government has been invited to make a judgment on people’s private sexual behavior. It isn’t the government’s business, so long as the behavior is not abusive to others. The government should support “domestic partnerships” which gives the same legal protections to bachelor brothers or widowed sisters or friends or partners living together as if married. Justice for all is the government’s business (Berry, The Way of Ignorance, p. 145).
- I have this sense that something is upon me. I explained it to Lisa this way: I feel like I’ve come to the end of a very long hallway and have arrived at the end. There is a set of doors, and they are about to be opened into something totally and radically new. I’m not sure if I’m to open it or if they are to be opened for me. I’m waiting for clarity. It doesn’t feel ominous, but full of love, simplicity, beauty and promise. I shall walk through the door when it opens.
- We see things as divided and separate. This is the apparent manifestation. But there is an implied and undivided wholeness to all things and from which all things come. Distinguishing between well-defined parts, such as different kinds of Christianity and even different faiths, is no longer helpful or relevant. Rather, it is love that sees the Oneness from which all things come and to which all things go. The seeming separateness we see and experience is a temporary projection of a deeper, unified reality. It is like signals going through the air, all scrambled and indecipherable. It takes a receiver, such as a television, to unscramble the signal and present a singular and momentous manifestation of the Fullness. We all have different receivers.
David Hayward is an artist trapped in a pastor's body, stripping to the essential.
People that ascribe to #1 seem strange to me – what is it they think goes on in your church?
I am with point #2 all the way.
I think point #3 is a hopeful stance to take in light of uncertainties ahead – which are likely good!
“But there is an implied and undivided wholeness to all things and from which all things come.” (NP)
I am actually blogging with a few people on this topic also – and I hate to say it – but as Christians I think this is from our worldview. I sense that wholeness of all things also – but I am not sure if this is a perspective held outside religious circles?
Societyvs: Actually, David Bohm, a quantum physicist, held this view from a scientific perspective.
#4…There is that place, beyond religion, beyond theology, beyond appearances, where there is only love. There is that place where we can stand and say “Our Father…give us this day our daily bread…” and say it for every human on the planet. At the core of their being, even the most evil person, has love. They just haven’t recognized it yet. If we deal with them at that place, if we say, as the Hindus do, Namaste…I greet you at that place where we both touch God…the manifestation of unity will come.
thank you for your voice: for being an integrated pastor and blogger…for engaging difficult conversation around “justice for all”…for courageously anticipating walking through your door and giving hope to others that our doors too may come…and for inviting others to wholeness. peace to you.
thanks anya. i’m just a normal guy with a computer.
On #2 – Well said.
I find it incredible the insights here at the moment. Where else does wholeness and love feature without a lot of baggage attached.
Reaching and waiting for the doors to open to a new blinding light must be just wonderful. I hope that I can feel as enlightened along my journey.
Its interesting that sitting on a small island in the middle of the pacific ocean, I
really understand what you are getting at. As a busy priest I am so looking for the realness of a church that is just not there. Thank you for your thoughts and being so open to share. Suzanne New Zealand
Suzanne: wanna trade?
Maybe because I’m married to a physicist I tend to see the connection between physics and religion. In #4, you say that there is an unseen wholeness to everything: for years, physicists have been searching for what they call the “unified theory,” one theory that will explain the physical properties of the universe and not break down at the very small or very large levels. They know it’s there, they just haven’t found it yet. I’m sure God knows it – will we ever figure it out? I don’t know.
Susanna: interesting, and i agree.
Susanna: I think it can be “known” at a deeper level, not in thought, per se, but intuited.
Societyvs and Nakedpastor:
Brian Swimme also holds the oneness perspective and he is an agnostic (cosmologist). I think Paul Davies would fit in here as well and I think, but am not sure, that he is an atheist (and a physicist).
Re; #1 I don’t know if this is true of people in your church (actually it would surprise me given what your sermons must be like!) but it seems to me that many people create a false dychotomy between secular and spiritual and between spiritual language and secular language. Spiritual language seems to be very euphanistic and lofty and without much specific content and the language we live our lives by (if we are to be successful at anything be it relationships or vocations) has to be very specific and clear.
I obviously know very little about what goes on in your church but I would think if you are as authentic in church as you are here than how would there be any difference for a person?
hi warren. thanks for commenting. i’m wondering, and this is only a guess, if me saying, in passing during a teaching time, that God loves gays unconditionally, and actually writing it, is the difference. there’s something more permanent and arguable when it is written.
Wait a minute,
Is it just me, or is NP going through some metamorphosis like NEO in The Matrix movies?
Likely less choreography, and a tighter budget around vehicles and things. And a different soundtrack, of course.
I am just wondering…..for those of us who only read your blog and are unable to check out your church…why don’t you have any podcasts or sermons posted on your website so we can see that what you say in your blogs makes sense when we hear how honest you are in your talks?
Im honestly dieing of curiousity to hear what you say on sundays
chris: really, my public teaching is no big deal. i read a portion from the bible, and we discuss it mostly. they aren’t recorded.
Haven’t seen the matrix movies, but heard about them, but probably…its the shift from the mental level to the spiritual where there aren’t any words to describe it so articulating it is difficult if not impossible.
im with chris, id love to hear you speak.
i have been a fan/admirer for some time. I so enjoy your art, your wit, and most times your insight into the idiocy of some of the “thoughts and teachings” of some christian churches.
i know from reading your thoughts and seeing some of your art that most times we are on extremely different ends of the liberal/conservative scale. But “i get it” most times and in agreement.
i do however feel strongly about the comment “different kinds of Christianity”.
isnt there only one? (not counting denominations, unless thats what you meant”) i mean, according to scripture we either are or we aren’t
sigh, either way
you are loved
Brother Frankie
A Biker for Christ..
That can’t be all you do…based on your blogs….your loosing and gaining people…your going through sturggles….people get offended…your having all these thoughts….
that can’t all be hapening just cause you read from the bible….
I wanna hear what your thoughts are and what it is your saying that is creating all this stuff your blogging about….all these changes in your life and church and lives changed and….so many other things you have mentioned.
Just…from reading…the bible…?
chris: like i said, there’s really no big deal. what upsets people is what i DON’T do: such as lead in a particular way, teach with authority, be more charismatic, not setting a higher moral standard, stuff like that… it’s not about what i or we DO as a community. so it’s basically what you see here. i guess you could read back in the posts to get a greater sense, but honestly, there are no surprises, tricks, gimmicks, formulas, or anything of the like.
chris nailed my thoughts…(chris, who are YOU? and what are your thoughts…lol)
#4…a television unscrambles the signal–but there are also a great many channels, different signals, different pictures.
In #4, are you implying a religious pluralism? An “all paths lead to God” approach to inter-religious dialogue? Not criticizing, just wondering.
I don’t subscribe in the “paths to God” idea. from my perspective as a christian, the incarnation and all manifestations of it are one, and all are caught in its current of reconciliation.
what do you mean by “manifestations [of the incarnation]“?
I’m writing at the tail end of many comments, none of which I’ve read, so apologies if it’s been said. . Regarding thought number 1: I go to Rothesay Vineyard precisely BECAUSE you’re the same guy there as you are here, not despite it. I am deeply heartened that I am in fellowship with people who are allowing me to deconstruct myself: laying down the pretend me and just being me. Paradoxically, it’s in allowing myself to deconstruct, at least as I understand it, that I’m becoming more synthesized as a human, all the disparate parts pulling together the more I let go. Weird trip…..so David, for God’s sake or maybe just mine, don’t do anything but real. I can’t go back, and I want to belong somewhere.
kisses on the lips john.
PS How do you find time to do this? I haven’t checked the blog for a bit and I’m astounded.
I’m laughing my ass off here……am I allowed to say ass on your blog?
geez john keep up. ass is the least of our worries. it really doesn’t take much time. i just draw a cartoon in the morning and hammer out a short post in the afternoon. the commentors do the commenting. not me ,)
what do you mean by manifestations of the incarnation?
Jimmy: Sorry to take so long to answer. I’m not sure I can give a satisfactory one in just a short comment. Perhaps I should write a post concerning that. Is it possible that the Inexhaustible Source, in an infinite and continual outpouring, is really in all things, the All in all? And if the bible says that in Christ all things are held together, and in him we have our being, and he is in all things reconciling all things to God… is it possible that in a sense all things are a manifestation and even an incarnation (small “i”) of God? Is it possible that you and I are, in our own fragile ways, reflections of who God is? Is it therefore possible that so was the Buddha? And Mohammed? And Krishna? etc… And is it possible that the man Jesus was a supreme manifestation of who God is? And from our Christian perspective, is it possible that Jesus, as Incarnation, has become for us a lens through which we understand all incarnations, so that we can say, from our perspective, that Jesus was in that, and in that, and in him and her and so on? We say so about the Old Testament, as Luther said, that Christ is writ on every page… the cradle of the Jesus of the New Testament… incarnated already. But now we understand that all incarnations, even ones in this very day, right before our very eyes, are really in the spirit of Jesus. This is how we, from our Christian perspective, understand the world. That’s my short answer.
David…love the short answer…hope you post the long one at some time. Are you familiar with Thomas Troward?He gets into the degrees of livingness…ie degrees of incarnation. Google him…you can download his book “The Creative Process In the Individual” free. Its kind of plowy reading…he wrote late 19th century early 20th…but great insights into how the human mind works.
If mankind is made in the image and likeness of God, don’t we have, at the core of our being, the qualities of God? Not that we ARE God, but that we have those qualities of God in the same way that a cup of seawater has all the qualities of the ocean without being the ocean. Romans 8 says we are joint heirs, with Jesus…Sons of God. And to totally understand that, we need to know that Sons of God is not gender specific, but that in the Oriental thought of the day, the first born son was thought to be a clone of his father…thats why Jesus referred to God as father.All of mankind has the ability to be the Sons of God, if they allow the Spirit of God to renew their minds and to nullify the race consciousness that makes us sons of man.
I think I’d totally dig your church if I had the opportunity to attend regularly. I’m fairly certain my husband would not, however. He likes pomp and circumstance. But I know he’d appreciate your philosophy.
it sounds more like you are talking about revelation than “incarnation”. We are probably just saying the same thing in different ways. In my opinion, the term incarnation implies a pouring out of one ontological being into another, where the “being-ness” of that thing becomes intertwined with the “being-ness” of the other. Jesus, being the example of this, was God’s ontological pouring out into the flesh, thereby enacting the hypostatic union between the two natures of the one person Jesus.
It wasn’t just humanity, or “the flesh”, that was ontologically affected by this mysterious and nearly incomprehensible act, but also God in his very being was affected. The scripture you quoted “in him we move and breathe and have our being” is appropriate for us seeking out a life with God and living it, but only in the case of Jesus Christ does God enter into the flesh and live and move and have HIS being.
Now, when we speak of God being “incarnate” in the “spark of God” that is in all things, I don’t feel that God is ontologically affected by..say, the Buddha.
I appreciate what you are saying, though. We do need to search for God everywhere and in everything. I do feel that God can reveal himself through the teachings of Buddha and Mohammed and Krsna, etc. But to the extent that God is ontologically affected by these great guys and their teaching…well, that’s something else.
So that’s why I would find it more appropriate to say “revelation” than (little ‘i’) “incarnation”….then again I could just be arguing over nothing considering I agree with your idea.
One more thought (sorry if this is long):
I’m not sure the “incarnational” is appropriate when it comes to interreligious dialogue. If we were to say to a Buddhist, “oh hey, that truth that we can both agree on, yeah that’s Jesus”, they would probably be insulted. It is almost like saying that Buddha was a Christian, which is something that Buddhists wouldn’t get behind. It is a good starting point for us to open our minds to truth within other systems of religious belief, but when it comes to dialogue it can come across as…well…arrogant. I wouldn’t feel comfortable or ready to agree, or even willing to enter into dialogue with a Buddhist who told me that “Jesus was actually an incarnation of Buddha.”
Interreligious dialogue shouldn’t be about a blending of both systems. It should be about the sharing of ideas, and a recognition of (and respect for) where differences lie.
I appreciate your thoughts
. How would you respond to my posting here?
I realize Jimmy that there is a huge argument whether or not revelation is other than who he is. Can revelation not be ontological? Is it possible that the kenosis is so total, paradigmatic… that Jesus, let’s say, from our Christian perspective, is the lens through which we understand the kenosis… a kind of historical, momentous ‘freezing’ of the a-historical? Questions.
Jimmy –
This discussion is way over my head and I’m not sure I understand David’s response at all. So I’m probably out of line here. But I had a few thoughts based on your comment to David.
If we are a soul that has a body, as C.S. Lewis said, then isn’t it true that all of us are material incarnations of the immaterial? The difference between us and Jesus is that Jesus, as Christ, fully realized that he was a material manifestation of the immaterial. So did Buddha. But most of us only think of ourselves as human beings having a spiritual experience rather than spiritual beings having a human experience and our behavior is therefore based on the fear of the end of material existence rather than the love that arises from the recognition of an eternal present.
I don’t think of God as a being. I think of God as the Ground of Being. If God is the Ground of Being, then “being into being” doesn’t properly describe the incarnation. The Ground of Being gives rise to Being. Jesus fully realized the Ground of Being and in so doing, embodied Christ, just as Siddhartha Gautama embodied Buddha.
The two are from different traditions and cultures so the symbols, expressions, terminology, etc.) are different., but the stories and teachings are extremely similar. Some Buddhists interpret a prophetic dream that Buddha’s mother had as indication that Buddha’s birth was virginal, too. The virginal birth is a universal symbol of the immaterial joining with the material to create an extraordinary human incarnation. In the case of Christ – one that is fully human yet fully divine. There are similar stories in many of the traditional cultures. It is a very familiar theme within most of the traditional cultures.
Maya conceived within a dream and Mary conceived with the vision of angels. After the birth, heavenly wonders appeared in the sky and sages came to visit both of the newborns. Also, there are books upon books comparing the sayings of Jesus to the sayings of Buddha. The sayings attributed to both are very similar.
arulba: it’s over my head too. i’m exploring, not asserting. and all my explorations are falsifiable. i agree that we cannot say god exists or has being as we know it. god, or whatever you say, is the source or ground. agreed.
haha I think we have fundamental differences in our perceptions of God. That’s ok, though. I don’t agree with a lot of what you guys are saying, but the world isn’t black and white and our beliefs are just more colors on the spectrum…beautiful in their own way. I really am enjoying this dialogue.
That being said, let’s keep talking:
1. In regards to the similarities between Jesus and Buddha’s teachings. Yeah there are a lot of things that are similar, but there are also fundamental differences in their teachings. Also, using the argument that since their teachings and stories about them were similar then they could both be incarnations of God. However, same teaching does not necessitate same being.
2. I do feel that revelation and kenosis are different. The emptying of God into the Son of Man as his only begotten was a special, and unique event. God can enact revelation without effecting himself ontologically in the way that the Incarnation did.
3. “Jesus fully realized the Ground of Being and in so doing, embodied Christ, just as Siddharth Duatama emobdied Budha”. That’s adoptionism, which isn’t incarnation. Jesus as fully-man didn’t “realize” that he was also “fully-God” and suddenly become the Christ. If that was true, then this “realization” could be achieved by any of us. Unity with God is sought through relationship with the unique God-Man Jesus Christ, not through our own intellectual, philosophical pursuits.
4. I agree that God is the source of all things. See? There’s something that we can agree on
5. Back stepping a little bit, finding similarities between Jesus and Buddha’s teachings is an awesome entry point for inter-religious dialogue. But realizing the differences in beliefs, traditions, eschatology, etc…is ALSO essential to inter-religious dialogue. It is only respectful to one another to realize the difference. Saying that we are more similar than we are different, and that Jesus was the same as Buddha…that blends the lines and is less dialogue and more accomodation in the attempt to “get along better”. However, that’s not always going to be the case.
Hi Jimmy – I love the way you put it – that beliefs are all colors on the spectrum and beautiful in their own way. That is SO true and so poetically stated. Thanks for that!!
1. There are huge differences between Buddhism and Christianity. But we have very little direct teaching from either Jesus or Buddha. Most of Buddhism and Christianity have been handed down to us through their followers. Strip everything down to what is actually attributed to Christ and Buddha and they are shockingly similar. True – same teaching doesn’t necessitate same being – but I make a differentiation that I don’t think you are making: Jesus and Siddhartha are different entities. But what it is they embody is the same thing, but understood against the backdrop of different cultures. The Buddhists call it Buddha. The Christians call it Christ. If you think of God as a “being” – then this definitely won’t jive with your understanding. The reason it works for me is because I think of “being” as that which comes into and goes out of existence. God doesn’t do this – so for me He is not an existant Being. He is the Ground of Being. I think of existence as only being relegated to the realm of sensory experience.
2. The conversation about revelation and kenosis is probably way over my head. I think of revelation as ACIM defines it: “God revealing knowledge of Himself through direct, wordless, imageless experience of union with Him (traditionally called the mystical experience).” Knowledge, in this case, is not something that can be learned because learning involves perception (which require words, images, etc.). It is something that can only be remembered. (As in re-”membering” – the unification of all “members”.) Therefore, the Son is all of creation – not just one special individual within it.
2. I had to look up Kenosis and ontological.
Kenosis means self-emptying? That’s a very Buddhist concept. In emptiness is everything. God IS emptiness. I think St. John of the Cross would likely agree with this – he provides a whole psychological method for the acceptance of emptiness. It looks like the “pouring out” symbology is primarily Protestant? I think I probably hold a more Eastern Orthodox view of Kenosis according to Wikipedia. 
I guess, from my perspective, Kenosis and revelation are different, but they are also intricately connected and do not occur within the realm of perception or space/time.
I don’t really understand the rest of your comment. Ontology is the study of existence, being, etc.? Since I don’t think of God as a being, then I guess I’d have to agree that God can enact revelation without effecting himself ontologically. But I don’t really know what it is I am agreeing with. I’m not really sure what we are discussing when we are discussing Incarnation, either. I think of Incarnation in terms of something out of nothing – that which gives rise to the perceptible realm. It affects an aspect of God ontologically – but not God.
3. I think the realization can be achieved by any of us. We are all One in Christ and therefore the entirety of God’s creation is the Son of God. I totally agree that Unity with God cannot be achieved through intellectual, philosophical pursuits. It requires self-sacrifice and emptiness (the transcendence of the ego.)
4. Yay!!
5. I agree. It is important to recognize the difference. And I’m not saying Jesus was the same as Buddha. (Some people think Jesus and Siddhartha were the same person and that the teachings simply evolved differently in different regions. I don’t agree. I think Jesus and Siddhartha were two completely different people who lived about 500 years apart.) But I do think Christ and Buddha are metaphors for the same experience. I can go on and on and on about why I think this is. Most Buddhists do not have a problem with this. Many Christian’s don’t, either – especially within the more mystical traditions. I don’t think this blends the lines at all. The cultural differences remain cultural differences and must be respected. But my Christian beliefs did not come from Buddhism. They came out of a very solid foundation in Christianity and it is from a deep exploration into the Christian that I came to recognize the similarities. Not the other way around.
I mean – I don’t believe in reincarnation – but that doesn’t make me any less respectful of Buddhism – especially when I take the time to fully engage in a dialogue of what is meant by reincarnation. I once attended an amazing ecumenical effort between Jews and Muslims. What was fascinating was that both sides came together by slamming Christianity. It made me uncomfortable, but it also made me dig into my Christian understanding more deeply. It had to do with a discussion of Sabbath – a way of looking at it that I had never previously considered until I had the good fortune to sit in on a passionate argument taking place between two cultures with which I was unfamiliar. The similarities are very real. We aren’t all talking about something different. We just talk about it in totally different ways.