Brother Banter (w Chris) - Letter and Responses

Dear Brother,

THANK YOU for your considered response. It really helps me to process my own words when I have someone as articulate as you to give feedback. My responses in red.

That's quite an essay, Eric.  Very well written and well considered.   I think you make some very valid points and the ones about physical suffering bringing us closer to real change must be true.  Experience bears it out.  Your analogy of the currents and surface storms is especially compelling and excellently written in my poor opinion.  It really brought the point home and rings true.  

However, (as you might guess) I see some flaws in the premise.  

First of all, you talk about changes, sins, personal demons, ills, whatever- things a person wants or needs to change about himself.   However, without a personal God and his "dogma" those changes really only amount to personal preference. Things that an individual or society find inconvenient, counterproductive, embarrassing, etc.   If there is no personal God with commandments and a definition of what is right and what is wrong, then the only change that is required is change that will make the individual or the group more comfortable. I disagree with this premise, and – respectfully – it is common among religious people. I submit that many of the people doing fundamental work on themselves are almost entirely outside of organized religion. The Creator I have come to know takes us all where we are and allows us to do our work – all of it – without necessarily requiring us to name his or her attributes in a dogmatic fashion. Frankly, it’s impossible to do so. Again, the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. On the other hand, in typical Eastern paradoxical fashion, we are to KNOW GOD. Maybe it’s the distinction of KNOWING GOD vs. knowing ABOUT God. The latter can prevent the former. I think in most instances, it does. A man thinks he knows God, can name his (his?) attributes? Can quote chapter and verse? I submit that this person is stuck in his mind and needs to move to his heart, to a place beyond concepts and words. In my experience, mind knowledge and heart knowledge about God are usually mutually exclusive.  If there is a personal God, surely He has a proscription for the types of changes He requires and the methods that will most effectively bring them about.  Agreed to an extent, but these changes and even requirements are different for everyone, since mortal experience is different for everyone. This is a really hard concept to grasp and can seem like a way to justify whatever feels good to the person. But I’m here to tell you, that is not how it is to someone who is serious about their walk. Things such as personal integrity and honesty seem to be what Creator universally “requires”. I see exceptions to most of the other traditional “commandments”, depending on many factors – none of which include, “this is what I wanna do, so this is what God wants me to do”. The earth or any other number of ethereal, universal but impersonal the earth is NOT impersonal. Far from it. Most Bible believers seem stuck in “Earth as enemy” / Genesis mode. It is a Urim and Thummim, an oracle as personal as a mother is to a child. It is dogma that keeps people from seeing the Earth in a healthy manner. To illustrate a little of this concept, consider the phrase, “noxious weeds to afflict and torment man”. When is a weed ever noxious by its nature? I get into stinging nettles often, and seem afflicted for 12 hours. But they are also effective pain killers and full of vitamins when prepared properly. They are teachers with an intelligence. Creator didn’t make ANYTHING strictly noxious powers, do not have the mind or authority to require specific behavior “required, specific behavior” again appears to be a man-made construct within the parameters of religion. Even the Bible has instances where mass murder and incest are somehow approved, doesn’t it? Lot and his daughters and Saul’s commandment to wipe out every man, woman, child, goat, camel, etc. among the Ammonites might be examples of this?, and so your suggestion that we need to suffer for real change to take place is really just an observation of how you have witnessed (and experience bears out) change actually taking place actually it’s science that bears this out, not just my observations. Of course, scientific results can be suspect.  Any addict will testify of hitting rock bottom before getting serious about change.  However, you seem to be reverse engineering a recipe for change and linking it to spiritual enlightenment that is not necessarily supported. Hitting rock bottom outside of ceremony has, in my experience again, limited use. Most of the people I am in currently in ceremony with are recovering addicts and most hit bottom several times before finding relevant ceremonial ordeal. Every one of them that has stayed clean in this community will tell you that it is the ceremony that has kept them clean. Here’s why: until you get to the REASONS why you are addicted, you can’t truly recover. This is true of sexual immorality, drug abuse, over eating, rage… anything that keeps us from Spirit. It’s not about “acting right”, it’s about healing. After that, right action – whatever that means in a situation – is automatic.  

Of particular concern is that your prescription for change, while obviously congruent with indigenous beliefs, actually opposes rather than mirrors the doctrines of Christianity not all the doctrines of Christianity are congruent with Christ or are worthy of the veneration they are given or necessarily particularly useful to one’s relationship with Jesus, in my opinion. HOWEVER, nor are they necessarily harmful to ones walk, other than keeping a lid on what can be learned because they are unteachable since they already “know”. As in Avatar, the movie, where the shaman speaks to Sully – “it is hard to fill a cup that is already full” which teaches that the Son of God came to earth specifically to rescue mankind from having to submit oneself to physical torture in order to either be absolved of sin, to change or to be acceptable in His presence.  Of course, His purpose was not to save mankind from all manner of suffering, but that physical suffering is not to be sought out and is not required for change, rebirth, forgiveness.  Spiritual suffering, sure, and incidental physical suffering (I'm sure the hike up Sinai was no cakewalk, I'm sure Enos was pooped after praying for a day and a night), but the reason Christ came was in point of fact to do away with intentional physical suffering as a means of communion with God. My point is not that the physical suffering itself saves the aspirant within ceremonial ordeal. Rather, the physical suffering places that person into a place of humility and dependence and hence connection that is otherwise merely conceptual. I’ve been both places, brother. I’m telling you that this is how it is. As heavily and deeply as I felt certain concepts within the Church – and even the Spirit – there is nothing like the transformation that can come during these ceremonies. To require it, to even seek it out, is to deny the Infinite and Eternal Atonement and the pathway that the Son of God Himself made efficacious.  To minimize what He saved us from by attempting to suffer for your own - spiritual enlightenment, sins, change - whatever is not congruent with Christianity at all, but a refutation of the news that is so Good it is hard for all us sinners to hope in - that we don't have to suffer because of Him.  By HIS stripes we are healed, not our own. My scars don’t heal me. The process of getting them put me in a place to be healed.

Of course, it is all a matter of degrees.  A once a month fast is certainly a physical discomfort.  As is early morning seminary.  But following your logic, would not the self-immolation of the Tibetan Monks be the highest and holiest form of worship? I can’t judge their sacrifice, but if it was indeed a spiritual one (not to be dismissive, but it is arguable as it took place as a form of political protest), it was for them to perform, not those of their spiritual order. Again, this may have been something they needed to do for their own souls, to fulfill karmic obligation (outside your belief system I think) or for some other reason for them alone.  Is not the even greater pain and greater deprivation to be sought after until the final submission?  And here we come full circle (well, the bottom part of the circle) where worship of the Creator of Life starts to look a lot like worship of the creator of death. No one is saying that there are not greater physical sacrifices that could be borne. I’m just saying that these work, and that they can cross religious boundaries into a more mysical, holistic insight and understanding that can be useful, no matter the religion.

         
Secondly, in the example of the LDS faith, actual levels of activity in the church were proportionately lower in the early days than they are now according to the Presidency of the Seventy that came to Kirk's stake a few months ago. Their examples of faith are so compelling that it seems that that cannot be true, but statistically, the degree of activity in the church is actually 20% higher now than it was in the late 1800's. I find that hard to believe. How does one define “activity levels”, anyway? Not to be too cynical, but is that with or without the antidepressants? Does it take into account the plethora of temples and Church buildings, not to mention roads and cars used to get to meetings? “Activity levels” are a corporate look at the health of the human soul – and that doesn’t work because one can be “active” and still weak as water. What I said was “the Church was collectively at its most dedicated when… “.  I was referring to core spirituality, which is what I am interested in; one’s ability to see from the heart. This has a dubious connection to Church activity. 

Thirdly,  I don't know what to make of your claim to know Christ better now than ever,.  As far as I understand, you don't acknowledge that He is the Son of God or rely on His atoning sacrifice for a remission of your sins. I don’t feel I need a mental understanding of those things to know him. I know that is almost incomprehensible. However, if that is someones understanding, what I am presenting here does not conflict with it. Perhaps you feel you can identify with some of what He went through because you too have suffered physically? Certainly there is some of that, and what there is, is priceless to me and I look forward to more If that is what you mean, you may well be right, I can't imagine.  I haven't suffered like that and the few times I have really suffered physically, I too have thought much of Christ and what He went through and was more grateful for it and more in awe of it especially that He did it willingly and, rather than to increase His own enlightenment, did it to cast a rope to all others. Agreed that this may be the way it is, but strenuously disagree that a mental understanding of this is important to know him! No one can comprehend what it means to be a God, therefore an “understanding” of God in one’s mind is useless. Utterly selflessly.  But if you think that that is the crux of Christ, while you can deny the veracity of His testimony - that He only came to effectuate the Atonement and to lead us all back to the Father, that He was and is the Creator, the Savior and the Son of God - well, then I have to wonder what in the heck you were doing in church, in your personal testimony and in the temple all those years, brother! I’ve learned a lot since I’ve left. To identify with the life of Christ is certainly good, but He was just another deluded megalomaniac if He was not the Son of God. That depends on how you feel about the dogma around him. I think much of it is made up, myself. Like I said before, Christ and Christianity are not necessarily congruent. Again, as you have experienced in your own walk, you can’t know him by merely knowing facts about him. I say that the most helpful thing is to let go what you think you know – that which is outside of your own personal experience, and then some – and see what stays as you experience ceremonial ordeal. I think that much of what he taught could have been said about any of us (“…have I not said, ye are gods and all of ye are children of the most high?). But that’s my own opinion at the moment. Again, whether he was the son of a virgin with The Father his literal father is entirely unimportant to me. If it is to you, I accept that. I simply see it as irrelevant, but adopting my view is not necessary to do what I am suggesting.  A peaceful revolutionary, sure, but there have been a lot of those.  But perhaps this is not what you mean.  Perhaps you are signifying that your testimony of Him is on the rebound.  That you are opening to the possibility that He was and is who He said He was. I think we know a lot less about this than you think If that is the case, I couldn't welcome and encourage you more heartily and warmly!   And if you do make it back to your faith in Christ, I have no doubt that you will do so with eyes wide open and with a better understanding than ever.  Perhaps than any of us.

Fourth - I am not sure what to think about your suggestion that Christians go on a vision quest.  I am not sure that something like that is not a good idea.  I, for one, am not threatened in the least by it and think that some real good might come to some at least from that type of intensified focus on their relationship with God.  I kind of like the idea myself, though I'd not be interested in doing it under the guidance of a spiritual leader I didn't have faith in. Why? You are protected spiritually and he would only be your spiritual “leader” in this context. Your real spiritual leader is still within the Church and within your relationship with Spirit, yet – in my opinion – much stands to be gained.  

And lastly.  In the end, as C.S. Lewis always said, the proof is in the pudding.  If your experience helps you to overcome weaknesses in your life, if it makes you a better husband and father, if it has a net positive effect, then what can anyone say against it?  If however, like the flurry of religious activity you describe that is so common to us all - it results in no appreciable change in you apart from more "spiritual" feelings or more insight into yourself, by your own definition, you need to keep looking ;)  Or stop looking and start remembering. I am not describing a narcissistic look into oneself for the sake of it, but rather to see our reasons behind our egoic desires, to heal them, to merge within this place and plane with the Will of Creator, to see beyond our neediness and fears.  

Thanks so much for sharing.  You really are an excellent writer and I think you could find a very receptive audience to your essay.  I will continue to think more about it.
I love you, big bro.
Chris 
FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS
For this idea I am presenting to be valid, the following has to be true:

1.      People – particularly religious people - feel stuck in a revolving door of desire to do better, early resolve to implement a plan, some success in implementing the plan followed by falloff and a return to square 1.1 or so;

2.      People see a need for a semi-regular kick start that is outside the parameters of their current spiritual regimen;

3.      A belief system that allows that helpful spiritual truth may exist outside the realm of their current religious dogma, and that it can be safely accessed outside it / shamanically (this is a big one and will take most religious people out of consideration);

4.      A willingness to dedicate oneself to the process of the ceremonial ordeal and to see the metaphor that courses through all of it