Parousia publication discussion

[Barry]

Parousia is a free Transmillennial® publication of Presence.
If you do not receive this publication from Presence, just contact them.

This thread is for the discussion of these short but insightful articles.
Barry

[Amie]

This is one of my favorite of "Parousia" so far:



How New is New?


Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.” --Revelation 21:5


You’ve read the Genesis story. God commands. Humanity breaks the command. Later God multiplies the command tenfold, and the command is violated tenfold. In the words of the folk-rock band Guadalcanal Diary, “Ten laws to break. Ten laws broken. My, how we’ve grown.”


In time, a renewal movement emerged. Its proponents affirmed the goodness of initial laws, but they proposed that the laws needed to be built upon in order to prevent people from breaking them. Brilliant scholars designed hundreds of new rules to protect the fundamental ones. These supplementary guidelines foreshadowed the law-and-order deputy of Mayberry, Barney Fife, who famously proclaimed, “Rule number one: obey all rules.”


It seemed like a good idea at the time, but the proliferation of regulations didn’t usher in renewal; rather, they only highlighted the problem inherent in rules. They are by nature divisive (rule-keepers and rule-breakers), capricious (rule x doesn’t apply to me, but it always applies to you), and powerless to create transcendence (the best you can hope for is not to break the rules).


Eventually, a man came along and broke all the rules. He taught that the commands—regardless of how good they might be—aren’t good enough. They present the illusion of freedom, while bringing bondage. To transform the command-based economy once for all he died to the world that idolized orders, reveled in limitations, and settled for separation.


Afterward, people began following this man, and controversies arose concerning the rules necessary to participate in the new creative movement. Must one convert from or to a certain religion? What foods are people allowed to consume, and what are they prohibited from eating? Who is excluded from eating at the same table? What ethnic boundaries must be maintained? Must one undergo a surgical procedure? What specific teachings must be accepted, and what must be rejected?


One man stirred by the fresh possibilities drew inspiration from the ancient prophetic vision of a new created order. He wrote, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, all things have become new. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them.”


Newness of the spirit replaced the oldness of the letter. Open-systems supplanted the closed. Freedom liberated all from bondage. Yet, to many people this news sounded too good. “What if someone takes advantage of freedom? People might exploit grace for their own purposes. We have to be sure that folks go through the right steps to access the largess of God. If grace supersedes law, how can we prevent people from doing anything they want?” Fearing freedom, these anxious objectors invented their own rules. Well-intentioned councils convened in order to fashion new commandments that would replace the old ones.


Throughout the ensuing centuries people debated the new rules, reformed the new rules, and drafted even newer rules. All the while, they rarely challenged the underlying belief: God is best served by the keeping of commands.


The newness God created through Christ is a qualitative newness—not the newness of a parliament composing legislation to replace outdated laws. It is a substantial newness that transforms the entire enterprise, raising humanity to a higher order of relationship and action—one that transcends the binary operation of obey/disobey. (Humanity is not a computer, and God is not a programmer.) “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace."


Substituting law-keeping (of any type) may seem safer than embracing the divine likeness of love. With law, you know where the boundaries are. With Love, there are no boundaries because Love unfolds eternally. Law can ask, “Who is my neighbor?” with the intent of delimiting the boarders of compassion. Love looks with the eye of the spirit and sees nothing but neighbors. The New Creation of God is entirely new, from the inside out. It is new in both form and essence, not simply in doctrinal formulation and religious observance. If the old was about command, the new is about Love.


Henry David Thoreau recognized our self-deceptive praxis of opting for the letter over the spirit. “We are apt to speak vaguely sometimes, as if a divine life were to be grafted on to or built over this present as a suitable foundation. This might do if we could build over our old life…No new life occupies old bodies…Men very pathetically inform the old, accept and wear it. Why put up with the almshouse when you may go to heaven?”


If God has made and continues to make all things new, then nothing is excluded. A new world emerges from new lives seeing a new world through a new lens embodied in a new being engaging in new practices. Merely substituting one command for another is nothing new. God’s newness is newer than that, and our internalization of God’s newness makes all things new in our lives and world in ever-abounding newness.


Instead of approaching life with a right/wrong mentality, ask yourself: “How can I see this situation anew? What can I do to make my life, family, workplace, and community new? What act of creativity can breathe new life and love into the people in my world? How might God’s newness utterly transform me?” Transposing one command for another is settling for the almshouse. But when you bring love, you will find yourself in the transcendent newness of heaven'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parousia is a free Transmillennial® publication of Presence. To receive Parousia in your inbox, email parousia@presence.tv. To dialogue about Transformational Living visit the Presence Forums. ©2007, Presence International, www.presence.tv. Presence International is a tax-deductible 501 (c) (3) organization. Transmillennial® is a registered trademark of Presence International. Please support presence by surfing the internet at www.goodsearch.com. Presence International: Making All Things New.

[Amie]

A beautiful quote from today's Parousia, written by Kevin Beck:

For me, I will see God in every act of love, every generous deed, every kind word. I will open my heart to the poor and the lonely and the sick—and when I do I will sense the presence of God. I will look through the facade of ethnicity, gender, political persuasion, and even religion to see individuals bearing the divine likeness. I subscribe to the dream of Mother Teresa “that before they die all people will know they are loved.” I will embrace an atheism that celebrates, “god is dead. Long live God. Long live Love.”

[Barry]

This one touched me! I took the liberty of putting in bold a point that really hit home.
Barry


Cut Out The Tag

By law, most nations require clothing to contain a tag sewn inside the garment verifying the size, type of materials used to create the outfit, the country in which the piece of clothing was manufactured, and care instructions. However, the itchy feeling of a tag rubbing against the back of your neck can cause ceaseless annoyance.

I'm acutely aware of this because my daughter despises tags. They irritate her, so she insists on cutting out the tag of any shirt she wears. At this point, all of her clothing is tagless.

Tagging and its burdensome nuisance occur not only in the clothing business but also in daily life. Almost everything and everyone comes with a tag. "This is a good cup of coffee. She is a smart kid. That was a horrible movie. He's a great salesman. They have a wonderful marriage."

Curiously, religions are not immune from tagging people. "You are a filthy sinner. She is a selfless servant. He is an ineffective preacher. She is a worker of iniquity. They are an unevangelized people group."

Tags seemingly provide a shorthand way of determining worth thereby allowing decision making to become easier. Tags carry moral weight, either affirming or negating the tagged item. If your neighbor is a "bad person," you can ignore the complexities of their life and dismiss them as irrelevant. If it's Friday, you can thank God, but you must sulk if it's a blue Monday.

Sometimes well-meaning parents, friends, or teachers sew tags onto our back, and we spend our entire lives defining ourselves by that tag. In his youth, my friend Luke was labeled by his parents and little league coaches as a gifted athlete. They enrolled him in various sports, and he always excelled. After receiving glowing accolades, he grew to identify himself and his worth as a person in terms of his tag: superior athlete. However, once he reached college age, he met others with greater size and skill. His hopes for a professional career withered, but his tagging as an athlete remained. To this day, my friend loves sports (as do I), but with his athletic days behind him, the persistent label pesters his life as he continually wrestles with the disappointment and regret of not living up to his tag.

Many of us spend years obsessed with, proud of, or disturbed by tags. While others may attach them to us, we regularly stitch them onto ourselves. We look in the mirror and see a failure, a hard worker, an addict, a bad mother, or a backslidden believer. Tagging, though, depersonalizes individuals and generalizes situations. Instead of tagging and being tagged, you can cut out the tag in three ways.

First, you can't control whether or not someone attempts to tag you, but you can refuse to accept it -- just like Jesus. When called, "Good Teacher," he replied "Why do you call me good?" He would not be defined by others' expectations or assumptions. Be aware that your identity is not determined by a tag given by a parent, grandparent, or any other authority figure. Your identity is grounded in the likeness of the God who is love.

Second, cut out the tags you label others with. Don't inscribe the people and events in your life with capriciously definitions. Instead, accept people and events for their intrinsic value. You simply don't have enough information to adequately judge others. Besides the person you are judging today is someone who will evolve over time. The immediate situation is not the final word.

Third, cut out the tags you've sewn onto your own life. You are more than a shorthand label. Your nuances, complexities, intricacies cannot reduce you to a single description. You are an ever-unfolding amalgam of emotions, ideas, and experiences. Consider David. Was he a shepherd, fugitive, musician, poet, king, rapist, murderer, or ancestor of Jesus? Condensing him (or yourself) to any one caricature diminishes the richness of life.

Participating in the mystery and fullness of the moment without arbitrarily tagging it will allow you to revel in the perfection that is -- the perfection of God's immanent presence in the eternal now. Cut out the tags, and immerse yourself in the depth and vibrancy of what is.

[Barry]

I'm going to tag this (Cut Out The Tag) [LOL ROFL], as possibly the most important topics of discussion, as pertains to personal transformation, inter-human relations, and peace between the ears.

Any thoughts?
Barry

[Barry]

Tags carry moral weight, either affirming or negating the tagged item. If your neighbor is a "bad person," you can ignore the complexities of their life and dismiss them as irrelevant. If it's Friday, you can thank God, but you must sulk if it's a blue Monday.

Sometimes well-meaning parents, friends, or teachers sew tags onto our back, and we spend our entire lives defining ourselves by that tag.

Of course the bolding in the quote was my own emphasis.

Kevin IMHO does a very nice job of introducing the subject that I would have called "self defining".
It is the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
It perhaps broadens into a larger point of our own "life defining".
Moral judgment is passed on self by self (and others and through others) and moral judgment is passed on life by one's self.
So then it would seem to me that what would constitute a "good world" for me to live in would thus remain distant and unobtainable.

Just a thought or two.
And this little writing does provoke many more thoughts.
Thoughts on how to move a little closer to "inner peace".
Thoughts on how to disassemble those walls that are put up between one's self and others around us.

Some questions too.
Like: Can we capable of having an opinion or a perspective about someone or some thing without traversing the knowledge of good and evil to do it?
Any ideas are welcome.
Barry

[Amie]

Like: Can we capable of having an opinion or a perspective about someone or some thing without traversing the knowledge of good and evil to do it?

I think that maybe interacting with reality without drawing conclusions would take practice and awareness. I hope that it will become natural for humanity with practice.

You?

Amie

[kevinbeck]

Of course the bolding in the quote was my own emphasis. Can we capable of having an opinion or a perspective about someone or some thing without traversing the knowledge of good and evil to do it?
Any ideas are welcome.
Barry

Barry,
That's a "good" question. :)

My first response is, "I don't know." I want to say "yes", but I wonder if that "background music" pf good/evil is always playing even if we're unaware of it. I'm more convinced that the cultivation of mindfulness is a helpful approach to transcending good/evil dichotomies.

One of my favorite ideas (coined by Ken Wilber) is "transcend and include." So in this case, that might involve hearing that background music while consciously finding ways to interact with it/rise above it to create new patterns of thinking and behaving.

Kevin

[Barry]

Hi Kevin, and Amie and all.
Just some thoughts which touch on both Kevin's and Amie's last posts:

My (developing) approach for some time has been one of "ethical decisions" as a opposed to "moral judgments".

This terminology can surly have its pitfalls as well. "Oh you are unethical and I am more ethical than you!"

Thinking over the initial garden of Eden situation, it seems that Adam had responsibilities to attend to which he seemed to carry out on some level. IE, He was not a small innocent child in that sense.
Tending the garden, naming the animals, husband, and so on. [Even with symbolism in these areas the intent of the "story" or "depiction" is still present imho.]

And yet there is something that he did not do until he eat from that forbidden fruit [that brought death]!


I'm more convinced that the cultivation of mindfulness is a helpful approach to transcending good/evil dichotomies.

Interesting approach [IE "mindfulness"]. Are we grasping for the same thing? [Perhaps, perhaps not quite]
If the term ethics can be used, can we distinguish this from some typical modern usages? Can we say mindful of the reality of our relationship our oneness, our interconnectedness? Mindful of love. And so ethical decisions in view of that mindfulness.

Does mindfulness replace ethics or is it that ethics just becomes the natural outcome of mindfulness? Or have I used mindfulness in a way that you were not intending?

Is it possible to have "rules" that relate to situations without such "rules" being used as stones for a temple made with hands? And allow rules to develop and evolve and be dissolved when needed as we grow.
[Example in the changeover of the ages: Man was not made for the Sabbath but Sabbath for Man.]

Personal note:
In any case, personally speaking, I'm absolutely delighted in this topic of study and discussion. It has imho perhaps the most liberating potential I've seen anywhere thus far.

Barry

[kevinbeck]

Barry,
Someone sent me this little snipet in an email just this morning, and I though it was relevant to the conversation.

"What does it mean to be mindful? It means to be fully aware right here, concentrating on what is going on inside. . . . Mindfulness is not necessarily concentrating on an object. Being aware of confusion is also being mindful. If we have all kind of things coming at our senses -- noises, people demanding this and that -- we cannot concentrate on any one of them for very long. But we can be aware of the confusion, or the excitement, or the impingement; we can be aware of the reactions in our own minds. That is what we call being mindful."

--Ajahn Sumedho, in Teachings of a Buddhist Monk from Everyday Mind, edited by Jean Smith.


Being mindful (or aware) does not require the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is simply being witness to what is. That, of course, does not necessarily mean being passive. One can witness while engaging in social, organizational, or personal change. In fact, just witnessing any event changes it without any judgment at all.

Blessings,
Kevin

[Barry]

Being mindful (or aware) does not require the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is simply being witness to what is. That, of course, does not necessarily mean being passive. One can witness while engaging in social, organizational, or personal change. In fact, just witnessing any event changes it without any judgment at all.

Blessings,
Kevin

This is most certainly a vast subject.
One connecting topic comes to mind:

The initial observations for such an approach to life would be the potential for a real reduction of fear and worry.
It seems to me that much of our fear and worry relates to the emotions that are created when we pass judgement upon life.
This approach then seems to offer the possibility for a more even minded response to many situations that life presents us with.
[The tip of the iceberg for sure]
Barry

[Amie]

Defining yourself via an "adjective" is a choice. We can choose to call ourselves what we wish and not limit ourselves to or by it in any way. I was born with red hair. You could accurately describe me as a "red head" (though it's more brownish nowadays). I could defined myself via that adjective, "red heads are..", or I could realize my individuality without having to rid myself of an adjective that is accurate. To define myself by an adjective is to attach a "tag", is it not?

I think if that be the case, that "tags" could hinder growth and relationship. I think it important too, not to confuse an adjective and a tag.

Tags can be transcended as well, which removes their ability to hinder.

Awareness is to be conscious of - mentally awakened to what is. Mindfulness though, is to attend to, or give care and attention to what is.

I am missing the distinction between "ethics" and "morality". Do we have to determine right/wrong good/bad to know that something is harmful? It would be societally important to validate the experiences and emotions of one another ("mindfulness") when we are made aware of them ("awareness") so we are not blind to such harm.

We don't judge fire when it burns us. "Ouch! BAD fire!" (Although I've been known to yell at the "stupid chair" that I just stubbed my toe on, lol!)

If another person harms us, we can make them aware and they choose how to act on that awareness.

If they choose to continue, then we choose what boundaries need to be in place, if any. There are personal boundaries ("me"), and societal boundaries ("us").

How do we respond to standing up and bumping our heads on a shelf above us when the shelf doesn't move? How do we respond when a dog bites us and is pursuing us to repeat that action? Decissions about boundaries are circumstantial.

Just some thoughts..

Amie

[kevinbeck]

Do we have to determine right/wrong good/bad to know that something is harmful? It would be societally important to validate the experiences and emotions of one another ("mindfulness") when we are made aware of them ("awareness") so we are not blind to such harm.

We don't judge fire when it burns us. "Ouch! BAD fire!" (Although I've been known to yell at the "stupid chair" that I just stubbed my toe on, lol!)

If another person harms us, we can make them aware and they choose how to act on that awareness.

If they choose to continue, then we choose what boundaries need to be in place, if any. There are personal boundaries ("me"), and societal boundaries ("us").


Amie,
You make a great observation on the fine differentiation between awareness and mindfulness. I read something yesterday that described mindfulness like this. If you see a child in street with a car approaching, you make an effort to save the child. That's mindfulness. Awareness can simply watch the child get hit and not feel any grief or sorrow.

So, this does raise the thorny issues of ethics and morality. At the risk of sounding wishy-washy, I think that as a general rule, ethic/morality are always contextual. That is not to suggest that they are always healthy/unhealthy/helpful/unhelpful/etc. Every society/community has an evolving ethical code. And they all differ.

Jesus violated the code of ethics/morality by touching lepers, befriending 'unclean' women, eating with tax collectors, and violating the Sabbath. Yet, in what philosophers like Slavoj Zizek and Giorgio Agamben call "the exception", we find the possibility of a new way. (I like the word/idea 'way.') This, then, raises the paradoxical questions: "Is it unethical to act ethical? Is it ethical to act unethical?" The answer (depending n how one views ethics/morality) is apparently "yes."

How one determines that way (course of action) is essential. Did Jesus (for example) break the rules of ethics for selfish reasons, or was he motivated by love and compassion?

This is a huge issue today, especially when it comes to questions like terrorism and torture. The "exception" would seemingly "allow" people to fly planes into buildings and for sovereigns to torture people to extract information. And one could justify both by "love." (This is why framing the world in terms of "war" is so dangerous...becuase it creates a context in which the exception is socially acceptable and even desirable). When (as Agamben puts it) "the emergency become the rule" we've opened ourselves to continual tyranny. Or the flip side is when we open ourselves to "the emergency becoming the rule", we might find the way to peacefully overthrow tyranny (a la Martin Luther King, Jr).

That's a lot of rambling, but it (at least for me) gets us to "love your neighbor as yourself." And that raises a host of questions too. But at minimum, it calls for us (as actors) to take into consideration the thoughts, wishes, desires, well-being of others -- which gets us back to mindfulness.

Kevin

[Barry]

Divine Integration

"Now when all things are made subject to him, then the son himself will be subject to him who put all things under him that God may be all in all." -1Corinthians 15:28

We live in a world saturated with differences. Gender differences.Political differences. Nationality differences. Religious differences. Economic differences. Sexual differences. Differences in taste of food, music, and art. Differences in hair color, skin color, eye color. Tomorrow is different from today, which is different from yesterday.

Difference demonstrates distance by fostering a sense of otherness, and this otherness produces two effects. First, difference highlights individuality by separating every this from every that. Our differences make each individual absolutely unique, inimitably special. You are you, and there is only one you. Each moment holds distinctive value never to undergo replication. Everything is idiosyncratically its own.

Second, otherness can result in feelings of isolation. Realizing that you are unmatched may cause an existential crisis packed with loneliness and frustration. How can anyone possibly appreciate you and what you are going through if there is one and only you? The pressure of difference can feel overwhelming.

The situation becomes more complex when we bring God into the mix. God, it would appear, is totally "other" than us. God resides far beyond our comprehension, which in an ironic turn might mean that we are beyond his. Otherness works in both directions. Martin Buber describes the inherent differences between humanity and God in terms of a basic word pair that he calls "I-You."

Is it possible to bridge the gap between I and You, between Me and what is not-Me, between human and divine? Maybe we can imagine ways of making connections between our person-to-person relationships. Through conversations and dialogue, we can hear empathy, sense understanding, and recognize likeness. However when it comes to God, mutual comprehension might be too much to expect. God, it would appear, is always totally other, remote, dwelling in inapproachable light. Yet, perhaps our capacity to comprehend our human likeness-while-remaining-distinct with one another provides a window in appreciating the divine-human union.

The testimony of the Biblical witness regularly asserts difference between God and humanity. The Psalm wonders, "What is man that you are mindful of him? You have made him a little lower than elohim and crowned him with glory and honor." Although the Psalm affirms a difference,-a little lower, not much, just a little lower than God-this is not the final word.

Throughout the New Testament, we see declarations intimating that God through Christ was closing the distance. Nonetheless, humanity and God wouldn't collapse into an undifferentiated identification of one with the other. Instead, the new union would result in a fresh integration-one that would recognize difference while transcending it at the same time.

In the Revelation, John portrays the consummated integration by employing and modifying imagery drawn from the ancient Hebrew tradition. "Behold! The tabernacle of God is with men, and God himself shall dwell with them and he will be their God and they shall be his people" (Revelation 21:3). A difference remains (God and humanity), but the difference does not amount to distance as it did when characterized by the tabernacle of flesh.

The high priest after the order of Melchizedek has entered into the most holy place, having obtained eternal redemption thereby creating a new and living way through which we have access to God. Subsequently, God is not roped off from humanity. Instead, God dwells with all of us.

The apostle Paul described the kosmic, world-changing transformation that was occurring in his day. He anticipated the consummation of the kingdom of God through the process of death and resurrection of the body of Christ -- the firstfruits ekklesia (church) in conjunction with Jesus at the head. At the zenith, the perfected integration of God with us would be complete. "Now when all things are made subject to him, then the son himself will be subject to him who put all things under him that God may be all in all" (1Corinthians 15:28).

"All in all" is Paul's mysterious phrase. He uses it specifically in 1Corinthians 15 and Ephesians 1 while hinting at it elsewhere (such as Ephesians 4 and Colossians 1). A captivating expression, Paul understands God becoming all in all as the culmination of God's creative purpose. At minimum, God being all in all points to the process of divine-human integration. It represents the fullness of God in the fullness of humanity. All of God in all of humanity.

This integration respects the particular differences of God and people, while affirming the plenary completeness of God with us. Jesus expresses our life with God (and God's life with us) like this: "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him (John 16:23). German theologian Jürgen Moltmann describes the divine-human relationship as "not just community with God; it is participation in the eternal . . . life in God as well."

God, then, is more than other. He is the holy one in your midst. Isaiah's breathtaking vision foreshadows it. When approaching the throne, seraphim cry out, "All the earth is filled with his glory!" However, as creatures in a world-order of sin and death, they covered their faces, unable to look upon God. Today, we behold the glory of God with unveiled faces, seeing what is eternal, having been transformed into the glory of God being fully known in the love that is God (1Corinthians 13:13 and 2Corinthians 3:18).

So, in agape love we find connection with one another and with God. In this way, the New Creation is fully alive being home to a house not made with hands. Each one retains individual identity while expressing the fullness of God in a unique way. Because God is all in all, God is the ultimate representation of the Other and of the Self, just as the Other and the Self represent God. Søren Kierkegaard describes the result of the loving allness of God; namely inclusion in the divine fellowship. In This Sickness Unto Death, he stressed, "Out of love, God becomes man. . .he shows what it is to be a man of humble station so that no one should feel himself excluded."

Kevin

Web: www.presence.tv
Blog:www.transmillennial.blogspot.com
Phone: 719-260-6614
Toll free: 877-757-2703
Mail: PO Box 62055, Colorado Springs, CO, 80962.