"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21, KJV)
This is the favorite verse for those folks who don't go to church or attend anything bearing resemblance to "organized religion." It is the proof-text that we have the divine spark, that we don't need religion. It is the proof-text of the folks whose books are categorized under New Age and who frequently show up on the talk-show circuit (and best seller list) when they speak about Jesus.
Most recently I heard it quoted from the pulpit at the church we attend which caught me by surprise because this is not what the text is saying. Our pastor had noted that when we accept Christ the kingdom is within us. Yet this verse was given before Jesus died. There was no Christianity, no accepting Christ into our hearts, no Christ in us. No, he was still alive. Therefore, this doesn't make sense.
"...nor will they say, 'Look, here {it is!}' or, 'There {it is!}' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst." (NASB)
"...nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of (or within or within your grasp) you." (ESV)
Even the NLT, quite transparent in projecting interpretation as translation, renders this as among.
The term is entos, used only one other time, in Matthew 23:26, where it is translated as "inside." It can mean inside, within or interior and is used as such in the Septuagint. The word in Luke 17:21 could thus be translated as "within" but the key is to look at it in its proper context. Is it "within" in an individual sense or could it mean "within" in a more collective sense, i.e. "among"?
Look at the passage preceding it:
"Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed..." (v 20)
This passage is speaking of time, not location or position. When was the kingdom coming; what will be its signs? This refers to TIME. Jesus is simply saying, it is already present, not now, not later, neither here nor there. It is among you, it is right here, right now, though not completely. It is the now/not yet tension so present in the New Testament.
If Jesus is saying that it is already in us, then we have the divine spark and Jesus merely ignites that spark. There is no need for a new nature, no need for what he was about to do.
I think Luke is saying that we can experience, we can taste, the kingdom of God right now. It is here, among us, and access is available if we come to it with the faith of a child. But Luke is not saying it is inside of us as if it were our birthright. Luke's Gospel is quite pragmatic. When do we see the kingomd of God?
"...and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.'" (Luke 10:9, NASB)
"But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." (Luk 10:20, NASB)
The "kingdom of God" that is hoped for in the future will have no sickness, no death, no sorrow, no pain. This power is available now. Christ is the harbinger of that sought out future kingdom and it is available in power right now.
It is among us.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Saturday, July 21, 2007
The Dao and Christianity: Compatible?
In short, no.
Sure there are parallel sayings and on a philosophical and generic "religious" level similarities. To deny this is foolish. In fact, I often find the two merging at various points.
However, there is a big difference: in Christianity, God is personal. You pray to God, God communicates with people. God expects obedience. God expects a life devoted to Him. These expectations are absent from the overall framework of Daoism.
In Daoism, the Dao is impersonal. The Dao just is. You don't communicate with it, you don't pray to it, you don't hear its voice.
"We listen to it but do not hear it..." (14)
It is to your detriment if you don't follow the Dao but, though men exalt it, neither this nor obedience is ever commanded (51). In Christianity, obedience is expected and there are consequences established in the divine law established by a personal Creator. In Daoism, disobedience leads to destruction not from the consequences of a divine law but as a result of the "natural" order.
The closest parallel to this notion is the idea that there is a way "that seems good to man but its end is the way of death" (Prov 14:12, 16:25). As Wisdom the two share kinship.
The closest parallel to this notion is the idea that there is a way "that seems good to man but its end is the way of death" (Prov 14:12, 16:25). As Wisdom the two share kinship.
And yet...
"This is called the formless form,
The substanceless image..." (14)
Sound familiar?
"Who is the image of the invisible God..." (Colossians 1:15)
"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person..." (Hebrews 2:2)
It is easy to see why those Christians who study Daoism and view it favorably contend that what Laozi and Zhuangzi were longing for is Christ, whose light shone through Daoism but whose time had not yet come. Laozi and Zhuangzi would have recognized the Christ of faith. In other words, Christianity adds "personality" to the Dao.
From the point of view of Daosim, however, all of Christian theology is, in the end, just words. Lots of them. He who knows does not say; he who says, does not know (56). So the more words, the more likely it is that less is being said. Words serve a purpose; however, I think Daoism provides a necessary corrective to the tendency in theistic theologies to idolize words and theories (though philosophizing, including the Daoist kind, in general has the same tendency).
Daoism is ultimately nameless (cf. Ch 32); Christianity believes that a name is essential (cf. Acts 4:12).
In the experience at the point where self is abandoned perhaps it could be argued that there is kinship which then dissolves into discussions of the perennial philosophy which may not be an essence but something ascended toward, i.e. it is a conclusion not a presupposition.
In Daoism there is no salvation, only return; in Christianity, there is no return, only salvation (though, perhaps the "born again" idea in Christianity is similar in the sense that we must "return" to a state of innocence to experience the true Way).
Other shared ideas would be that desire is the root cause of all evils in the world. In Daoism, as in Christianity, the true leader is the servant; true greatness comes in the least greatness; he who wishes to be first must find himself last; one must be soft and yielding in order to truly be firm and grounded.
Daoism's emphasis on these things might be a good reminder of the same ideas found in the Christian tradition as Christianity contains these ideas and then some though often these ideas seem to take a back seat as men, even Christians, seek power.
And the power sought by men in the world is a danger. Both Daoism and Christianity find agreement there. This world is only temporary. Better is it not to get bogged down in the temporal and superficial trappings of being human.
Monday, July 16, 2007
The wordless teaching...
For a teaching without words, it sure generates a lot of words. I suppose I should shut up.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Love in the Dao?
"I have Three Treasures;
Guard them and keep them safe:
The first is Love.
The second is, Never too much.
The third is, Never be first in the world." (67, Yutang translation)
Other translations speak of compassion, rather than filial love, though this is merely another angle of the meaning of the term. Mothers have compassion on their children, no matter what they do.
"Through Love, one has no fear..."
"For love is victorious in attack."
How? Becuase they are other focused. The common people's hearts and minds are that of the person of the Dao. So too in warfare. Not the attacker, not the initiator of warfare, merely the one in defense. It is in the yielding where victory comes as by yielding one's self, the Dao may be made manifest and the "other" may come to realization on his own.
"The best of men is like water;
Water benefits all things
And does not compete with them.
It dwells in (the lowly) places that all disdain --
Wherein it comes near to Dao." (8)
"The softest substance of the world
Goes through the hardest." (43)
A solitary drip of water will, over time, penetrate and break down a solid rock.
"There is nothing weaker than water
But none is superior to it in overcoming the hard.
For which there is no substitute.
That weakness overcomes strength
And gentleness overcomes rigidity,
No one does not know;
No one can put it into practice" (78)
And thus the paradox. Even Jesus speaks the same idea. And yet look at how difficult it is for men to lay aside the lust for power. But those who have used this approach have overturned empires, bringing those in power to their knees without the assertion of power in return.
Guard them and keep them safe:
The first is Love.
The second is, Never too much.
The third is, Never be first in the world." (67, Yutang translation)
Other translations speak of compassion, rather than filial love, though this is merely another angle of the meaning of the term. Mothers have compassion on their children, no matter what they do.
"Through Love, one has no fear..."
"For love is victorious in attack."
How? Becuase they are other focused. The common people's hearts and minds are that of the person of the Dao. So too in warfare. Not the attacker, not the initiator of warfare, merely the one in defense. It is in the yielding where victory comes as by yielding one's self, the Dao may be made manifest and the "other" may come to realization on his own.
"The best of men is like water;
Water benefits all things
And does not compete with them.
It dwells in (the lowly) places that all disdain --
Wherein it comes near to Dao." (8)
"The softest substance of the world
Goes through the hardest." (43)
A solitary drip of water will, over time, penetrate and break down a solid rock.
"There is nothing weaker than water
But none is superior to it in overcoming the hard.
For which there is no substitute.
That weakness overcomes strength
And gentleness overcomes rigidity,
No one does not know;
No one can put it into practice" (78)
And thus the paradox. Even Jesus speaks the same idea. And yet look at how difficult it is for men to lay aside the lust for power. But those who have used this approach have overturned empires, bringing those in power to their knees without the assertion of power in return.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Reversion is the action of the Dao...
I kind of burned out on the whole religion thing. I found myself reading Lin Yutang's translation of the Dao De Jing. I have about ten other translations, his is one I do not have. I think it had to do with the fact that he was a Christian (as was Wing Tsit Chan). Why would that matter? I suppose I was concerned with bias. And I can see traces of it in his translation (the terms 'God' and 'prophets' are found and seem out of place). However, that being said, his is a very elucidating translation.
"Rule a kingdom by the Normal.
Fight a battle by (abormal) tactics of surprise.
Win the world by doing nothing." (57)
Reading this I realized that fighting a battle is a concession. In other words, the idea of fighting a battle using tactics of surprise (what some call 'deceit') is not glorified as a command. The Normal is to rule a kingdom by by doing nothing.
"I do nothing and the people are reformed of themselves."
In other words, it is by moral influence (i.e. wu wei) that people are transformed.
The word for 'tactics of surprise' is ch'i, the same word translated as 'cunning' later in this passage:
"The more skills of technique,
The more cunning things are produced."
So in a state of warfare, things are abnormal and thus abnormal techniques are to be used. Chapter 30 breaks down the use of force quite succinctly. Force, weapons and soldiers are bad. However, they are sometimes a "regrettable necessity" (30). When soldiers are used the "best policy is calm restraint" (30). The goal is not territory, not power, not anything other than things returning to Normal. So the ruler/general must effect his purpose but that is all.
In conjunction with Chapter 69 it is quite clear that the use of force, though shunned, is for self defence only.
"I dare not to be the first to invade, but rather to be invaded.
Dare not press forward an inch, but rather retreat a foot." (69)
Yutang calls Chapter 60 'Camouflage' which is quite appropriate. This is not calling for passivitiy.
"There is no greater catastrophe than to underestimate the enemy." (69)
The call is for humility, not boasting, not aggression, not selfish motives. In keeping with the spirit of the Dao, by not contending, no one is able to contend. It is by displaying this humility, by yielding (which is not the same as surrendering or giving in), that one "wins" a conflict.
When an agressor attacks by displaying this yielding it tempers the desire of the enemy. When one fights back aggressively, the two energies feed on one another and a battle for power ensues.
Though there is a hint of Christianese in his translation of verse 67, it is quite fitting. The love here is not the same as the Biblical idea of love but is the love a mother has toward her children, a filial love. In that sense, there is a hint of affection of Heaven toward her children. And it is this that is passed on to others.
"If one forsakes love and fearlessness,
forsakes restraint and reserve power,
forsakes following behind and rushes in front,
He is doomed!
For love if victorious in attack,
And invulnerable in defense.
Heaven arms with love
Those it would not see destroyed." (67)
I fell into the stream of the Dao sometime in the early 90s. Here I am, over a decade letter, still captivated.
"Rule a kingdom by the Normal.
Fight a battle by (abormal) tactics of surprise.
Win the world by doing nothing." (57)
Reading this I realized that fighting a battle is a concession. In other words, the idea of fighting a battle using tactics of surprise (what some call 'deceit') is not glorified as a command. The Normal is to rule a kingdom by by doing nothing.
"I do nothing and the people are reformed of themselves."
In other words, it is by moral influence (i.e. wu wei) that people are transformed.
The word for 'tactics of surprise' is ch'i, the same word translated as 'cunning' later in this passage:
"The more skills of technique,
The more cunning things are produced."
So in a state of warfare, things are abnormal and thus abnormal techniques are to be used. Chapter 30 breaks down the use of force quite succinctly. Force, weapons and soldiers are bad. However, they are sometimes a "regrettable necessity" (30). When soldiers are used the "best policy is calm restraint" (30). The goal is not territory, not power, not anything other than things returning to Normal. So the ruler/general must effect his purpose but that is all.
In conjunction with Chapter 69 it is quite clear that the use of force, though shunned, is for self defence only.
"I dare not to be the first to invade, but rather to be invaded.
Dare not press forward an inch, but rather retreat a foot." (69)
Yutang calls Chapter 60 'Camouflage' which is quite appropriate. This is not calling for passivitiy.
"There is no greater catastrophe than to underestimate the enemy." (69)
The call is for humility, not boasting, not aggression, not selfish motives. In keeping with the spirit of the Dao, by not contending, no one is able to contend. It is by displaying this humility, by yielding (which is not the same as surrendering or giving in), that one "wins" a conflict.
When an agressor attacks by displaying this yielding it tempers the desire of the enemy. When one fights back aggressively, the two energies feed on one another and a battle for power ensues.
Though there is a hint of Christianese in his translation of verse 67, it is quite fitting. The love here is not the same as the Biblical idea of love but is the love a mother has toward her children, a filial love. In that sense, there is a hint of affection of Heaven toward her children. And it is this that is passed on to others.
"If one forsakes love and fearlessness,
forsakes restraint and reserve power,
forsakes following behind and rushes in front,
He is doomed!
For love if victorious in attack,
And invulnerable in defense.
Heaven arms with love
Those it would not see destroyed." (67)
I fell into the stream of the Dao sometime in the early 90s. Here I am, over a decade letter, still captivated.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Closet Muslim?
I can rationalize and say that the Western media is biased toward Islam and the only reports given about Islam are the negative. On the flip side, there is the other extreme where Islam is completely removed from historical context and is whitewashed with claims of it being a tolerant religion whose real meaning is peace. Anyone who studies it's history knows that is simply not true, unless we redefine what is meant be peace. Peace, from the historical point of view, most certainly does not mean what we think of as peace today. Peace, from this point of view, does not mean live and let live.
With all of the atrocities being committed proudly in the name of Islam, why would anyone even consider converting? Why is it that Western converts frequently become anti-Western? Was it already present and thus a factor toward conversion? Or does it develop? I can't tell you how many websites I've visited of converts to Islam whose rhetoric becomes a diatribe about the West and its evils. They do not seem to be happy people.
So what is the hold Islam has over me? Well, Christian theology for one. And I'm not even talking about the cross of Christ. No, I'm talking about the theology derived from it. It divides. Some say this is a good thing, the wheat from the chaff. But how many denominations are there? How many heresies have there been throughout the history of the church and how many are there today? We spend more time fighting over doctrine than doing what Jesus said to do. That is my issue. I guess it's what human beings do. We like to know we are right.
So Islam's claim of the Oneness of God is appealing. The claim that all religions have strayed from the original Primal teaching is also appealing, especially considering my experiences with Daoism. The God-man thing makes Jesus sound like a supehero, a cartoon character. To promote this as the main message of the Gospel is something I cannot do.
Yet I cannot convert to Islam as it does not address the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. It denies it certainly. But by default, not directly. And, as such, the traditions of Islam are filled with fantastical, and ridiculous, stories of what happened. No, in order to become a Muslim I would have to deny the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. For whatever this means and however it is understood and interpreted, there is no way to do this without acknowledging the entire thing as a myth.
Islam just seems to me to be a very natural, very human, very fluid religion. Too much so. And that is the problem. You can create your own Muhammad, create your own Islam. You just can't tell anyone. So for whatever "islam" I hold in my heart, it is mine. And there will be no declaration of faith as I cannot deny what the Bible says about Jesus.
I may question what men say the Bible says but to deny the Biblical record wholesale? I don't think so.
With all of the atrocities being committed proudly in the name of Islam, why would anyone even consider converting? Why is it that Western converts frequently become anti-Western? Was it already present and thus a factor toward conversion? Or does it develop? I can't tell you how many websites I've visited of converts to Islam whose rhetoric becomes a diatribe about the West and its evils. They do not seem to be happy people.
So what is the hold Islam has over me? Well, Christian theology for one. And I'm not even talking about the cross of Christ. No, I'm talking about the theology derived from it. It divides. Some say this is a good thing, the wheat from the chaff. But how many denominations are there? How many heresies have there been throughout the history of the church and how many are there today? We spend more time fighting over doctrine than doing what Jesus said to do. That is my issue. I guess it's what human beings do. We like to know we are right.
So Islam's claim of the Oneness of God is appealing. The claim that all religions have strayed from the original Primal teaching is also appealing, especially considering my experiences with Daoism. The God-man thing makes Jesus sound like a supehero, a cartoon character. To promote this as the main message of the Gospel is something I cannot do.
Yet I cannot convert to Islam as it does not address the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. It denies it certainly. But by default, not directly. And, as such, the traditions of Islam are filled with fantastical, and ridiculous, stories of what happened. No, in order to become a Muslim I would have to deny the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. For whatever this means and however it is understood and interpreted, there is no way to do this without acknowledging the entire thing as a myth.
Islam just seems to me to be a very natural, very human, very fluid religion. Too much so. And that is the problem. You can create your own Muhammad, create your own Islam. You just can't tell anyone. So for whatever "islam" I hold in my heart, it is mine. And there will be no declaration of faith as I cannot deny what the Bible says about Jesus.
I may question what men say the Bible says but to deny the Biblical record wholesale? I don't think so.
Numbness...
Again. I seem to be spiraling into numbness, this gravitational pull down into the abyss.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
The Dao of distraction...
My first truly "spiritual" experience was framed within the context of the Dao. I had been studying the Dao De Jing for a few years, quite intensely for several months, when I had an epiphany at the top of Yosemite Falls. Never had I been so alone yet never had I felt so completely at one with in the universe, as hippy dippy as that sounds. It was my entry into the path.
As I have learned, post epiphany was downhill. Why? Because I was more in tune with a deeper reality and had to shed the superficiality in which I was living. I did not realize just how much of a hold this had on me. And I'm not just talking about "stuff". I have never placed much emphasis on "stuff". I drive cars until they fall apart, wear clothes until they fall of my body, and eat pretty much the same boring thing day after day. I'm not glamorizing this as if I'm all saintly. No, I've never really much cared a whole lot. As long as I had the freedom to come and go as I pleased, that was enough for me. But even this can be a superficial hold, a distraction from reality.
And it is distraction that has been my biggest hurdle in terms of a truly spiritual life.
Even intellectualism can be a distraction, the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake nothing but distraction from dealing with life on life's terms.
So today I am distracted by my distractions. They have as of late cancelled each other out and I am left with empty space. I'm not used to the silence.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Ok, so I was feeling sorry for myself yesterday...
Sometimes it takes a day like yesterday to get perspective on where we are. By the end of the day I was really sick of me. So of course the message at church this morning was on the Kingdom. In other words, the satisfaction of one's life is in direct proportion to the focus on self. Complete focus on self leads to complete misery. A fulfilled life is determined by how much one focuses on others.
Now, without being centered (however you understand that), total focus on others can in itself be a selfish act, whether it is being done out of lack (and thus with expectation, no matter how subtle, of benefit) or with the motive of achievement. In other words, it really isn't about the other as the other is but a mean to an end and that end is self.
No, this other centeredness must emanate from a center and that center must be free of self. Only then does it work. Only then can you expand outwards towards other free of the pollution of selfish motives and, in return, receive back, without expectation but by a natural process, the true self.
Without getting all New Agey, Christ is the center and we reflect Christ to others; in return, by interacting with others, Christ is reflected back to us (our perception determining how this is seen). We are but mirrors for Christ. The "true" us is Christ. As Paul says, it is no longer "I" but Christ living in me. In this sense, the more Christ is in us the more "I" am Christ.
So, as usually happens, when we let it, God once again shows me up. Which is good. That means I was not too far out of alignment. A little corrective, a little forgiveness and a little humility and growth can once again occur.
Yes, loss of hope is really a failure to be grateful.
Now, without being centered (however you understand that), total focus on others can in itself be a selfish act, whether it is being done out of lack (and thus with expectation, no matter how subtle, of benefit) or with the motive of achievement. In other words, it really isn't about the other as the other is but a mean to an end and that end is self.
No, this other centeredness must emanate from a center and that center must be free of self. Only then does it work. Only then can you expand outwards towards other free of the pollution of selfish motives and, in return, receive back, without expectation but by a natural process, the true self.
Without getting all New Agey, Christ is the center and we reflect Christ to others; in return, by interacting with others, Christ is reflected back to us (our perception determining how this is seen). We are but mirrors for Christ. The "true" us is Christ. As Paul says, it is no longer "I" but Christ living in me. In this sense, the more Christ is in us the more "I" am Christ.
So, as usually happens, when we let it, God once again shows me up. Which is good. That means I was not too far out of alignment. A little corrective, a little forgiveness and a little humility and growth can once again occur.
Yes, loss of hope is really a failure to be grateful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
