Top 5 (Or More) Before/After Books

The Bible almost goes without saying as the influential book of my life. That being said, below are my Top 5.

• Dao De Jing (Cleary translation; Henricks translation) - this is the one that started it all. I became fascinated with this one when I started seeking. Can't recall when I actually picked this up but pretty sure it was some book of the month club. It seemed 'mystical' and I was already 'facing East' by this time as I had perceived all things Christian as power mongering, manipulative and fearful. God was seen as an abusive task master and the whole 'Jesus saves' thing creeped me out in the worst TBN televangelist stereotyping kind of way. The Cleary version was the version I was reading when I was at a Youth Hostel in Idaho and it all became clear in an instant, just before my peak moment at the top of Yosemite Falls.

• Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - this is the book that saved my sanity. I had tried to read it in college because it was one of those books that seems to be a rite of passage. I tried and it didn't sink in. I was more interested in drinking. So while this in some sense pre-dates the Dao De Jing, it was not until years later in the midst of what was becoming a mid-life crisis in my twenties with alcoholism on the doorstep that I picked it up to read it. I literally took two days off of work to finish it. One reading. It didn't fix me; it made me realize that I was not alone.

• Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis - I discovered Henry Corbin through the book Sacred Drift (which enlightened me to the joyous and wild world of ‘heretical’ Islam). This book challenged me and puzzled me and pushed me and frustrated me but it also provided me with an opening to a more ‘mystical’ tradition to be found in Christianity. I always want to see what the author is seeing and without trying to bend it to my beliefs and this book pushed me in ways unfathomable as it introduced an entire universe that was new to me and gave me a 'pro' view of the 'Gnostic' texts of the New Testament. ‘Heretical’? Absolutely. Here was an alternate view to the Incarnation with full embrace of the mystery rather than rejecting it on historical or other grounds. I can’t even begin to tell you how deep this goes. I still revisit this from time to time as I see in Corbin a very 'Eastern' view and have since learned how he was influenced by the Eastern Church, especially Russian authors.

• The Roots Of Christian Mysticism - second only to the Bible in influence, this introduced me to the Church Fathers and literally saved my Christian faith. This book sent me down the path of where I am now and my leanings toward a more 'Eastern' view. Interesting that I was drawn to the Eastern religious traditions yet could never abandon my faith in Christ and here is the meeting of the two. Other than the Bible, this book is the most underlined, rabbit-eared, worn and taped up book I own.

• Mystical Theology Of The Eastern Church - an intellectual sojourn through a tradition foreign to me but one that fit with what I had discovered in reading the Bible. This was a fit; the 'West' view wasn't (and still isn't). It gave concrete language and an intellectual framework around what I had discovered within my own studies and what I found wanting within the ‘western’ tradition in which I was raised.

The books below are up there and a major part of the journey but fell just shy of having the impact the books above have had.

1. The Power of Myth - this one may have been in the mix of the two books noted above, can't recall. This was the book that put words to thinking 'mythically' as the literalism with which I was supposed to take the Bible wasn't happening. At first, 'mythically' meant the whole thing was made up, fiction, a myth. I began the quest into the eastern religions as, it seems, is a rite of passage for many who rebel, drawn to the exotic, the opposite, the mystical flavor of things foreign. I outgrew this when I learned, over time, that he was as fundamentalist as any fundie and I realized he missed an entire tradition within Christianity of the 'charismatic' variety. 
2. Sacred Drift - this one put the 'fun' in fundamentalism as his stories through the world of Islam opened my eyes to the variety contained within it. Anarchy of the religious sort was appealing. Picked this up on a whim at Twice Loved Books in Youngstown. This was my guide of sorts as I began my journey into the world of Islam. It remained a personal favorite until the secrets of the author were revealed via the Web and, true or not, it made me realize that anarchy only goes so far and, taken to its extreme, can be a dangerous weapon that will take us further than we want, or should, go. 
3. Qur'an - Pickthall translation. My intro to Islam which started on the Beliefnet forum. I would eventually 'graduate' to Muhammad Asad's translation which, unfortunately, appears to be wishful thinking from a convert from the West, no matter how educated. This was a seven year journey that would take me to and through 9/11.
4. Theology and the Church - the latest addition. Adding intellectual depth to the Trinity.
5. Christ In Eastern Christian Thought - the latest addition to the book and an entirely new path. I had no idea how deep and how long debates about Who Christ is went on and it through this I've gone much deeper into the Eastern Orthodox tradition and it has brought a bright light into my search.

Sexual Abuse

Abuse - sexual, as in my case, or any other - will mess you up. I was probably in my late 30s when I was able to pinpoint the exact moment when my life changed forever. Though I do not know the exact age, I know the exact location, circumstance and people in the room as clear as I am writing this. That meant more 20 plus years of layer upon layer built upon that wound so that area of my life was underdeveloped, overcompensated for in other ways and a mythological creature was built upon that vortex.

The curious thing is that I remembered it and could talk about that moment but the disconnect was so great that I did not know that it was the source. I may have have noticed it when feelings of rage flared up around the person even though I didn't quite know why; I just thought that person was just a jerk and I justified the behaviour because of the abuse within his family. In hindsight, after this I would find myself amongst the company of outcasts, most, maybe even all, of whom had come from abusive or troubled environments.

I recall being at one of my friend's houses and having his stepfather threaten to whip all of us in the room, me included, with a belt because we were being too loud. And he most certainly meant it. My friend would later move on to the military and I lost touch with him though back at home he was seen in town behaving in a fashion that would lead one to believe he carried on the same manner of raising children. 

It was never a conscious thing. I just knew I did not belong in certain cliques and, though not antagonistic toward those cliques, I did not fit in. So I fell into the non-clique cliques and even hung with the 'hoods' loosely enough not to go down those paths which, I am well aware, were also symptomatic of abuse. Had I chosen to go down that path rather than soak up the vibes without actually entering, those addictions may have done more damage sooner.

It was then that the seeds of rebellion were planted. Though it would in time graduate beyond the suburbs it was comfortable, suburban rebellion. Sneaking out at night, alcohol - lots of alcohol - and rock music though, again, it was the obligatory classic rock and the rebellion that got a knowing smile from those who lived through it the first time and passed it on to us.

However, this was a linear progression. This was not a circular progression out of which people grow and conform into their expected role once they've shaken the 'teenage rebellion' rite of passage. No, this would grow differently than those within my family.  I was not alone in this as many from my class would follow similar trajectories and it always led me toward believing that there was some form of trauma underlying all of these people's lives.

I graduated beyond the classic rock of my youth and 'discovered' Motley Crue (now classic rock) and heavier, louder rock and roll, though comfortably from within my suburban bedroom. Alcohol was not frowned upon so it was easily accessible. In my case, it started before I became a teenager. It was all controlled, the parameters of our rebellion laid before us. And I think, when coupled with the abuse, because there was no relief for feelings of which I was not aware, I progressed. I wanted more, further, deeper, louder, angrier, self-inflicted as other than appearance and my internal dialogue I had learned to put on airs.

I kept clean cut rather than becoming a stoner cliche. I maintained, though this was a gradual slope, a job. From the upper echelons of my first job to working in a coffee shop, I cannot remain oblivious to the fact that my addictions were leading me to make some minimalist choices.

There was always 'something' there that kept me from going all in, some effort at restraint that kept me from doing heroin, that kept me from growing my hair long and living the cliche. But that 'something 'was slowly losing its grip and I was gradually on my way there. Addiction isn't always instant. Perhaps our level of security slows the journey and we can go a long time without going all the way there. But it was coming.

Before I left on my walkabout I met my now wife. It was she who kept me going and it was she who I turned to on the lonely journey across the country, even as I lived among and with people. She was my life line though I didn't know it at the time. And it was because of her I returned when the bottom was falling out and I somehow knew where I was heading. And it was through her that I was introduced to a faith that would ultimately reveal that moment in time when life changed, when my innocence was lost and I would spend my youth trying to destroy that innocence - and myself in the process - and my adulthood trying to reclaim it.

It's All About Choices

As you may know, I have never been one to commit, truly commit, to anything organizational, especially when it comes to matters of faith. Quite often this lack of commitment is a principled rebellion against being swayed by people. The more I am pressured to believe something the more I am going to question it because too often this type of pressure amounts to that person overcompensating and convincing themselves about questions or doubts they may have.

So, raised nominal Presbyterian thought with a strong conviction of the idea of 'God' though distorted through a lens of guilt and shame triggered by a traumatic event I only uncovered thirty years after it happened. Dabbled in the 'eastern' religions, mostly Daoism and its intuitive sense of paradox (still find this a 'natural' way of thinking). Found myself immersed in the fundamentalist world of Oneness Pentecostalism (it's about a girl) but that was instrumental in forcing me to confront my unwillingness to commit and believe and it challenged me enough to pursue positively what it is I believe rather than what it is I don't believe.

Drifted from that to a 'softer' version of charismatic Christianity. This fell apart when there was a change in leadership and a drift back to a more 'fundamentalist' approach we had grown out of and could no longer participate in. We drifted to a church with similar DNA, one I had visited one time 20 years prior (it too was about a girl) and we stayed. Soft enough yet strong enough, earthy enough with a mind toward things of the spirit, it was a good fit. 

However, with a mind always seeking to answer the question 'Who do you say that I am?' I remained intellectually restless. I could 'feel' the things of the spirit but my mind was not aligned. It got close but over time I realized that I need theology. I cannot not focus on theology and bring my mind in alignment with what I 'feel' as too often after the feeling passes I remain annoyed at the lack of clarity. This isn't purely an intellectual, reasoning pursuit in a scientific vein. It is more a longing to answer that question for myself.

Oneness Pentecostalism wasn't it. That left far too many questions and there were to many mental gymnastics required to make it sound as if it made sense. I understand the critique from those who opposite it and realize also that its difference from true Modalism or Sabellianism is its reliance solely upon the text of the Bible and - this is key - the scientific scientific method, Bible as science book, into which we have all been indoctrinated (whether believing or fighting it).

Along with the question was the sheer irritation at 'one more Chris Tomlin' song with Bible quotes devoid of context and various terms - Father, Lord, Jesus - all lumped together in one homogenous stew. Thus began the pursuit of Trinitarianism and it would lead me to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Tired of the 'God sent His Son to die for me' approach to the faith (something that never made sense to me and is not well explained from the pulpit, as if that statement alone somehow explains something) I sought the roots of this approach to the faith. Turns out, though it is certainly in the Bible, this seemingly single and sole emphasis is a recent development. We're sinners and we deserve the wrath of God and God kicked Jesus' a** for us  to justify us in His eyes. Still doesn't make sense or, at the very least, it seems like its truncated, like something is missing. I'm saved from hell. Now what? Convert the masses. The ultimate MLM. I'm not sure that is the Good News.

So EO and the Church Fathers. I began to find a language that made sense. "What is not assumed is not saved." And my world changed. There are those who argue against this approach but I am not buying the arguments against as they are trying to sell the 'juridicial only' approach to salvation. I believe that is embedded in there but is only a part, not the whole story.

And the beauty of this, it's my choice. I'm over the need to be right or the need to 'prove' something to someone (myself maybe?) or the need to that my way is the only way. This whole need to be right is no longer something I have an interest in. I'm interested in what is means to be saved as a process, not as a one time event.

Vision

Why is it that we want to be heard? Ultimately, what is it we want to say?

As listener, where is it we wish to take the speaker, to guide that speaker?

Why is it that Jesus asked questions? He knew the answer, he wanted to take the person with whom he was speaking there on their own.

Limits...

If we are trying to be humble we will fail because our efforts are mixed in there. Philippians 2.

What is it we, as speaker, wish to share?

Jesus knows the thoughts of men...

Limits...

He who knows me best loves me most.

So if we talk in limits, extremes, we come to the Incarnation: God Himself (to be technical, the second Person of the Trinity) willingly chooses to become enfleshed, enhypostatized, and relinquishes claim to His divinity. Though He is the acting subject in this flesh, He operates with the human faculties, minus the sin. Do I fully grasp that? Kind of. Any questions about Him 'cheating' because He is divine leads us down the road of discussing various doctrines deemed heretical and this isn't the place for that. I take the statement as fact, as, to use Lossky's term (which resonates with me in the quality field) as datum.

So God, the ultimate we can conceive of, takes on human flesh, and empties himself (kenosis) to the lowest of low, to the utmost extreme: death. His (divine) will wills to utilize or work within the constraints and limits of a human will. But without sin. Is that cheating? Or is it that he accomplished what we are not only unable to but cannot even fathom due to the taint of sin? Is this belief? It stretches us because we still wish to conceive of it, to grasp it, to control it?

I think this is where such tired cliches as 'he came to die' and 'God send His Son to die' lose their impact. It sounds, recalling James' "One Of The Three" track, like a mere suicide mission. It may get those in the know excited, especially through interpretive and conditioned filters, but from the outside this is a statement that sound like Jesus was a good dude who became a martyr and nothing more. The lingering question, I suppose, is why everyone in the know gets so worked up over this.

But if we get radical, as the Fathers have said, and believe that God took 'into' His Being (or person or hypostasis, need to flesh that one out) something He did not previously 'have', i.e. the 'experience' of what it means to be a human being that has 'created' its own independence and has to live with the impassible barrier to God.

It is the 'person' of the Word that experiences this, that assumes this. His human will aligns with the divine will (sounds crazy, right?) in the single subject of the second Person of the Trinity, and His battle is with a human will to do the will of the Father. Whether or not He could have sinned was a debate tackled during the centuries of formulating doctrine.

He struggled with the human will and 'tamed' it to the point of death. We all die. So to say He came to die in and of itself doesn't mean much as a standalone statement. We all die. It is inherent in our nature. But He knew human nature and He knew about power and that the power men seek is in contrast to that of the Divine which is why many others before Him had been killed.

So again, taking this to a logical extreme, the ultimate power of men, from a human perspective, is to take life; in this case it is to kill God. Men want to be God so when their power in pursuit of that goal is interrupted it leads to violence which, ultimately, means death. That is the Power that men seek.

So God, Life, surrenders and ultimately sacrifices that Life in human flesh and dies. Yet 'death', as an absolute, finds in Him nothing and death dies. The limit has been reached. Death, man's ultimate fate, is rendered powerless, objectively, within time. It is not an abstract concept; a Person has accomplished this and we see it. We see what it means for there to be no death.

We die. That hasn't changed. And the 'eternal life' as some pie in the sky with us floating around in wings is silly and, arguably, minimally - if at all - what Scripture says. This is the version what makes faith seem like a fairy tale and is not sustaining. Once the initial 'fix' of my salvation is in, what then? Without substance we will go forward with an altar call every week.

I was in Church as my grandbabies graduated from pre-K to Victory Kidz. They were watching a movie and it was so simple and so sweet. Even in the children's cartoon there were efforts to make those seemingly conflicting stories between the four Gospel writers seamless. They did a good job and, cynicism aside, I felt the impact of such a great story. It is truly a great story.

And it dawned on me that it is a faith that is at once simple to grasp and, as happened over hundreds, even thousands, of years, has added layers in its encounter with the depths of the human mind. Even today it is wrestled with when encountering the various philosophies of men.

But for children it is simple.

During worship today with all the adoration given to Jesus it seemed to fit. We worship Him but, in truth, as we worship toward Him we are actually worshiping through Him as He, guided by the Spirit, takes our praises purified, so to speak, unto the Father. It is a symphony. He takes what we have and as a mirror, our Image, shows us who we truly are and that is what is rendered unto the Father. It isn't our mess that the Father 'sees' but our heart, in the Spirit directed through the Son, as if cutting through all the mess within us, to take that which is truly in His image, i.e. His Son, into His court.

And in reverse, the Father's will, through the Son, by the Spirit returns unto us to purify the perichoresis of us as a body, through the Son, to interact and relate to the Holy Trinity. 

Oneness Theology

Finally realized that Oneness theology teaches there was no "Son of God" prior to the Incarnation. There is no "Second Person" in the Godhead. There is the Father. Period. And the Spirit in some way, shape or form. If the "Son of God" existed it was in the mind of God.

I used to think that about John 8:58 though I still don't think he is saying "I am God" in that statement. None of the early Church Fathers seems to have thought that; that is a result of our 'scientific' and 'literal' approach to Scripture, specifically the KJV. The early Church Fathers believed it was a claim about pre-existence.

Just putting that out there...