Or....  what do you think the primary responsibility of the church is / should be?

I think of the church as a community of believers.  I think its primary responsibility would be to reach out to people to invite them to become part of the community, and to care for and nurture all.  I think its mission is to try to bring about the kingdom of heaven on earth. 

I think the primary responsibilty of the Church should be to raise spiritual (unitive) awareness, and act, individually and as a spiritual community, from the level of that awareness.

I also agree with seeler. I think unitive awareness is the kingdom of heaven, and bringing it about, and acting on it, is indeed our mission as a Church.

Yes, I agree.

Some fragments that come quickly to mind ...

 Humility. Discernment. Listening to the Spirit of Jesus.

Sorry, but I don't understand this question. Fulfillment? Responsibility?

Purpose of the Christian Church?

In traditional language - "to raise up disciples of Jesus Christ".

In language that is more in tune with where I'm coming from - "To help people deepen their relationship to God, by helping them explore their life as disciples of Christ."

Christ's peace - r

I'd say the top things is winning souls for JESUS. Closely behind that is " 'quipping saints" (as I heard it growing up). There is plenty more a church can and should do but I think that's the top.

I'm not sure I like the word "obey", rather I'd like to think that love is the driving force that keeps us connected to God and each other.

.

How can the church "obey its one true Head" when it does not know how?  I think trying to figure it out how has split the church into endless variations of denominations, perhaps because it is subject to interpretation.  

Has the  institutional church truly demonstrated the ability to "obey its one true Head" at all for the past 2000 years?  Where has its path lead society and the institution itself today?  If the prime directive is to treat others as ourselves, has the church honestly succeeded?  Is this success readily apparent in todays church or the society its serves?

I think, that based on past performance, "the fulfillment of such a responsibility" cannot  "be assured", because past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.

Thanks for your well considered response, oui.

The question of "know how" is central, I agree. But I see the challenge of acquiring know-how as difficult not because it requires interpretation, but because it requires a kind of sacrifice.  Getting practical wisdom, or know-how, in any area of life requires us to be fully engaged. For example, there is no way that I can actually know how to care for my body without being fully engaged in the process of caring for my body. It will require the guidance of my intellect, my emotional presence, the movement of my will, the performance of my muscles, the support of my environment -- all working together toward the same end.  It involves much more than just my ideals and opinions and beliefs about bodily care. In fact, in the actual process of coming to care for my body, those constructs that I have about it will inevitably have to be reshaped, reorganized, renewed, as I surrender to the multifaceted process of actually doing it. For me, this demand for my total engagement is sacrifice.  Without ever actually making this sacrifice, though, I can fairly easily engage in arguments about what correct care of the body is. To do that all I need are a few ideals and opinions. 

The church knowing how "to obey its one true head" is very similar I think. It is surely as multifaceted and as organic a process as caring for our bodies. And getting this know-how requires the sacrifice of total engagement. Perhaps there is no other way to 'get' it.  I suspect that what gets sacrificed in such total engagement is the central position of the 'ego' in our lives, that ego which would sooner die than admit to being wrong, to its  ideals being less than perfect.  The metaphor Jesus uses of the vine and its branches gets to the heart of all this I think. Maybe abiding in the vine is a more experientially accurate way to describe this mysterious sacrifice of total engagement or "obedience."   We understand that the branch is not 'obeying' the vine's 'orders', as though there was no intimate connection between the two. The branch is just being itself, because what branches do is abide in their vine.  There is something inherently mystical about this sacrifice of total engagement captured by this metaphor that is not as apparent in the less poetic image of 'obeying commands'. 

But whether poetic or prosaic, I guess it's easy enough for the human ego to assimilate the message of Jesus in a way that still allows it to be the "one true head" of our lives.  And then... we have the ego speaking on behalf of the Vine.  For example: "Christ has revealed to us that the one true ecclesiastical structure of his church is..." [insert "episcopal," "presbyterian," "congregational," etc] ... and that, if the rest of you were truly obedient, you would really be more like us."  Not coincidentally, I'm sure, this most contentious issue of ecclesiastical structure is all about who is in charge, who gets to tell the branches what the vine wants them to do.  Christ seems to be fully eclipsed by the ego, and things look pretty dark, as your questions point out:

Maybe this is the key differentiation, between the 'institutional church' and the church as a mystical body, which may or may not overlap with the 'institutional church.'

I would argue, however, that the church as a mystical body has demonstrated its ability over the past 2000 years to obey its one true Head.  Even though it's a circular argument... it reveals the subtle complexity of the problem. So I see it as, at bottom, a spiritual problem.

Well, for sure it cannot be assured by one structural form or another, whether by papal decree or Roberts' Rules of Order.  But maybe there are other forms of "quality assurance" we could look into?

 Personally, I think the idea of obeying Jesus has become a matter of following the many man made rules of institutional churches.  Thus the apparent failure of the churches to truly live by the Golden Rule themselves.  

In my opinion, this would logically make it very difficult to pass on a skill it does not possess, to the people of the congregations it serves.  If it succeeded, I think there would be ever increasing numbers of people who actually practice the Golden Rule, and that does not seem to be the case, at the moment.

What exactly has the "mystical body" of the church accomplished in the last 2000 years? Where are the schools of Christian mysticism, like Sufis or Tibetan monks?  Its not even tolerated in much of Christianity.

I think its readily apparent that the church has learned, from the 3rd century on,  how to squash mysticism within its ranks, and elsewhere, by destroying anything that did/does not meet with its often narrow definition of spirituality.  As a consequence, I think it probably no longer has the tools to nurture true mysticism.  Those tools were thrown away long ago.

Personally, I don't think a church is necessary at all to have a "mystical body". 

I think "quality assurance" can be measured primarily in the actions that arise from following, understanding, teaching and implementing the Golden Rule.

In my opinion, these actions have not been produced, with any consistency, from the church as an institution, or by Christian societies for 2000 years.  I think that should be enough time to "get it" if its going to be gotten, lol!   

If the concept was correctly understood, we would be seeing the positive results by now, wouldn't we?  

Your post resonates  SO well  with my 'take' ...

Thank you!!

You say...

If the concept was correctly understood, we would be seeing the positive results by now, wouldn't we? 

Positive results do happen, but it's always by an unnoticed little old lady in the balcony...

Cheers!

do i belive yes i do i think the curch is resposible for teaching every one to act and be how jesus is/was. starting from the paster all the way to the janiter should act as jeasus did do they do that are they fulfiling that inportant obligation to every one jesus loved everyone thats a whole other question

Could not agree with you more (big surprise eh?  ) I have yet, in several decades of discussion, to find a clergyperson who would publicly admit that this is the "message of Jesus." Rishi, I'd be interested in what you understand the term to mean when you use it.

As Oui notes, the church is not required for the "mystical body" of Christ. In truth, it would seem that the body has simply dismissed the instiutional church, finding it to be irrelevent to their spiritual needs. As Chrisitan Smith found in his study "Soul Searching", the de facto religion in the US today, and I'd suggest in much of the west, is the Golden Rule. He, needing a bigger term, called it Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, but the principle of mutuality by any other name would smell as sweet.

the church the rock the foundation jesus left for peter to tell the world god is here and loves them should still do exactly that but due to bad mamagement peters job goes unfinished

I understand it to be a living thing, not different from the mystical body. It comes into being when we are swooped up in the awareness of how unconditionally loved we are by the Mystery we call God. This process is how I understand the golden rule to be enabled within us at a heart level so that it can then be enacted in the concrete circumstances that make up our lives.

Jesus shared the view of legal experts of his religious community that the essence of the Law can be found in Deuteronomy 6:5 ("Love the Lord your God ...") and Leviticus 19:18 ("Love your neighbour").

In Matthew 22 and Mark 12, Jesus himself repeats these as the two greatest commandments. So our active love for our neighbours (Lev. 19:18) follows our active love for God (Deut. 6:5). And, as Rishi said, our active love for God is our response to God`s active love for us.

If Jesus is the Head of the Church, shouldn`t we identify a more significant role for him than merely approving the conclusions of his contemporary legal experts on the most important commandments in the "Law of Moses"? After all, noone has suggested that Moses is the Head of the Church, but the commandments quoted here are traditionally attributed to Moses originally (from God, of course) and not to Jesus.

I do feel there is something missing here.

peter was in charge of the church not jesus he told peter on this rock(peter) i build  my church

Wow, sounds pretty darn easy to me!  This is very poetic and fluffy and soft and so non-reality, lol!  It does not imply much action on our part, but I think appears to be achieved by something largely outside ourselves.

This is, in my opinion, precisely where the church has failed.  Encouraging people to rely on something other than our own spiritual awareness gained thru personal spiritual experience.  In my experience, the church does not help/teach people to think spiritually for themselves.

I don't see anything concrete in the above quote about how to achieve the necessary complete emptying of self that must occur before one can even begin to comprehend acting on the Golden Rule.  How can one truly give unconditionally as long as the demanding self exists?  Perhaps its achieved thru swooping?

I think the most important and coincidentally, hardest part, the base of the pyramid if you will, is shockingly, conspicuously, missing.

Do you know anyone who has actually achieved living their life by the Golden Rule?  The only ones that come to my mind are Gandhi and the Dalai Lama.  

Yes, that's it exactly. It's in that swooping (technically called  'grace')  which, in the Christian tradition at least, contains a kind of transforming knowledge. It is an actual personal knowledge of how unmerited this divine love is that empties the self of its demands -- demands which, in the end, are all about merit (e.g., "He doesn't deserve my courtesy, because of x." "She doesn't deserve my sensitivity because of y".  etc. etc. ad infinitum). The Golden Rule isn't an abstract principle searching for a methodology to make it real, unless it is isolated from its biblical context, as RAN pointed out. That would make it into a kind of civil religious principle about being a good person, no different than humanism, i.e. without any transcendental dimension.  My understanding of it in the biblical context is that it is a living, personal, experiential knowledge of divine love, which has a dampening effect on the ego's merit-oriented demands.  So it's a kind of cooperative blend of ordinary human nature and divine grace. I wouldn't call this process "easy", though; it's more like experiencing a part of yourself slowly die.

This one really has me thinking. I am a Christian and I believe in following the teachings of Jesus, along with the teachings of many more. I do not believe in Jesus as the "One,True,Head of The Church".

Now I need time to think and reflect. I have participated in many meetings opened with the words about the meeting being constituted in the name of Jesus Christ, the one true head of the church.  Wow! I really need to reflect on this one.

Yes!  It's quite a profound statement to be making as often as we do if we really do not agree with it. I no longer go to UCC Presbytery meetings, but if I did I would like to hear some discussion about this.

I would see the base of the pyramid as God's own Being, or, perhaps as human experience arising out of God's own Being, i.e., arising from the holy ground on which the pyramid stands.

Action is something very high up on the pyramid as I see it.  Between the ground of God's own Being and human action there are at least five layers: (1) experience, (2) understanding of that experience, (3) intentions arising out of that understanding, (4) judgments regarding the truth of that understanding and the goodness of those intentions, (5) decisions regarding how that understanding is to be implemented in a particular context. Only then comes (6) action, and (7) reflection on the consequences of action, and finally the top of the pyramid, (8) character, which is the cumulative result of actions taken over a lifetime.

It's hard to imagine how anyone could live by the Golden Rule without being relatively conscious of all of these levels of the pyramid and, of course, the holy ground on which the pyramid stands.  This illustrates how the Golden Rule is not just a moral "ideal," but a complex of spiritual disciplines rooted in the Transcendent.  And from what I know of their religious thinking, I'm pretty sure that Ghandi and the Dalai Lama would agree.

I don't see that Jesus should be the main focus. Rather, I think the focal point should be God and God, as a spirit, alone. I see Jesus as a pointer toward God. Yes I know the Trinity exists but people have a habit of separating the Trinity into two parts - the God part, and the one who died part. We seem to worship the one who died (for a few days) more than we worship the God/Spirit part.

In a way it's quite misleading when we talk about "Jesus Christ" as though "Christ" was the last name of Jesus. But to do otherwise we would have to get into a big exploration of what it means for the person who was probably called "Jesus Bar Joseph" to be our "Christ."  And then, to unpack the whole doctrine of the Mystical Body and its one true Head is at least as complex.  And do we really have the time and interest to really think through and reflect on all of that?

I think it is essential that we, the church, does that. I would prefer that Yeshua be refered to as - "Jesus who became a Christ". This would take the focus away from the man who was a teacher and places it on the Godhead where God and The Christ are one.

To go further - one day there will be a JamesK Christ and a Rishi Christ. Absolute blasphomy eh??

Well, Luther talked about how when we're tapping into the Godhead as intended, we all become "little Christs."  But, on the other hand, if Jesus was at the point in life where there was no longer any difference between him and the Christ, I think that would make him more venerable than your average James or Rishi.  And personally I see a lot of practical value in God having a human face, story and presence, rather than being simply Spirit. It grounds the nature of spirituality and shows us what it looks like to develop spiritually. 

Case in point. There is a fascinating form of Buddhism in Japan and China called Jodo Shinshu, which is based on a myth that is (in my opinion) virtually identical  to the gospel narrative in its essential themes. But it lacks any historical referents whatsoever.  I personally found the Jodo Shinshu path very compelling and personally transforming. But I think that the historical concreteness of Jesus of Nazareth adds a very significant dimension to Christianity....an empirical dimension where we can actually experience how the Holy One is in flesh and blood terms.  I have a friend in Manitoba who used to be a Methodist minister and is now a Jodo Shinshu priest (http://www.manitobabuddhistchurch.org/).  He would probably disagree with me when I suggest that historical exemplars add something that parables cannot.  And, actually, I would agree with him up to a point; I would agree that what historical exemplars add is not something that is, as the Anglicans say, "necessary for salvation."  But that's just me, and though I consider myself orthodox, many would call me a heretic as well.

The primary purposes of the church are...

...to mutually edify its members (believers in Jesus Christ).

...to propigate its faith.

...to observe the ordinances (communion, and baptism by immersion).

This swooping, or grace you describe, implies very little effort on the part of the individual.  It appears, transforms and empties you for you, so I fear many people could conceivably wait, perhaps a lifetime to receive it, while doing nothing in the mean time, because the church has not taught them how.  Then because they feel they have not received it, their self esteem takes a nose dive and they feel totally unworthy.  I personally know people who think this way.

I don't agree that the idea of merit is at the root of the demands of the self.  I think that is simply one of many symptoms, or branches of the base selfishness we all possess. Human nature has proven time and again to be more powerful than piety.

In my opinion, the Golden Rule severely lacks a methodology in Christianity, if it is not taught, but rather expected to be given by the divine, then progress would logically be exceedingly slow, as has been demonstrated thru history.  There is nothing to stop if from being transcendental if it can also be taught.  

The idea that one receives the divine gift you describe as a Christian, immediately implies a separation from those who do not have this gift.  If one feels separate in any way from another, one cannot see the other as equal.  If one cannot see another as equal, one cannot truly think of another as they think of themselves, again, this is my opinion.

So in the end, does this idea of a divine gift truly or significantly advance the ability of people to actually practice the Golden Rule?

One could passively let a house fall apart over time, and it would become a different entity.  Or one could actively renovate a house over time, which would become a different entity.  Do we choose to simply let a part of ourselves die, as you put it, or can we renovate that part of ourselves instead?

This point of view reminds me of a comment by Marcus Borg that, perhaps if Jesus had lived to be 80, as the Buddha did, he might have put forward a comprehensive methodological path as the Buddha did for his view of spiritual development.  He apparently suggests this because of the many similarities in the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha.

Are you suggesting something along these lines? Or do you have another particular methodology in mind for 'doing' the Golden Rule?

If we say that the "house" in your metaphor is character (the sum of our intentional actions),  then we are constantly building and renovating that house. We never passively let it fall apart.

As I understand it,  character is not what dies in the Christian vision of personal transformation. Rather, character becomes a radically different kind of entity by our dying to the fantasy that it (our character) is the autonomous center of our existence and our awakening to the reality of another center.

If that "new center" of consciousness is a transcendental reality, then we are approaching the level of moral reality Jesus describes in his 'commandments'. But if that new center is simply a concept or moral ideal by which we judge our actions, then the fantasy that our character is the autonomous center of consciousness may not have 'died' after all. And, in that case, the active implementation of the moral ideal would still be quite egocentric. Of course, this would still be better than having no moral ideals at all -- we could call that the third case.  In the first case, the effort involved would be a cooperative effort between divine grace and human nature. In the second case, the effort involved would be understood as the effort of character alone. In the third case there is no moral effort at all.

As I understand spiritual development within the Christian tradition, it involves a movement from a third case, to a second case, and finally, to a first case kind of existence, where acquired ideals are gradually replaced with the transcendental realities that the ideals only point to.  So, the "Golden Rule" in the second case would be quite a different reality than the "Golden Rule" in the first case.  It would be like the difference between, on the one hand, restraining oneself from harming oneself or others, and, on the other hand, having no harmful desires in need of restraint.

Precisely.  There was virtually nothing left behind of Jesus' all too brief career of only 3 years.  Nothing written by him, nothing written by any original disciples, but lots of second, third and later editorial hands.  

It took Jesus 30 years to get to the level he achieved,  but no one knows really how, and the church apparently didn't figure it out either, because they never passed it on.   

There may be many other roads and paths to take, however, I'm not familiar with them all.

I was thinking more along the line that our selfish ego was the "house".  You suggested the divine transformation was like watching a part of yourself die.  However, I wondered instead of passively letting it die, whether the ego could be actively  renovated.

I agree with much of what you state above.  I think the Christian church and its societies falls squarely into the second category, "But if that new center is simply a concept or moral ideal by which we judge our actions, then the fantasy that our character is the autonomous center of consciousness may not have 'died' after all. And, in that case, the active implementation of the moral ideal would still be quite egocentric. "

I also feel that being stuck in this stage is still very egocentric, to the point that peace cannot be achieved between countries, societies, races, sexes, religions or neighbours.  This is very plainly observed.  Corruption and violence continue at the same pace as in the past, so perhaps this stage is not "better" after all since there appears to have been little progress,  perhaps the Christian concept of implementing the Golden Rule has failed, or simply not been correct.  

It does not seem to have had any appreciable impact so far.  Maybe the concept itself needs to be renovated, lol.  Come on, even animals know enough to " restrain oneself from harming oneself or others", this is not unique to "divinely gifted" humans.  In fact, most animals do not have harmful desires,  therefore no need of restraint either.

In stark contrast, we can't seem to stop killing each other.  

So, this idea of a "divine gift" bestowed on some people doesn't seem to have actually helped us in general, in my opinion.  

how about -

7 Questions for Putting the Golden Rule Into Practice

Now, don't worry folks, I've absolutley no expectations that anyone will even acknowledge these, let alone apply them - lol - its much easier to spend our time spinning reams and reams of, as oui says, philosophical fluff than it is to simply put this into practice.

Perhaps the reason the historical Jesus, practical tradesman that he was, didn't leave behind massive tomes of blatherskite is that he didn't see the need for it. What little of him has survived comes across as a pretty Nike kinda guy - just do it.

... until they evolve brains large enough to formulate and entertain the fantasy that they are the center of the universe and no longer have as many instincts to regulate their actions. That's when things start to get  dicey on the planet...   In my view, the doctrine of original sin is a mythic description of an evolutionary rut in our adaptation to these advanced, potentially dangerous, brains of ours. And the only way out of this rut is by solving the riddle of how to 'die' to this very engaging fantasy that 'I' am (or should be) the autonomous center of the universe.  In other words, we are the missing link between the ape that we see in the jungle and the Christ that we see in Jesus.

I also believe, though, that when these big brains of ours are regularly bathed through spiritual practices that actually work (which is a tall order), we can  keep the evolutionary process moving. Much of what makes this such a tall order is that it requires that we grasp, or rather be grasped by, something that may seem quite contrary to nature (i.e. grace.)  Because the solution has this counterintuitive, paradoxical, Zen quality to it, it tends to keep us going back and forth in our rut until we can "hear the good news."

I'm a Thomist, and so I would say that this divine gift is bestowed on (or in) all people. Our predicament is not in lacking the necessary gift, but in knowing how to identify and unwrap it.  That is the core purpose of religious education, childrearing, and other such critically important projects.  Is that what actually happens in "church" ?  If not, then that is, in my view, a church that is not being the church, not synchronized with "its one true Head," if you will.

Kind of like Francis of Assisi? 

As the story goes, the turning point in his life came when he met a man whose flesh had been eaten away by a terrible disease. In fear and loathing, Francis turned to run away, but stopped, and by a very great effort came back, embraced and kissed the man and gave him all of the money he had on him.  This seems very much like a "just do it" kind of approach. Yet it wasn't simply activism or idealism. It grew out of a strong foundation of devotion to God as manifest in Jesus (precisely the kind of devotion that was lacking in the wealthy, corrupt, ceremonial church of Francis' day).  Maybe we need another Franciscan-like revival in the church?

From the gospel accounts of Jesus, devotion seems to have been the foundation of his "just doing it" as well.  He certainly was a person of prayer, and a person who carefully studied and reflected on the Hebrew scriptures. 

So, do you see a prayer life/surrender/devotion as being an integral part of doing the Golden Rule?

One of the prayers that apparently got Francis going in his radical approach was this one:  "Great and glorious God, let Your light come into the darkness of my mind. May I in all things do only what is in accordance with Your Holy Will."   Short and to the point.  But who would dare pray it?

Nope.  

I see those concepts as being exactly what keeps the mainline church from connecting with people.

Well, he's certainly written as knowing them well enough to trip up the hoi polloi of his day, but hey we can spin any yarn we like about our heros. But lets assume its accurate.. just because its easier. Was a life of prayer and study what Jesus was calling everyone to? Doubtful. It was pretty much a full time activity for most people just to stay alive.

Over and over, Jesus just kept boiling it all down to one thing - agapé, and a simple rule of thumb for living it out while going about one's business - mutuality.

lol -  well, I don't know. As I predicted, no one has made a comment on the "7 Questions", about as simple a starting point as one could come up with for "revival." Its so much more fun to spin ethereal fantasies about the spiritual revolution that will transform the church and humanity along with it, isn't it?  

Frankly, I see it as the mainline churchs' take on the New Agers' beliefs in 2012, or the evangelicals' reliance on the Rapture. - all methods to, as oui points out, move the action from us to an outside force, beit "God" or space aliens.

Philosophical and theological "fluff" has its place, I dare say.  Your questions seem good and challenging, yet one cannot really begin to answer them unless we agree on what "positively affecting" someone (self/other/creation) means.  I could be deciding whether to end my own life and decide that the answer to all the questions is yes, since it is "better" for the world to have less people in it, my boss needed to eliminate a few positions at work, and I am leaving money behind for charity.  And that's even without having the mindset that no one loves me and everyone is better off with me in a depressed sense.  Couldn't someone who is pro-life decide to use force to prevent me from having an abortion -- and still answer yes to your questions? 

Talking about values, theology and philosophy is still really helpful, I'd say.

shalom,

Erin

Hi Erin. I'd totally agree that the discussion is worthwhile. But ... and for me its an important "but" ... for the church to remain relevent it has to offer something practical to people "where they are" a phrase many a clergy has intoned to me. Otherwise "the people" will continue to do what they've been doing - find their pracitcal spiritual nourishment elsewhere.

As to the examples you suggested, the first thing to keep in mind is that the Questions aren't offered as an absolute, just a starting point. However, in the case of the suicidal person, to answer "yes" to the odd numbered questions, the person would have to put themselves, honestly, in the position of the "other" - could they truthfully say that the person most directly affected by their choice would be better off if they were dead? To be honest with you, I can think of some circumstances where the answere would indeed be "yes", but not many. Generally speaking, the person closest to them would not be positively affected by their death. The suicidal person might answer 'yes' from their own belief, but that's not the same thing is it?

Your second example, the prolifer using force, is interesting. Again, to use the Questions honestly, they have to put themselves in the "other's" position. Projecting their own biases and preconceptions onto the other doesn't count. What they don't have to do, is share the "other's" philosophy of life, faith, or anything else. To answer "yes", preventing this abortion is a positive thing for the mother, question 1,they would have to consider the mother's health and the probable life that she would lead with the child. To answere the third question as yes, they would have to consider the life the child would probably lead. They could argue that the child wouldn't have a life if an abortion is performed, but unless they belief the spirit of the unborn go to hell, I wonder how often they could truly answer yes.

The Questions aren't intended to take the place of discussion or reflection for those, like the people on the cafe, who are into such things, but there are millions of people who describe themselves as "spiritual", there are over a half million members of the UCCan. How many people spend time here contemplating these issues? Not even a handful. To say, as rishi suggests, that action can take place only after a huge dose of navel gazing to climb his pyramid of perambulation is, to me, to simply cede the territory of faith while fooling oneself that something profound is taking place.

Exactly.  Christianity does not seem to have solved the "riddle" even though it claims the very son of God and/or God incarnate made a personal appearance here to show the way/die and create grace. 

Once again, I feel this points to the severe lack of methodology and simple understanding of the whole concept in the church. 

This very discussion proves that little to no progress has happened thru the church for 2000 years.

Again, where has this happened thru the Christian church on a large scale, or a small scale, or anything even noticeable?  If the church can ever manage to get its head out of the sand, it might actually see that its "spiritual practice" of encouraging people to rely on something/someone outside of themselves for significant self improvement, simply has not been effective.

Here you have totally contradicted yourself by admiting the lack of "in knowing how to identify and unwrap it".  

This is an admission of failure, but you go on to state that "Is that what actually happens in "church" ?  If not, then that is, in my view, a church that is not being the church, not synchronized with "its one true Head," if you will."

When we admit we don't even know how to identify it and unwrap it, therefore, the church cannot be synchronized with its one true Head. 

It admittedly lacks the most basic skill.

Hi Rishi:

To me, the mythical or mystical Christ is unitive consciousness, the attainment of which should be the primary responsibility of the Christian Church.

Jesus described unitive consciousness as the "kingdom of heaven," the "kingdom within" or the "kingdom of God," the attainment of which appears to have been his primary vision, purpose, and mission.

But how much has the Church done toward attaining the kingdom and enacting it?

Attaining the kingdom means experiencing the unitive experience; enacting it means acting directly from the unitive experience, in unitive love, conscience and consciousness. Alas, the Church got bogged down in doctrinal battles, and some of those are being fought right here on wondercafe. Rather than using our creative powers of intuition, imagination, meditation, and contemplation to strive for the unitive experience, we exhaust our creative energies in futile, doctrinal battles.

Soon and late, getting and spending, we lay waste our powers. 

Actually, I was trying to highlight the contradiction as an example that the institutional church is quite often not synchronized with its one true Head. In other words, I was, to a certain extent, agreeing with you.

Oh for the love of God. (Not said with profanity)  Why can’t we just keep it simple?  My most profound insights and deeply spiritual moments have never come to me in a Church, they have come with experience and a lot of personal soul searching and reflecting.  Church is only one of many places  where I can go and get a little morsel of what I need to find the Grace of God for myself and then share it with others.    

I just want to be in a community of people who care.  People who are not necessarily my friends, but they are my neighbours.  I want to work with them to help others in the community, in whatever small or humble way that I can.  I want to do my bit, but I can’t do that by myself.  I don’t want to journey alone.  I just want to experience the love of God.  Isn't it the responsibilty of the church to give me a place to do that?  Maybe that just sounds simple...   

I think you have misunderstood what I said up thread about that pyramid, Golden Rule. It's not some elite process involving a 'huge dose of navel gazing'.  It's just the ordinary process of how minds work. And it isn't a process that we can simply opt out of. 

Except for a few instinctual patterns like recoiling from a snake or a precipice, it is simply not possible for human beings to bypass the mind in their performance of actions. 

When you suggest, with Nike, that people "just do it,"  even that suggestion is based on a particular understanding of human experience, one which you judge to be true. 

I would agree that many people are not conscious of the process they are engaging in when they arrive at an understanding of their experience, judge it to be true, and then decide the best course of action. But that unconsciousness does not mean that there is no process, no active life of the mind, going on behind their actions.

The questions you suggest as a starting point for following the Golden Rule are doing what precisely?  They are engaging the life of the mind in a particular way. It seems to me that they are inviting the reader into a particular form of philosophical/theological reflection, a form that you have determined, through your own process of understanding, judgment, and decision, to be better than the form you call "fluff," which apparently takes the mind into places that you have determined are not helpful or necessary for following the Golden Rule.

The questions sound like they could be a worthwhile starting point for some people. But how does your approach to following the Golden Rule handle the more subtle and personal aspects of life, like the emotions that arise in yourself and others in the experience of everyday life, which such questions, I would suspect, inevitably lead to?

 oui: What about Pentecostals?
"The church" which you guys seem to see as one body has been splitting and splitting since the Reformation.  If someone has a different view, if they're a mystic or a pragmatist or a literalist, or any combination (Pentecostals are kind of literalist as well as mystical, I believe) it's almost the normal response now to go start your own church.  Individual churches are extremely autocratic in many cases, but 'the church' as an amalgamation of a billion little churches is basically an anything-goes system, though one still lacking in institutionalized mysticism like you can find in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism...

And also, don't forget Nelson Mandela.  That guy lived by the Golden Rule pretty well.

spice: You seem to hold a very elevated view of Peter.  Only some of the texts name Peter as the one in which Jesus confided his deepest trust and his true mission.  Others say it was Mary Magdalene.  Others say John.  Hell, some of them say Judas.

Peter was the only one identified as 'the rock on which he builds his Church'.  The Peter texts seemed to be the ones more bent on institutionalizing Christianity, in the way we understand institutions.

Sounds good to me.  But how is the church to fulfill that responsibility?  Does it involve any particular process(es) or does the church "just do it" ?

Hence, my confusion. 

I agree with your second kick at the can - that many (I would suggest "most") people do this unconsciously. In fact, as you allude to, the 7 Questions address this very state, giving, I note again, a "starting point" for people to begin the process which, with practice and over time, can lead to a more conscious application.

Exactly

Well of course I am - lol. Weren't we talking about "methodology"? As I noted, the 7 Questions are all about providing a method/way/process to begin to apply the Golden Rule - now, immediately, today, no need to read the preceding thirty five chapters

actually, its not that the fluff takes the mind into places that are not helpful, its that it puts most people to sleep - eye-glazing, Homer Simpson caricature sleep my friend.  

Why is the phrase "damning with faint praise" suddenly running through my head?

You do understand the meaning of the word "begins" right? Or introductory, foundational, elementary?  When I read this question, its rather like hearing, in regards to a Grade 5 math textbook - "Yes, but how does your arithmetic handle quantum physics?"

That, my friend, is when practitoners graduate to your navel gazing classes.

But most of the school is not there yet. And expecting them to be is just setting them up to fail. How do I know that's the case? They stop coming to class. Schools close.

As do churches.

[/quote]

Nope, it sounds bang on.

Good post sanctuary.  Maybe we all wish for such a place in our lives.  So far I haven't found a congregation/church like that.  My community connection lies within groups that were set up to be social/educational.  Within these groups I find 'kindred spirits' who listen, share and care.   Church has never been like that for me.