For me. it was my life experiences that taught me substantial lessons, then after many lessons I learned, or at least I thought I did, I would find that through scriptures, I either learned correctly by those lessons, or I developed, a bias from other lessons.

At the end of the day I lean towards what the scriptures tell me.

I trust them, because of the lessons I have learned correctly seem to guide me most.

If that makes any sense.

Bolt

rishi

I couldn't agree more.  Like the two churches, one where the kids are shooed off to Sunday School so as not to interupt the service and the other where you can little the little darlings going on endlessly.  I go to the second.

So we get back to being Followers of the Way, learning about IT the way Jesus taught. Questioning.  Open  Dynamic

IT

Russ

I'm not sure I will convey myself properly, but here goes.

Jesus spoke to us on our level in human form and was not present in the form of God---whatever that looks like. So really how profound can you be when you have to conform to relating to us as something we would understand because he came as one of us? Not that he didn't astound us, mind you. I'm just saying, are we ready for God to be God and start relating more to what it is, rather than the other way around?

Does this make sense---I don't know?

Not sure I'm getting what you're meaning....   But I don't think we're ready,  to relate fully to anything--human, divine, or in-between--that doesn't feel safe.   Imagine a marginalized person & how safe he/she would have had to feel to be able to come in and sit down in a well known rabbi's circle.

rishi,

You raise an important point. Those of us who see ourselves as Followers of the Way should think about, not only the message, but the WAY it's delivered.

For example, do we just give lip service to inviting others to share our circle - or do we move and leave a space for them to sit with a smile? An invitation is a verb, not a noun.

RussP,

I gotta ask, what's IT? Also, why do you end your posts with IT?

Click [here] to listen to the Common Cup Company song "Draw the Circle Wide"
 

Hope this works.

Here are the words

Draw the circle wide.

Draw it wider still.

Let this be our song,

No one stands alone,

standing side by side

draw the circle wide.

Hi Rishi:

As I just posted in the General Council 40 category, on GeoFee's thread about the meaning of the General Council 40 metaphor, the most urgent goal of humanity is, or should be, the awakening to nonduality or synthesis as the ultimate state of being, and with that the attainment of a Kosmocentric perspective.

The ancient metaphors which Jesus and the OT and AT prophets used don't serve us very well any more. They were for the pople of 2000 years ago, whose mindset we can't even imagine! Although it is good to employ Jesus' method of the teaching-and-learning circle, there is a dire need to restate the ancient sacred metaphors in modern terms.

I see what you are saying, but I think that I'm saying something slightly different.  I would place the emphasis more on the quality of the space that we're inviting people into than on actual acts of inviting.  Often I feel that we don't actually have a circle (of the sort that Jesus did) to invite people into.  I know that we sometimes sit in circles; we have got the geometry of it down. But what actually happens inside of those groupings is often not all that safe, honest, life-giving, or transforming.  So it's not really a Circle with a capital "C", not the kind of Circle where we grow more conscious of, and in harmony with, the divine and one another. 

One of the topics that frequently comes up here in the UCC is our need to put more effort into being "welcoming" to new people who show up at a service, and more effort into "marketing" to those people who don't show up at all.  But from my point of view, when a sacred circle of the sort we're describing is present, it has a naturally magnetic quality.  After all, genuine spiritual growth that affects how you feel about yourself and others and the planet is good news. It's attractive, even though it's very costly. So word travels fast.

When our spirituality lacks that vibrant, compelling quality, I think it's a serious mistake to respond only by focusing on how to better "pull" people in to a space that may actually not be that beneficial.  That's more of a marketing paradigm ("How can we get people to smoke these things and enjoy it, even though it's not actually good for them?"), when the response actually called for is  spiritual renewal.

Your point is intimately related to all of this, of course, because when we have access to this kind of discipleship circle, our dispositions become more authentically simple and gracious, which is very inviting indeed!

Oh I do like this line of thinking.

What do I think when you convey the image of a circle? Unlike the box, you can't get pushed into a corner in a circle.  No sharp corners to bang into. There is the space within the circle and the space without, providing infinite room to roam. A line with no beginning or ending. 

LB - in perpetual motion

Never, never rest contented with any circle of ideas, but always be certain that a wider one is still possible.     Pearl Bailey

What you say here, Bolt, reminds me of what you shared somewhere else about your decision to leave a certain church because your  actual experience with how people there (leadership?) were relating to you was very incongruent with what you see in scripture regarding how our relationships are meant to be.  If I'm remembering this correctly, I think  your experience there is an example of what I'm trying to describe here. In other words, if Jesus had related to potential disciples the way you described being related to at your former church, who would have wanted to be in his circle of friends?  Why would they?

In the end, I think that the best vision we have of what the church should look like in actual practice is that very simple circle of Jesus with his disciples that is described in such great detail in scripture.  Of course our context is different in 2009, so it can't look the same in many ways as it did in ancient Palestine, but the inner dynamics of that circle, the spirit of it, the heart of what happens in it, should be the same.  Otherwise, why go there?

In addition to wondercafe.live! we are going to have wonderSpirit gatherings in our church hall beginning this September. We started wondecafe.live! in September of last year, and will continue it as a discussion forum with formal presentations followed by discussions. wonderSpirirt will be different. It will be a spiritual sharing/teaching/learning circle. We are starting at circle one.

Attentive.  Aware of the deepest significance of the most trivial things. Liberating. Safe. Life-giving. Honest. Brings out the truth of who we are in all of our vulnerability.  Add to these the traditional lists of the beatitudes, the fruit of the Spirit, etc.

A logistical step, I think, is that we need a few good spiritual elders, for whom what you're calling IT is more or less "in charge."  They act as yeast that will spread organically through the circle.

Starting all over again, as Arminius said, from Circle one.

Can this happen across an entire institution like the UCC?  Personally, I don't think so. Because this kind of spiritual development process cannot be institutionalized. 

But it can be, and is, contained in traditions. We need to get over the idea that 'tradition' is an oppressive thing. A wisdom tradition is something purposely created by the kinds of spiritual elders I just mentioned. It contains teachings that transform, zillions of important details about a living a life that is in harmony with what you're calling IT. Details like how the problem of morality fits in, how to discern and respond when self-deception of various kinds is interfering with that harmony, what practices increase that harmony and why, etc., etc... 

One of the potential dangers, I think, of speaking of fundamentals in the way we are --  circles, and IT, and so on... is that it's very succeptible to degeneration into a kind of hyper-independent, do-it-yourself New Age fluff that only produces a kind of ego-centered bliss that is quite far removed from, for example, the spirituality of Jesus, or of the Buddha. We need the guidance of our wisdom tradition in the same way that we need the guidance of spiritual elders.

The challenge we face now with "the Christian tradition" is that some of us are discovering that none of it really makes much sense outside of the kind of Circle that Jesus was engaging in.  But the way to respond to that challenge is not by recreating that tradition in a way that makes sense to our minds (which have become so terrifically small compared to our spiritual ancestors). It's rather to rediscover that original Circle, that primary devotion in what you call IT.  Then out of that tradition, our spiritual ancestors will come back to join us in that Circle, and to support us and guide us within our context.

In fact, under the right conditions, it's tradition that informs us that the Circle emerges out of IT, as its fundamental structure of spiritual community.

Pilgrim

IT is my panentheistic vision of God.  Hmmmm, IT created the universe but is not bound by the universe.  There are more than one universes in existence.  We are in this universe and therefore part of IT, but at the same time we are in the universe, therefore IT is part of us.  Inseparable.  We are God and God is us.

The total consciousness (soul/spirit) of all living creatures, here and out there, contribute to the intelligence?  soul?  spirit? of IT.  As we become more Godlike, IT becomes greater, but at the same time, alwasy much, much, much greater than any single entity.  An infinitly small subset of the IT whole.

IT  can certainly can not be packaged into something that can be analyzed or boxified.

Man, hope this makes some sense.

IT is what Jesus was talking about to his followers.  This indescribable love?  that had to be experienced.  That words simply couldn't explain.  The reason why the Bible is all metaphor and parable, explain the unexplainable in 50 words or less.

IT

My version of God Bless

IT

Russ

rishi

Circles work but they can be no less formidable that the entrance to any church.  If you are part of the church, AND feel safe in the space, a circle can be a very open and good place to be.

If not, they can be scary.  It is one thing to open the circle to let the person in, but then to actually show your inner workings to strangers, hmmmm, that I believe is step 5 of the program.

We need have to find a way to conventionally invite the person in, make them feel at home, and perhaps sit outside but near the circle until they feel comfortable enough to enter.  We may well need multiple circles as I know that, and it always amazes me that there can be so many different flavours and yet we hang together, there are many takes on God and one circle may be very conservative, and the other quite happy with a shaman leading the discussion.

IT

Russ

I was thinking of posting this separately as a question Rishi ... but you have opened a portal.

The matter of the circle and the infinite exchange (IT?) that converts from a pirmal reason (ID) ... motivational terms for peace is full sharon of the pieces ... the wee shards of creation in blossom.

Where we get in trouble is the anthropocentricity of the savant, we all think we are at the centre, when we're just the fringe group ... a mere remnant of the full fabric. I think of the Aboriginal Talking Circle with the four initial elements at the centre: earth. water, air and plasma in the fire of a Lam ... warm unseen Light mostly! Does the wee flame inside get out of hand without the wadi of learning? Ain't the story-telling tradition a hoot ... how these lessons are hid from the physical being?

Then 2000 years ago they buried the signs and symbols of Light so they could restrict common folks (Pagans) from learning. Did the followers distance themselves from Light's sole and spirit? It kind of makes the interested think about this circle with a blip at the center like bump in the night ... nubian brea-St of God ... Bath' SheBa if you know considerable depths of that shadowy story. Deeps? People don't want to go there regardless of the given (A'Don's) symbols ... its a beauty of a dome folded inside creation ... strings attached, deep in the Pits of the thinker .. d'm'n to those that think themselves Gods? Purely reciprocal positions if you consider which side of history you're in! Ankh or pas tens'? Live the day for all not just self! Thy's elf get out hand without reason. Does that stand up to Light?

The fragment of fabric is at the centre and our task, as members of the circle, is to weave new threads into it.

IT

Russ

Yes, Russ, I've met people who were uncomfortable in a circle because, in a circle, we open ourselves to each other in intimacy of mind and render ourselves vulnerable. (We'll have to shed our Kevlar armour :-) The great thing about this is that we offer ourselves to each other in a communion between "I" and "Thou." The reason behind the excercise is, of course, the ultimate communion between the individual "I" and the ultimate "THOU."

"Where wast thou when I created the heaven and the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding!"

-Book of Job

An alternative to the circle is the round table. It, too, is circular and egalitarian, but puts somewhat of a shield betweeen ourselves and others.

In our upcoming wonderSpirit gatherings we are going to try both, the round table and the circle, and see which works best.

Arminius

Very good point.  Hadn't thought of it and yet a roundtable does tend to be more structured and safe, and perhaps more suited to mid-day. Whereas the circle is the quiet evening get together, smaller, quieter, with close friends.

 We have Thank God It's Tuesday sessions for four weeks, twice a year, and there we sit on padded chairs around a coffee table, only because it gives you someplace to put the coffee and cookies.  Maybe 6 to 8 per group.  The table being low enough that it really doesn't act as a barrier.  That seems to work very well.

Or if it's a religious discussion, groups of 4 or 5 on chairs in a circle.  Also works well.

But in both cases, it still tends to be the ones willing to drop their kelvar undies.

I think I would vote for a coffee table and chairs.  It still provides some protection without the formality of a real table, that you are definitely behind.

IT

Russ

For sure, we need multiple circles.  What you're describing is kind of like we think it was in ancient India. Back then, it wouldn't make sense to ask a person, "Are you spiritual?" because everyone was engaged in the quest for liberation. The question was, "In what Dharma Circle do you sit?"   But that ancient religion, what we now call Hinduism, never really was an institution in our sense. Even today, it's more like a spiritually oriented culture.

In contrast to that, it's hard for me to imagine multiple circles actually thriving inside of an institution, even a relatively flexible one like the UCC. Because institutions inevitably want to own/control what happens inside 'their' circles.  And that deadens what happens inside those circles.

If we tried to push the institution in that multiple circle bearing direction, it might guide our evolution into a more Unitarian form, which would have its pros & cons.  But for me what we need the most is completely outside of any institutional form. 

I look to the institution for it's infrastructural supports, photocopies, paycheck, and pension plan, but not for spiritual life.  That's not what it's for in my mind. For that I go to a Circle where the only agenda is greater harmony with the divine. 

That Circle is not an institutional form.  So when the two become conflated, there is really no more Circle, and it's time to move on, find a new context for the Circle to be reborn, until the leaden fingers of convention start putting the squeeze on it again. And then it's time to move on again. 

That's the process as I experience it. So, for me the key question is, how can the UCC, as an institution, serve that process?   My plan is to use whatever light I have to grow and engage in small circles where I can, while I can.  So far, the UCC has enabled me to do that, and for as long as it does, I'm in.

I'm not talking about literal geometrical circles, though.  You could have the kind of Circle I'm describing even with pews,  or at a diner.

Yes, real relationships that foster spiritual growth take time, and a lot of other ingredients, to develop.

rishi

And yet I have found that physical circles work well as all are equal, not ends, no middle.

IT

Russ

Yes... The four elements share a common emptiness. No one of them has existence apart from the others.  So the real centre is empty.  Not empty in a harsh, gnawing sort of way, but as you describe, a warm unseen Light. But that terrifies the 'I' when it realizes that it is simply made of these four elements, which have no separate existence. So neither do 'I', it panics!  Then the 'I' in angst becomes the self-proclaimed savant, stages a coup, and takes over the centre, and fills it full of shiny stuff.  Only to find it can't really enjoy the new central location, because the other kind of emptiness, the harsh, gnawing kind, enters in and bites it in the end.  It's like a hungry ghost that can't eat real food. Terrible state to be in.

Exactly.  The wisdom of tradition, our ancestors know-how, once we decipher it, keeps us from falling into that narcissistic circle, the circle of death (samsara) that mimics the circle of life (the Way).  They show us the absurdity of that false circle, where everything launches out of and aims back at the 'I',   Their knowledge is not ordinary knowledge, not the kind that makes the head swell.  Their reason is harnessed to that empty centre of pure awareness. So their knowledge is empty, like warm unseen Light, and that appears foolish to those still hunting for fool's gold.

Thanks, WB.  I needed that...

I have participated in all kinds of Native circles, and found the Sweat Lodge circle to the be the most transformative.

The ritual of the Sweat Lodge, the atmosphere, the darkness, the nakedness, the stillness, the close proximity to others, not to speak of the sweating itself, which is supremely relaxing even to those who don't meditate, all these factors combined remove the barriers between people and open the heart. What people share in the Sweat Lodge is almost always truly heart-felt or spirit-felt, and one is wide open to perceive.

ALL MY RELATIONS

Arminius

Russ,

Thanks for trying, but this sounds like Arminius's "bafflegaff." David Suzuki was the only one who could explain science to me, so is there a David Suzuki of  panentheism out there?

I get the bit about love and it's need to be experienced. The moments when I'm aware of this love, I feel a sense of connection and unity with the cosmos and all that is. When this happens, it seems as if my ego - or sense of self - shrinks and I become a part of a whole.

Is this close to what you mean?

About circles and their effectiveness. As other posters have pointed out, it's not their physical structure that makes them effective - but how willing the participants are in sharing their inner truths.

Recently, I took part in one such circle on the topic of "suffering". There was something unnerving about it, and by the time I got home I realised what it was. I had been the only participant that spoke of suffering in my own life. Others had talked about "other people" or suffering in theory. The end result was that I was left feeling vulnerable and alone.

On the other hand, I realise that some people have enormous difficulty in being "personal". What to do?

We struggle with the same kinds of challenges here. More and more I see it as coming down to the fact that we just don't have the spiritual culture within the church any more that is needed to produce the kind of elders that are needed to enable a circle like that to thrive. A circle like that needs to be seeded with elders who, because they have become conscious of and made peace with their own vulnerability in God, are able to help others expand their comfort zones. But in the current culture of our church it often seems to me that anyone who is good at making pancakes, or fund-raising, or taking care of odds and ends around the church building, becomes an elder.  Just as  anyone with a pulse is often given the responsibility to teach Sunday School.   In a fairly recent survey of elders in the UCC, a majority suggested that they were not comfortable discussing "spiritual matters" in their roles as elders, but saw themselves as focusing more on practical matters of church governance, like finances, policy decisions, committee work, etc..  Of course this is a huge generalization, but we've developed a culture in the UCC that is nicely liberal / tolerant, one that's very good at potlucks and Christmas pageants and donating to very good causes, but as a rule quite timid about "spiritual matters."  So... what to do?  

What I've mainly been doing  since I joined the UCC is offering spiritual practice groups in my own congregation and other congregations that I visit.  This has created a lot of networking opportunities, discovering the less visible, smaller sub-cultures in various congregations, who are concerned about growing their spiritual lives as a foundation for the work of the church. What I hope will eventually come out of this kind of networking is getting together with these folks, praying and meditating together, supporting one another, getting to know one another, and discussing how best to respond to our situation in the UCC.

A David Suzuki of panentheism?

Well Marcus Borg is probably the best known panentheist today.

Old school panentheists- John Cobb, Alfred North Whitehead.

New school Panentheists- Marjorie Suchocki, Bruce Epperly, Rita Brock, Catherine Keller.

It's the same "down under". The church elders are mainly Marthas - not too many Marys !

When spiritual matters are discussed, it's mainly about "what the Bible says" or what Borg or Spong says if you're a progressive.

Of course that's important, but sometimes I would like others to say what spirituality means personally to them.

Rev Murray,

I'm a fan of Marcus Borg, but I was under the impression that he was a progressive Christian. Where does he refer to himself as a panentheist?

Folks, I am aware that I am not in a position to give a definitive direction/answer to your quest, but I don't hear enough about Ecology. Ecology, as it has been explained to me, is the study of the relationship of everything with everything else. To me that is the ultimate circle, a circle that is totally (no exceptions) inclusive.

In order to lose some of the fear we may have confiding in others, we have to start engaging in speaking the language. As we become more familiar with the language, the easier and more trusting our relationship with others will become.

Thank you all for your participation. I find it stimulating and embracing.

Shalom.

Pilgrim, I can't give you chapter and verse either, but I too have heard him share with his audience that he is a panentheist. We'll have to wait for Rev Murray to shed some light on this subject.

Shalom.

All Mathews and not enough Martha's?

T' Eire sight unseen by many blind m'n! I often wonder how many real Epraim 'd spirits are in Dah Vinchi's image of that last meal a grinding on my sole?

I don't know about you but many of the churches I've encountered have been sown together by the UCW-type ... the ephemeral spirit ... man is too confrontational ... then some women have too much of the father image (the anima?)! Are we a perfect beast or like the heffer divined in OT myth? Ain't it a hoot once yah get into ID? Who's the stick Ai burr ... the Ai outlawed by King James' lingoes? Woman a pain in the reuben/ribb'n ... if ignored as one half of creation ... m'n'z loss, over the lip of his vision ... Lost Horizon---Jim Mei Hilton; Black Hole eh wah up in the isles?

Imma Jinn Nation ... the other side of reality! Where do great things get created ... then there is the hard line realist ... fearful of spooks like emotion and th'ought (Theo) ... don't go there yah might get a head'ove me! Beware of jealous Gods ... but they might teach yah sum'tin ta reflect upon! Is the mind like a spirit garden resting in a hard spot ... brea 'n, just a rille in the stones? Nothing denied ... nothing gained ... they can't think about IT ... frightenes the fecund manna rite outa dem on's!

Mon's? That's a whole nuthers Tory!

Could a hard man use a softer spot ... like the indeterminate spirit of the brea 'n, the mind U? Ides like animus meant for the powers above ... taken as a softer understanding ... it floes even under the Isis! Chilling stream!

Can the ephemeral get into the mind? Only if there's a portal ... Ta'ell' din many stories it upsets the conquest and returns cultivation! You know the old gunfighter down on the farm.

Roman militancy hated cultivation ... look what they did to the old Greek myth ... corrupte dite. Isis->Izeus-> Janus ... witch is just a two-faced God where one side can't understand the other. In a snakes tongue ... divined story of emotion (ID) separated from intellect (IT). Check WEBSTER for intellect: alien thing outside the will of "I am"? Allegory of a curved line related to a Dot, Dorothy in Os sum space ... fully integrated! Its a point of reverence ... non dimensional essence ... mind lost in all that pas Zion. Power that drives nothing over the horizon event! One has to find thy's elf.

Hi LB, I was enthused with your image of the perpetual motion till I started thinking about it in context. Although I like your enthusiasm for the open space in as well as on the outside, I could not get away from the boundary that is always present. I kept having those flashes of restriction, maybe not in sharp corners but in a never ending squirel cage. It doesn't restrict motion, but it doesn't allow freedom either.

So much for the physical aspect. How about if we make a ball out of the configuration!? Does that solve my problem of restriction? Well, at least I can move in several directions at will --- but the restriction is still a reality.

What happens if we take the top physicists and let them think their way around! Is that any better? Have we now enlarged the boundaries while still maintaining the restrictions, regardless of how large? Tell the truth, I have no answer, and I am not sure that this is not a fools game!

Even so, Interesting!

Any thoughts?

Shalom.

Hmmmm....   only half a horizon, eh?  No space for Mother Nature and her ecological way?  Our harsh cutting off of the Feminine in ourselves what  blinds us to the Aboriginal Way we sought to destroy?  Maybe "what's missing" is a She?  Burried so deep that even her own kind are having trouble finding Her?

A sobering diagnosis of our condition.  Is there hope for recovery? What's the treatment?

Yes!  A portal no garden variety Adam can construct, thank God.

Thank you for that. Palms together.

What if the restrictive boundaries of the circle function as a crucible?  So that what at first glance is a lack of freedom, is at a deeper level, the  portal into the Limitless. The restrictive boundaries may be essential to get the lead out. So there's an alchemy, a martial art, or a Zen, to this kind of restraint.

This is interesting. If we read Gretta Vosper's book: "With or without God" we come across her complaint about the focus being to much on the "practical " stuff on the agenda. (p-98 -see ref to Hal Llewellyn)

Speaking for myself, I totally agree with her take. Several years ago I wrote the executive of my Presbytery a letter with one topic:  "What is the Business of the Church?" I was promised a visit from a rep to enlighten me. The rep never showed! So, the question stands: What is the Business of the Church? If anybody can shed light on this subject, I would appreciate it.

Shalom.

There is a sense of three circles within a larger round and a tiny circle but a point about which to revolve .. re evolution in corruption? That's five circles .. a basis to stand upon in psychic circles ... they say pente is imbedded in the mind.

The missing "She" is the Zhi in old Greek letters .. a primal three tiered thing about lost virginity when something became of nothing. Yah can't make something out of nothing with out an exact opposite ... basic neu clear physics of small chits (perez) ... gravide particles of eclectic points. Did you know that Zhi was related to an ancient spiral ... what developed into "a" and then "e" in pure reflection upended ... it all comes back if'n yah dig into it. Most people cannot stand the Job given as singular talent ... devilish learning and expanding on a caring connect ... Mir WORD? Ides a bounce in a Ba'aL game to be persued by the metaphysical hunter ... of lo vine th'O divine ... that's nothing to make something oV IT? A bit for the phetching! Aura just faere fet-chi-ng scene!

Light provides a vision, as pyre aL ingoes to the dark sole. Is phoe tun a Mir enigma even at present .. burry eyed?

Perhaps this is the real business of the church?  Panentheist's question that no one wants to answer. 

On Her, that primordial caring connect, we stand. All other ground is sinking sand.  All other ground is sinking sand. So, maybe we're doing the devilish learning piece all right, but we've pitched our tent in the wrong spot?

This would be an awful lot to keep track of, to be actually conscious of the spiritual space in which we stand, while thinking, learning, conversing. This is not doable, in our usual sense. Couldn't we just do one or the other?  Oh... I forgot... that's how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place.  So maybe the only way to move forward is to do the non-dua(b)l(e) thing.

Borg calls himself a panentheist in his book "The Heart of Christianity". I do not recall in which chapter.

I find calling God 'it' a little cold, and lacking in the mystery & wonder. I prefer the Hebrew YHWH, the holy name which cannot be spoken. There is the great "I am" from the burning bush. "The divine" . Or Jurgen Moltmann (another panentheist) uses the term "the spirit of life".

What is the business of the church? To make disciples of Jesus Christ. To put that in more modern terms, our calling is to help people follow the way of Christ. Things like social justice and outreach are the fruits of the spirit, the things we do as a result of the life changing relationship we have with God through the example & teachings of Jesus. Too many of our churches focus on social justice & outreach, without first tending to the foundational task of discipleship which makes such actions possible. The UCC document being studied at General Council about the mission of the denomination makes this error, which shows why it is so hard for many in the UCC to answer this very basic question.

RevJames

Cold, yes.  That is why I prefer IT to Borg's IS.  ISness just sounds to me like too much random chance.  IT includes the spirit of everything.

IT

Russ

IT and "is" are just two different forms of the cross (T) and aleif ( the Arabic "i" as a stroke of luck in the beginning), the evolution in the script of word is dumbfounding, confusing but burying the primal ID as corrupted, lust takes hold to do as we wish (or not).

There is a sense of a saving light in the sav-ante (sou-beginning) beyond, or under "our understanding" if you can allow the san to speak to you. Was Jesus a savant, like a Jinn in the wilderness of our hungry soul? What, singing san ... Sar-awe terms?

The word is like Zei polter-geist passing by, hammering a thought in to those that are sensitive enough to listen and not overcoming the whispers of truth with a lusty roar of a bull on a mountaintop, or coque on a rock that has no sense of relation between choc o'late (shadow) and keening awareness (recognizance) of the infinite ... Pan Theistic thing to a man that mistakes himself as the whole thing. And what profit it a man to gain IT all, and lose mind for lack of a balancing hollow to lift his sole being --- Dan Buoy'd?

Do you know the yod in Heb is an indefinite term for time ... like erse while in Celtic space and ersat whiles, Dreamtime to the aboriginal wanderer? Everyone needs a rest and powers above can't seem to see that as they rush on the yellow brick road ... hard light without a Karen (Ani's form)!

Right on!  I think you've got your eye on the eye of the storm, James.  Do you know "On Earth As In Heaven:  Justice Rooted In Spirituality" by Arhtur Paul Boers.  I just picked it up at a used bookstore. Haven't read it yet, but it looks good.  Any other titles you'd suggest on this crucial theme?

The Missional Leader: Equipping Your Church to Reach a Changing World (J-B Leadership Network Series) by Alan Roxburgh, Fred Romanuk, and Eddie Gibbs

Roxburgh is a Canadian.

Ministry of the Missional Church, The: A Community Led by the Spirit by Craig Van Gelder. Gelder is an American Lutheran.

Ai net Light illumination in balance with Love (Go'din finite form) filly Sophical thingy? The Mir study of thin kin!

Light clap or is that just a Finn in the waters ... white Wahls a threat to Ahab ... dark mysterious powers of the deeps ... when it hits yer vessel ides a shocking thing like a shoqan-spear-ion thing. "You want to dew what with that?"

And so man ends up in the drink over and over he brews and never learns the raels; just phoqah-up in heaven lead fall's as a Maas on the brain ... heavy irony ... satire unwound! First one has to crack the bindings if you are to understand the shadow on the page! Next step ... a lad-Eire in the wilderness ... The Graduate? Bust outa church ... a breast ahead of the m'n! Thin mar-Jinn of space, not really a struggle, just hoar frost thinking to gette the pyres started.

One cannot really separate the anima from the animus (ID/IT, soul/spirit) once planted in the medium ... spiritual chit when viewed from the 'thers ide! Some thin lines bound to Eris frau mitt (yah) like  Eros one's heated ... D'vidian cause ... raison-elle? Everyone should get into ID/T ... the population problem would subside, then we would again have lo-Jache to make more pears! Ephe roue 'sof infinite tris'?

Won sheul earn dite!

RevJames,

"The Heart of Christianity" is my favourite book on religion. (my sort of book - written clearly - ie. no bafflegaff!)

I'll re-read and see if I can find the reference to panentheism, thanks.

WaterBuoy, I believe this comment is based on my original "All Marthas and not enough Marys". Are you suggesting that the problem with the church is that there aren't enough women, rather than my idea that there are too many "doers" and not enough people interested in spirituality?

For me, you are the Master of Bafflegaff, so I'm hoping I will follow your answer. If not, " Ach mon, I ken your dhu Celtic fun."