I agree that there's merit in what this rabbi says, but if that line of thinking (and it is a line of thinking) is taken to extremes, it ends up in a kind of romantic, anti-intellectualism that negates a significant part of what it means to be human. It's good to recognize a distinction between "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge", but I think it's an error to make them into a sharp dichotomy, as if one or the other was disposable, as if they were unrelated to one another.

And what about the Scriptures? Hebrew & Christian Scripture are chocked full of theology. The other day I was talking with someone about his difficulty reading the Bible. He said he got much more out of reading Tolkein's stories. (Tolkein, of course, was no stranger to the Bible, and very influenced by its vision of life.)  When he said that, the analogy came to my mind that the difference between the Bible and a Tolkein story might be like the difference between a football field full of raw sides of beef and one good, ready-to-eat hamburger. (My apologies to vegans). For one thing, Tolkein is more culturally digestible for him. It makes fewer demands on him to read Tolken than it does to read Scripture. But for me, what Tolkein is doing for this man is "theology," and feeding him no more than he can digest. On the other hand, I think that the frustration this man feels with the Bible is also connected with his not having learned a way of life that helped him to develop biblical literacy, which includes doing "theology". This relates to the problems of clericalism and dumming down the Gospel, but don't get me started....

I think that there can also be a kind of illiteracy involved when we pit "head knowledge" against "heart knowledge," or vice versa. They are like different languages, and we need to be fluent in both, although we might prefer one to the other. We need a more holistic, integrated approach to religious education.  I wonder if the context this rabbi is in has been skewed in the direction of study.

Another problem with the "menu" vs, "food" analogy is that symbols are a staple in religion, and sacred symbols are at once "menu" and "food." The Eucharist, as a visible sign of an invisible grace, is the most obvious Christian example.  Are you eating God when you engage in it, or just chewing on a piece of bread?

Hi Mendalla,

I think that the Rabbi reveals a lot of truth in that image.

The quality and detail of the menu varies from restaurant to restaurant.  Just as the quality of the food on the plate varies from restaurant to restaurant (unless you are doing convenience food--then it is roughly the same everywhere).

Some establishments emphasize the portions they serve while others are noted for their presentation or price point.

Theology for the sake of theology though, what does that look like in the context of the menu imagery?  Is it the difference between a menu that simply lists the item--Turkey Sandwich $X and a menu that lists the item and then provides more description (our Turkey is slow roasted over blah, blah and blah?  Or is it like the fancier restarants where upon delivery you find your turkey sandwich is actually half a sandwich and there is now some radish flower where the other half should be and someone has drizzled some mayo or mustard in a waveform off to the side?

I mean, I get the theology for the sake of theology stuff.  It is like art for art's sake.  Great techniques and style but little meaning.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I would say scripture is the menu. Not essential reading but a guide to what's available. 

Theology is about what it could possibly mean, if one chose to actually order something.

Both provide opportunities to escape direct experiences of the mystery, or to go down the road for a feed.

And both/either can facilitate a healthy faith journey.

It very much depends on what you do with them.

one may experience much if they read the menu, as it is , not upside down, or argueing with the chef on the recipe.

Christianity is not a recipe in which one can change the seasoning to theyre own flavour.

Christianity is not a restaurant.

what matters is truth.

would you like to order something and get somethign different or told it is not meat when it is and have the waiter try to convince you of what is not truth of the item.

most importantly, lets just remember Christianity is not a sit down to be served according to out desires alone in spite of the menu.

the analogy (or whatever you call it) doesnt work in my opinion.

My first reaction is that you're thinking too literally, Stephen. It's a metaphor and it's about spirituality and spiritual practice in a much broader sense, not specifically Christianity. The analogy came, after all, from a Rabbi.

However, your point is taken. For you, Christianity, and perhaps faith in general, is more of a prix fixe meal. You sit down and accept what is on the set menu for that dinner rather than considering and choosing from an a la carte menu. It's all there and all spelled out in scripture and your choices are to accept it or leave the restaurant. I left the restaurant.

Anyone else getting hungry?

Mendalla

you 'left the restaurant'?

-------------------------------

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. ² He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes^[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. ³ You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. ⁴ Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

⁵ “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. ⁶ If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. ⁷ If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. ⁸ This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. (John 15:1-8)

--------------------------------------

btw ponder if such as Moses, is part of the vine, when did the 'true vine' begin growing?

i dont know, i ask.

-----------------

²⁴ By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. ²⁵ He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. ²⁶ He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.(from Hebrews 11)

ie. I am no longer a Christian. By yours or any other defintion.

Mendalla

I have always expressed the same idea this way: in life theological understanding is the booby prize because it gives one just enough spirituality to inoculate you against the real thing (spiritual experience).  Paul's epistles are uniquely problematic for this issue because so much of them consists of the language of experience that we then transform into systematic theology.  The challenge is to use contemporary mystical experience as a  kind of foil against which greater understanding of Paul's mysticism might be achieved. 

Could Moses, long before the birth of Jesus, be part of the Vine?  What about others who lived long before the birth of Jesus in other parts of God's world?  For example: Socrates?  Buddha?  Could they also be part of the Vine?

This, I think, has been part of my problem. I am an intellectually curious person, drawn almost naturally to theology, philosophy, science, etc. The problem, at least with theology, is that I explore the ideas but they rarely engage me to go deeper, to find the "food" if you like. In fact, where I do find the "food", it's generally not through intellectual pursuit but through engaging with art, nature, and other things that inspire awe or joy.

And, oddly enough, I've found reading about science more "spiritual" than a lot of theology and that may be precisely because I'm not focussed on thinking about spirit/God when I read about science, and yet there is much in science that can inspire the kind of awe and joy that leads to a spiritual understanding of the world. Savouring the complexities and beauties of the universe revealed by astronomy or of life as revealed by biology and so on. I find the modern cosmological "Creation myth" as inspiring as any of the classical religious ones when contemplated from a standpoint of a "wow" moment.

Which, I guess, brings us back to the "eating the menu" idea. One interpretation of the image is that theology can a distraction from real spiritual engagement and growth. We can think that thinking about God is enough to be spiritual (which, I think, is what Berserk is getting at with the line I quoted). At least, to some extent, that's how it seem to play out for me.

Mendalla

Theology is NEVER about "god" … it's can only abour OUR perceptions, ideas and experiences of "godness". 

Theology is a mirror to humanity. 

This is NOT to say that we make "god" in our own image (though that certainly happens) but that our experiences of "god" are limited by our experiences of "godness" in life and by our capacities to experience and understand the World.

The person who is limited in experience (or reluctant to enter into it) and/or is unwilling to push his/her understanding always into nrew places will have not a lot to say about god, even if they read every scrap of scripture and theology. The scripture and theology will never be integrated with their personal experience and their faith journey will never really begin. Scripture and theology will never get past the "head" stuff — stuff that has to be "believed" — other people's conclusions about "god". No purely rational mind will find a lot of satisfaction there.

Scripture and theology find their place when someone brings to them questions that arise from lived experience. Do they help us to find coherence in our lives and meaning in existence? Do they diminish our needfulness and anxieties? Do they enrich our spirituality, faith and imagination, and empower us to "good" — in which case, they hold some sort of "truth" for us — or do they fail the test and simply add to our anxiety? 

I find scripture fascinating — far richer and more interesting as I get older and more widely experienced in living — and theology is often to me a bit of a game: table hockey with ideas… it can be fun and interesting and pointless, all at the same time… and satisfying in a useless kind of a way. Or it can be like hanging wallpaper in a crooked room, or a tedious tug-o-war among egos that dulls even the thought of finding the "divine" in one's life.

In the end, our theology is made visible only in who we are as people, how we treat each other and how sincerely we respect and cherish others who are "different" from "us". This has to be THE test because we all are entangled in an inescapable one-ness on this planet… in a universe that "god" (whatever god may be) is presumably "greater" than.

So many times theology is just blown off the page as is ... because the observer can't see any depth to it ...

There's always moor to come in the longer view ... God isn't mortal ... there's moor to it  than blind Love of Amos ... Mica said that God includes justice, mercy and humility.

Now tell me again about the pride of man having God in hand ... then we have the fear of woman ... the well-red lady ... psyche ... the devil to a brute!

In knowledge there is power, secondary to love that initiates the examination of what we have here ... face on with depths ... tomes?

Sort of austenetic irony ... but who'd know what that is if you only believe what's laid out for yah ... in the abstract ... penne traits of de noodle ... difficult place for words ... they must be arranged in a myth ... that's how T's made! Cross in hybrid form ...

I agree with your #2, Mike, but not with your #1. For me, #1 reflects too 'modern' a view of mind, truth, and reality (i.e., that nothing true can be said about any thing, because we can only know our inner repesentations of things, not things-in themselves & nothing is transhistorical.) 

Instead, I would argue that truth is what a pure mind knows, and that purity of mind can indeed be cultivated. This more ancient view is most often associated with Buddhist thought, but it is no less Christian. Blessed are the pure in heart, even if in every single moment of their existence they are not pure in heart.

Sometimes theology can be the map to find the tree that bears spiritual fruit to eat.  When we just read the map, it does not change our life.  When we use the map to find and connect with Spirit, it can help us transform our life.

Tree of loci (knowledge), tree of wisdom ... declared evil by the Vaticanus?

There's a long way to go for those that think emotion and thought cannot dance ... that's like sentient ... enough to wake the dead ... we've come such a short way ...

Rishi, you wrote:

"I agree with your #2, Mike, but not with your #1. For me, #1 reflects too 'modern' a view of mind, truth, and reality (i.e., that nothing true can be said about any thing, because we can only know our inner repesentations of things, not things-in themselves & nothing is transhistorical.) Instead, I would argue that truth is what a pure mind knows, and that purity of mind can indeed be cultivated. This more ancient view is most often associated with Buddhist thought, but it is no less Christian. Blessed are the pure in heart, even if in every single moment of their existence they are not pure in heart."

------------

I certainly agree that we can "know" god, tastes of god, but my experience would be that my experience is unique to me: it's the little bit of infinity that I can wrap my capacities around to experience "godness". And even I do not "understand" that experience in any way that's useful to describe for others. I do not believe anyone has that capacity because I have yet to meet anybody, or read anything about "god", that matches my experience… I "get" what others are attempting to describe but the description is always inadequate and inaccessible. My experience is a flood of felt rather than understood meaning, joy, diffusion-of-"self", coolness, fragrance, energy and vividness of immediate infinity… "love" certainly is a word that pops to mind but it's not directed like "normal" love — it's a feeling of impossible and possible merged indistinguishably… it's feelings of insight that I certainly can't articulate; it's a feeling of belonging and of edgelessness. It's an experience of extreme paradox.

So… where does that leave me? Absolutely wordless when I try to say anything about the source of that experience. My attempt at description is hopeless, humiliatingly inadequate and misleading to me — what can I say about it's source? Hysteria? So YOU shouldn't take a word of it seriously. It is utter mystery but all-important. It is very clear, but it is not describable. So it has no objective status. It is worthless because it does not communicate. And the trouble with objectivity anyway is that what others see, you get. 

There are, I think, places to take objectivity seriously, very seriously. It's essential to make sense of and make use of material objects with describable, measurable properties. We can manipuilate, explain and share reliable information about those properties — well enough, at least, to make helicopters, cellphones and reasonably impressive dinners. But even these things have dimensions that don't submit to the everyday transactions made familiar by over-exposure to our hyper-materialistic culture and society. 

Form, for example, is a passing illusion we cling to only out of fear. There is no meaning in form: everything is, in reality, fluid, dyanmic, adrift, changing, fleeting. Within this, meaning is a direction, not a possession. The words melt, the cadences disintegrate and we are fleeting in the "real" real world. Faith is about living "well" and discovering, then becoming, "meaning". "Meaning" is not something we have as a matter of course — it's not easy to get over the illusions that make things feel "ours": when we do, we experience a realisation that nothing is "ours", not even the "person" we like to think we are. Our imaginations simply don't stretch that far. It all is assimilated into the mystery for which I find the word "god" a handy single syllable to bandy about. But that's all "god" is: a puff of breath. The puff of breath is gone in an instant  that's born away by the flows of life and eternity. Everything is dynamic but that doesn't mean "god" is dynamism… love fills everything… but that doesn't mean "god" is "love"… we are blind old men exploring an elephant.

Please fill in my gaps, Rishi… surprise me with words that sum up "god", and are not just like yesterday's thistle down: seeds on the wind. (And "seeds on the wind" is how I'd describe scripture… the best we can do is set aside some fertile ground in our souls,)

-------

Rishi — from your profile:

''When I try to put it all into a phrase I say, 'Man can embody truth but he cannot know it.' I must embody it in the completion of my life.''

-- William Butler Yeats (a few weeks before his death)

"I cannot [continue writing], because all that I have written seems like straw to me"

-- Thomas of Aquinas (following a mystical experience a few months before his death)

— I can relate to these statements. I suspect you can too… or is it just me… nearing death?

Stop.

If I went into a restaurant and just read the menu it wouldn't satisfy me.

If I went into a church and just "heard" the service it wouldn't satisfy me.

In a restaurant I have to experience the food. I have to see it, smell it, taste it, and digest it.

In short, I have to experience the food in all my senses.

And the experience doesn't end with eating. In the coming days it becomes literally a part of my living experience.

The same is so with theology.

It's not enough to just read, or listen.

Good theology is absorbed by all the senses. In short, it's experienced and in the coming days it becomes a part of your living experience.

Thank you, PP.

Rishi: Listen? What about my other senses. How do you block them out? Spirituality isn't a head-trip. Or "stuff I've heard".

No ...

It's just something else, isn't it ...

An experience beyond what is considered morally containable ...

Just out there like psyche , or intellect ... that's nothing without care ...

Can you just imagine? Myth of beyond he'd an h'art ...

not with your ears...

Ah,

The Sounds of Sience ... waters under the bridge?

Down in GEO Ghia ... where Dan fell with an awesome wael ...

Perhaps that was a dissonant squeal according to the Jack Daniels Band ... sur round thing-heh ... like intellect versus emotions ... the latter contained by the former ... a lessor power second-Eire ... betæ ... red faced in the containment of Eros ... thorny issue in a palling circumstance where conflict is the rule ... instead of communal processing ... collective tho'T? Thats' just souda eyre ... brae in stem!

Fruit of the vine ... foundation ware ... or mire chi mice ... on fire ... whe're they Goan ... ba th' Sheba ... a heated wilderness? Shuol, or sure el to get out on ... the fringe bare down by the waters? In Aramaic that wadis ... where the Dead Çi scrolls ... hidden ... winding up Luce'nz ... sublime Light in the darkness ... on the Wizdom of Daath of Passion ... mire pas n ... like inque'n, blinkin' and node ... nothing in the mortal case, period! In some that's the damned spot ... pude a plug in for a nous Taurus ... a slow Jinn ... easy now ... Span esh Bo'el ... a' resting ... fla'toute ...

Esh parent Oz, espar-ant's ... where the yom is often taken as the "O" ... logical support system ... logo-ism? Underlying beliefs ... causes chaos on high ... consider Pelle ...

Hi All,

With respect to the issue of spirituality we often get caught up in the idea that there is but one effective spiritual style.

Christian Schwarz and the Institute for Natural Church Development have defined nine spiritual styles.

http://www.ncd-international.org/public/BooksSpirituality.html

Schwarz's theory is that there is no one style that is better than the other eight.  Each comes with a distinct advantage as well as a distinct disadvantage.  As individuals we naturally gravitate towards one of these specific styles simply because it meets our spiritual needs best. 

Trying to tie this back to the OP of Theology as Menu I think that the various styles of Spirituality might represent the various divisions of a standard Menu.  Appetizers, Main Courses, Desserts and within those three divisions further distinctions like Soups, Salads, Fish, Fowl, Game, Pastries, Sorbets.

All of us have a feel for what a three course meal would look like, there is (at least in a restaurant setting where one typically finds menus) opportunity to taylor the dining experience.

Congregations, because they are more mass consumption than fine dining (at least during the corporate worship services) tend towards a one size feeds all model which may or may not tickle our palates.  We will gravitate to spiritual traditions which provide the most dining pleasure.

The liturgy of the Roman Catholic tradition appeals to certain senses that the liturgy of the Presbyterian tradition doesn't.  Roman Catholics and Presbyterians alike are generally okay with that and don't seek to become more like the other.  The idea that if you don't get fed adequately at the one you can try the other is stifled by both for especially selfish reasons.

The following link takes you to the Trinitarian Monastery:

http://www.3colorsofyourspirituality.org/en/category/694-0

On the right side of the page in a box titled Related Topics you will find links to brief summaries of the nine spiritual styles.

For those with longer memories of events here I provided a link to participate in the initial run for the spirituality style project.  For those who weren't here or missed it the first time around here it is:

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/religion-and-faith/ncd-spirituality-...

One of the interesting things about putting all of this information up there would be for those interested to pick somebody from the WonderCafe.ca discussion who completed the test at the time (like me) pick the highest scoring spiritual style (rational) then pop on over to the 3colorsofyourspirituality link, read the blub on the rational style and consider how well I fit or don't.

I suspect that any indiviudals theological outlook will be influenced to some degree by their spiritual style.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Should one consume the hardshells?

Perhaps just learn how "not to" emote about the alien as we read the history of biblical plunder, rape and murder of the tongues of others ...

What justifies this other than the depths of "penne cost" ... emotions going from the noodle? That Golden Rule about caring for the alien, so easily denied in our following of mortal gods ... pure myths? Is god something beyond like psyche ... a gift provided by creation that religious orders try to bury ... it is like a thorn where  true-Eros is hard to grow ... until getting over the pain ...

A devilsh understatement expressed in mortals ... owning what is Eire ... realize its all temporary ... ID'll pas like trax's in the san ... when you learn to cross over to the alien side ... an abstract myth? ð'm did jah see it coming ... the pith of the story about trees ... amber? Such is the nature of the Golden Pond or Dr. Zhivago's dream ... but who could read intuit? Did you know that Vagas is the bundle at the base of the braen ... sort of a cede of something larger in the Joe Miller myth ... hardtack biscuit? Yah gott crack ID ... come up red-faceted ... it's a grand Rueben ... base of Numbers Cross ... includes a 4th ... one beyond the third they say ... always moor tuit ... as mire sign ... don't worship ID ... understand ... it is a vast enigma ... psi-X ... empty beginning? Theo ...

Organ d’Œηœη Eyre-ism …

Dead sole’d Eire is mum …

Inverse thorny issue!

Being that the aĐ’m thing is hard to wake to …

Become, aware, of in an empire of roué …

That ID, or æΓ, was not …

Gnome, was small, and not to be spoken of as đ’role!

Or mire nothing, like Down in space …

From the sparks, those that could light …

Fires in your eyes as …

Children of Love?

And what was it Amos and Micah …

Stated about God?

Love, justice, mercy and humility …

Coexisting with what we observe?

Get δ’m ouda here …

And thus it was in “92” …

Just beyond the “13^th” community of time …

When English bare UNES …

Moved away from Iđalian “-ism” …

But they came back with Bloody Mire heh …

Curse of the stones, and hard h’arts …

En regard to le per con!

Leaving ma nein mystery of that cone ‘ve Light …

How it expands in spectre and in tiers!

Like word, on the page in vast magnetic alloy …

Of austenitic value, with car bun …

Bred for annealing function …

Softening of the roué …

Into story, so the authorities won’t know …

What eL pur cons are expressing as theu D’n’s abou tem …

In vernacular form as Annè Archie!

Secondary an unknown power of Ephraim …

Far to the west …

Unbound by tiers of roué …

That stands right in front of you …

And is virtually unseen by somnolent ph’esh …

The spiralling effect of mind in outer chaos!

Now is that Kohl, or so high as shamayim?

Dark outer wadis in the fabric …

Thinking beyond the covenant …

Matrix as yet incomplete …

We’re not there yet as intellectually slow …

As implicit beings of emotion!

Stop and think of it as Black Hole!

Something wholly to those …

That can’t take a break …

Settle into tho’T …

A’Sam in 92, heading north as brother to wile II …

Approaching the mystery of Alaska …

And the search for alien gold …

Lying a chemeri th Erye …

Under the mid night son …

Aboriginal power driven inuiđ …

By D’n Nous, grave ID heh!

This is interesting stuff revjohn, judging by the preview they have posted of their book... http://www.3colorsofyourspirituality.org/files/Preview%20of%20The%203%20Colors%20of%20Your%20Spirituality.pdf

I would like to take the test some time. I believe I'd probably end up somewhere in the red zone.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

Bloody phun-ai MCJae ...

I picture myself in the grey zone ... in the case of infinite ... what could a mortal know?

Then there are these wee small voices .. gnomes?

Research gnome ... a very interesting word passed off without intelligence ...

WB

And when we're finished with the map we can either discard it or pass it on to those in need. It makes sense since we are all at different points of (conscious) evolution in this world, a concept which many, especially those in need of the map, find difficult to accept.

Theology - Menu or Food?


I prefer a different restaurant myself. While I see the need for theology in our world, I personally prefer the "theosophical" approach, which is a word derived from the ancient Greek word "theosophia" meaning God-wisdom, as opposed to the "theological" approach, which is a word derived from the ancient Greek word "theologia" meaning God-logic.


Theosophy offers, in my opinion, a much more deeper and fundlemental spiritual menu as it relates to an understanding of God via "spiritual intuition" as opposed its brother theology, which seems more related to an understanding of God via "religious beliefs".


But this is just me of course. Thank God for choices in this world.

Schwarz' theory in this area reminds me of "secular" communication frameworks like Myers-Briggs and Neuro-Linguistic Programming. These are also often seen as neutral technologies, but I'm not so sure.

A benefit of this kind of re-framing is that it can get people conversing in a more style-conscious and style-respectful manner. Potentially, it gives us a way of differentiating between the style and the substance of a communication, which we tend to conflate.  For example, it can help us recognize that although the substance of his communication was essentially the same regardless of who he was speaking to, Jesus seems to have been very style-conscious and style-respecting.

The risk in this kind of re-framing is that, ironically, it can encourage the conflating of style and substance. That is a common strategy in rhetorical manipulation. The used car salesman learns how to discern the prospective buyer's natural style of processing information, and then builds rapport by using that style. Meanwhile, he is actually less concerned with you or your style than he is with the substance of his communication, which is getting you to say "yes" when he pops the question. If someone mirrors my style well enough, I may not even notice the substance of what he or she is communicating. I'll lower my defenses and critical faculties, imagining that he or she is way too much like me to intend anything that is not in my best interest. This doesn't have to be conscious on my part. And so the medium of style becomes the pretty wooden horse that carries the secret message into Troy.

I think it's potentially a good thing to help people learn how to identify their style(s) and the styles of others through applying a framework like this, but I think it needs to be accompanied with teaching them how to differentiate the style of a communication from its substance, its most basic intentions. It's good to point out the risks and benefits of the various styles, but also the risks and benefits of the framework itself. Otherwise the implicit message is that "it's all good" -- all benefit & no risk.

I also question the assumption that all styles are equal. There are certain contexts where one style might be an asset, while another one could be a liability. I wonder if each style might actually be only one facet of an integrated life.

Getting back to the concern in the rabbi's comment...  Is he raising a question that is foundational to the very substance of religion and spirituality, and not simply a matter of style (yours vs. mine vs. someone else's) ?

Hi rishi,

There is a similarity to Myers-Briggs in that the Spiritual Style diagnostic provides a snapshot of where individuals are and which way individuals lean.  It is quite dissimilar from NLP in that it doesn't pretend to be therapeutic.

Schwarz is quite candid about the benefits and risks each particular style poses to the individual.

All styles are equal in that they all provide the individual with avenues to access the divine and no one style has any natural advantage over the other.  They are all different which means that they will not function as effectively in all contexts.  Correcting the bias of any one style is part of what Schwarz defines as level B growth and it actually requires individuals to spend time studying their opposite style as it is best placed to confront the weaknesses of the natural style of the individual.

There are natural integration points with adjacent styles.  It is not a matter of becoming equally proficient in all 9 styles.  Though, at the very least an acceptance of the value of all 9 styles is called for.

My impression of his comment is that theology, at its very best can only be descriptive.  A menu can only provide a two dimensional rendering of a three dimensioned reality (if the menu has photographs) and when it comes to the experience of the senses the menu cannot tell you in anything other than an intellectual sense that the food will be heavy, or spicy or aromatic.

Eating the food provides us with the experience which allow us to layer the added dimensions to the menu.  We understand the descriptions better even to the point of knowing that they are incomplete but not troublingly so.

The same item may appear on two separate menus and yet the experience in the one restaurant is pleasant and the other not.   Unless one chooses fast food and then it is always the same even when there is a claim for difference.

Grace and peace to you.

John

So what's the problem with description of your experiences?

The problem is when common folk describe their descriptions amongst authorities ... the latter feel their definitions are being ignored ... a fault with those that think things are institutional when in another reality they are off a bit ... perhaps a country mile ...

Afar mind, imagining, allows for a cushy place to land ... across the vial ... veil! If we could only accept the eccological truth ... that which surrounds us ... out there ... something to draw from ... but psyche is eliminated in an emotional faith! Such is the bloated basis of emotions ... athe horny issue ... no end tuit ... as well-rounded out it comes back at yah as quantum particle ... your soul? Wee things ... very gravid ... live their cover ... isn't that appalling ... neither science nor religion can define that illusive character ... wee like ominous on the mire ...

style without substance. 

a pretty pall without the Holy Grail beneath.

hovering in mid-air, like a neon mirage in the desert,

bait for the innocent and weary.

food that does not satisfy.

blame and violence for those who won't play along.

the baby cries,

but in lieu of comfort she is tossed a bauble

to distract her. She grows a second skin, and becomes a bauble herself,

the model parishioner,

highly practiced at the art of inattention,

covering the void. knowing all the right moves.

but it is still reversible, if

we stop playing along.

But is the Holy Grail nothing ...

because we've lost it ...

a sense of gnome ...

small pithy saying (if you research that word) ...

anachrinism; something just out of space, time and light of the situation ...

as sort of shadowy ...

like the beauty imagined ...

as contained in a stone ...

hard place to get to without intent ...

sort of a fabrication?

Like psychic myth!

If you don't believe in the soul ...

Are there no greater tho'Tz?

Even in AA they say that one has to believe in a greater power ... is chi out there ... warming psyche around a distant fire? Now there's an enigma ... that logic will never end due to the interference of emotions .... the alternate chaos ... dissonant harmonis ... whine in the embracing vine ... that's Eris (a very old word) like the ineffable odd ph'art ... that's becomes pedre ... once known as simple ...

Poof he was goan like the odd dragon in the winds ... confused by the incompleteness of life ...

Is there another name for that? O' the enless metaphors .. that people don't wish to know ... as word ... that's near infinite eh! The closer you gets tuit that deeper it is ... as mire psi in the winds ... a divers boid? Fluttery eh ... like mental butter fleece ... boot Eire Flies ... like slip'Erye ... takes a devil to put eM together ... the deuce ... base of the binary Kohl'd ... releases energy ... that dark formless thing of jinn a' sis ... pseudonymph of the mind? Under Roman Rule common folk are not supposed to have one and it is so easy to be deficient ... like ignorant of the surroundings that support yah ... with eis in the back of Ur hed ...

The dark side ... a huge pupil ... when chi sees what the wee children did without Ur ... and the presence churns ...

as opposed to...?

As compared to ... what's out there that motals have little clew about or concern ... when they think they know IT-all!

Of course I'm thinking out of the box ... like Christ when the tables were overturned in the temple ... inversion of emotions .. out in de isles ...?

Does all-that-is have  an odd sense of humour? That's the other cheek in silouette ...

Time to duck in terms of aÐ'm-ism ... belief in underlying powers that are deep ... like the purple Shadow on the Wahl ... other worldly gods ... UV? Observe it in non-capital script ... heh-m'n, or haman as holy bottom line ... soul! Is that humble or what ...

Difficult for those that can't get beyond eM's elf ... gnomon! It's a small thing ... like anachronism ... something stated in another time, place and light of situation ... that may or may not apply in this existence ... or what isn't ... like psyche ... pithy mind? Sort of mystical place to drift off in ... some people don't believe in abstracts but then where did Einstein fish his thoughts from? Inner realms ...

Like Sheldon in the TV series BIG Bang ... a shell hole in old languages ... the battleground of the incomplete mind ... blown to bits by extremes (church polity) ...

Primal power involves two forces (a deuce) balanced emotion with intellect ... two far one way or the other creates borderline personalities in the swing ... a metaphysical vision ... of what could be with cultivation of the greater soul! Binary's tar ... BH .... beta power ... secondary ... following thoughts?

Man would rather use physical force and woman another force ... both traps like opposed pits ... Capital Lambda vs de V's ... the medium is a hex in the Hebrew Light ... where psyche only functions with a good story ... one needs to create outcomes interactively ... like mental intercourse ... in which mortal is ... shall we say well-screw dupe?

If you read old script phonetically ... it is surprising what is burried in multi-tier'd intellect ... like Œnœn thoughts in common roué ... a real chewing ground of thoughts. Secret Kohl'dead forms ... hoo dah thought ... of hiding outlandish things that way ... crazy mon ... and on they go ...