66 posts tagged “christianity”

Why Christians Should Vote to Legalize Same Sex Marriage

For the purpose of this article I am going to adopt a distinctly conservative Christian perspective and write for a distinctly conservative Christian audience.  I want to put forth the idea that even if you believe homosexuality is morally wrong, a sin even, you should still vote for its legalization.

Freedom vs. License

"Freedom and fear are at war. Freedom is not, "being able to do whatever you want to do." That is license. If you have license, rather than authentic freedom, your house is built on sand and will collapse. Authentic freedom is the power to do what we ought to do; the power to choose the good, the true, and the beautiful. That will vanquish fear every time. If your concept of freedom is really license, fear will come out on top every time. Freedom has to be united with truth. There is no freedom outside of the truth: No authentic human freedom outside of the truth. "If you are truly my disciples, you will abide in my word. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." True freedom is rooted in God."

- Fr. John Corapi

As Fr. Corapi says, Freedom is not license, it is more along the lines of personal authenticity.  If God is both Truth and within you, then when you are acting the most authentically and genuinely, you are acting in God's will.  Interestingly enough, this does not mean we should forsake license, for license and Freedom are tightly intertwined.  If it weren't for license, we could not genuinely choose to do what is right, for we would do it automatically.  This is why God gave us free will.  He allows us to sin so that we might learn, grow, and come to the truth in a very personal and authentic way.  There can be no authenticity, and no Freedom, without license.

The opposite of Freedom is fear, and the opposite of license is restriction.  When a society implements restrictions on its citizens, it does not only prevent its citizens from acting authentically, it acts out of fear itself.  Even though our intentions are good, restricting the public to do only what is morally right harms everyone.  The people may choose the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.  They follow truth, but they do so disingenuously.  We are teaching them to act a certain way out of fear of the consequences.  And we ourselves, who put the policy in place, we are acting out of fear as well.  We are afraid that we can't trust people, and that if we don't exert some pressure on them, they won't choose the right thing.

When God looks at us, does He have these fears?  Well, His heart is probably breaking all the time, seeing us choose to bury our true selves and choose against His will.  But He does not intervene and force us to change our minds.  He honors His gift to us of free will, and He lets us make mistakes.  He does not act out of fear that He will lose us.  In fact, one of Jesus's most persistent messages was "Be not afraid."  Fear blinds us, keeps us from the truth.  And out of fear we impose God's will on the people in our society, when even God himself will not do that.

The Purpose of Law

Contrary to a lot of current thought, the purpose of Law is not to uphold or enforce morality.  Law is about enforcing the minimum standard of action necessary to be a functioning member of society.  It is about preservation of society, putting restrictions on license where necessary in order to prevent its citizens from harming each other.  Other than that, it should allow its citizens as much license as possible.  If you look at many of our current laws (against murder, theft, drinking and driving, etc), we make acts illegal when they harm someone or infringe on their rights against their will.

Morality calls us to a much higher standard than the Law. Christian morality is about rejecting sin in all its forms and transforming yourself inside and out to become more and more like Jesus Christ.  And, as I stated in the last section, we cannot force Christian morality on members of our society without denying them the chance to choose it freely.  That's what makes morality such a wonderful, lofty, and praiseworthy ideal.  It is not something you are forced to do, it is something you choose to do.

Given everything that has been said thus far, as Christians it is our duty to emulate God and allow people to sin, as long as that sin does not harm another person.  It may break our hearts to see people shun the truth, but we have to let them.  From the standpoint of the Law, we need to allow same sex marriage.  To vote against it is to act out of fear, and to thereby distance ourselves from God.

Calming Leftover Fears - Definitions

In order to get ourselves to a place where we are emotionally ready to permit same sex marriage on a political level, we need to address two major fears that plague our hearts.

The first is that by legalizing gay marriage, we would be corrupting an institution that God created.  I know this is a sensitive issue, and I will try my best to treat it fairly and gently.  We must admit that the word marriage is full of different meanings on different levels.  Traditionally, marriage has not always been meant as a spiritual union in the eyes of God.  There has always been a social aspect as well.  Marriage has been used as a political tool to unite warring factions or countries.  It has been used in order to barter out a better life for your family line.  It has been used as a financial safety net.  Even today, people marry for all sorts of reasons.  They marry for money, for lust, or for social status.  Some people get married for love, but do not associate themselves with any religious tradition at all.

This does not in any way detract from the beauty and profundity of the Sacrament of marriage in its religious context.  It is as if we can talk about marriage on two levels.  There is the social/political level, and the spiritual/religious level.  The social/political level has changed many times over the centuries without affecting the spiritual/religious ideal of marriage.  And so it is today.  Allowing same sex marriage affects the social definition of marriage, not the religious one.  As a Christian, you do not have to recognize same sex marriages as being approved or sanctioned by God.  It is in the name of the State only.

If this proves to be too difficult of a place for us to reach, then perhaps we need to take another route.  Many have stated that they are just fine with civil unions, as long as gays aren't allowed to marry.  But what is a civil union other than the social/political level of marriage?  Although, if we insist on keeping the word marriage solely in its religious context, then we must be fair in how we treat it on a social/political level.  By this I mean taking the word marriage out of State hands entirely.  Everyone would get civil unions, and then if they chose to take the extra step of getting married, they can do so through their Church.

But it is imperative that we maintain equality between same sex couples and heterosexual couples.  When Jesus dealt with sinners, whores, and thieves, did he not treat them as equals?  Isn't that what allowed him to get through to them?

Calming Leftover Fears - The Children

The other major fear has to do with what our children will see and be taught with regards to homosexuality.  We do not like the idea that schools and/or the media will be telling our children that homosexuality is okay and perfectly acceptable.

Before we go into ways to ease this fear, let us explore for a bit the root of it.  When it comes to our children, we want nothing to corrupt them.  We want the best for them.  And because we are Christians, we want them to grow up with those same values, that they might find their way to God as well.  But this leads us to be fearful of letting anything "unclean" touch them.  We are afraid that the power of evil is too strong, too tempting, and that if our children are exposed, their weaker minds will be enveloped and there will be nothing we can do about it.

But children can smell our fear.  And they react in one of two major ways.  They either adopt the same fears, or they rebel against them and challenge them.  As we discussed earlier, fear is not truth.  Truth is Freedom.  Some children sense this on a deep level...that the actions we take are spawned from fear, and so they reject any truth that they might express.  Either we perpetuate the feeling of fear, or our children take their lives in a radically different direction in order to reject it.

There is a better way.  Do not be afraid to talk to your children.  Do not be afraid that they won't turn out how you want them to, or that their lives won't be as happy as the lives you imagine and want for them.  Trust God.  By working on your own inner state, you can better help them grow up in God's love. 

If you adopt the frame of mind discussed in this essay, talking to your children about same sex marriage is not as confusing as many, including the National Organization for Marriage, have made it out to be.  By showing your acceptance of it on a political level, you do not give off the same fear, and children are less likely to rebel.  You can then explain to your child what I explained in this essay, that marriage for Christians is something even more deep and spiritual and religious than society's definition.

Should your child still grow up and choose to marry someone of the same sex, the other thing that legalizing same sex marriage will do to help you is that it will drastically change the homosexual community.  With marriage and finding someone to love seen as the end goal of any life, even a homosexual one, your child will grow up seeing examples of gay men in loving, committed relationships.  They will see gay women caring for each other and their children.  If your child does end up to be homosexual, wouldn't you rather they choose this sort of life as opposed to one of promiscuity?

This brings me to another caveat to adopting a position free of fear.  We must maintain a sort of "detachment" from the outcome.  If your child does happen to be homosexual and to choose to marry someone of the same sex, you cannot take it personally.  It may break your heart, but to force your child to deny what he feels is truth makes you look fearful and your child will not respond.  To give your child a chance at Freedom, authenticity, and Truth...you must let him make his own choices.

Conclusion

In summary, the Christian life is about transforming ourselves and emulating Christ, who is God in human form.  In order to become like God we must follow Freedom, authenticity, and Truth...and we must lay aside fear.  It is difficult, and there is much resistance. The path is indeed narrow.  It is hard to give up what we think keeps us safe.  But to do so shows that we really do have Faith and Trust in God, that we are willing to let Him shape events and to adopt His perspective rather than merely our own.  In our own struggle towards Freedom, we must surrender our fears about the paths of others and strive, by example, to be a light to the world, should they choose to see it or not.

*As you may have guessed, I am by no means conservative.  I tried to adopt that perspective for the sake of the argument.

In my opinion, the problem of abortion is a multifaceted issue.  And, it is more of a symptom than a problem in itself.

A symptom of what?  Fear.  Taking yourself out of your normal perspective, can you imagine how scary it would be to find out you are pregnant and do not have the means to care for this child?  And what about what your parents will think?  They might even disown you.  Or if you're a single mother living in a poor community...how will you provide for your child?  You can't work and take care of her at the same time, except for very select jobs that probably won't pay much money.  And besides, you're not married.  What will society think?

I know it is their fault for getting into the situation (at least most times...rape is a special circumstance that most people are more compassionate towards), but that still doesn't change the fact that the guiding principle in these situations is fear.

Making abortion illegal, in my opinion, will only increase that fear.  Because before there was an out, a backup, if you couldn't figure anything else out.  And now there is no (legal) escape.  Because of this increased fear, I think women might go to greater lengths, unsafe ones, to be rid of that fear.

But then what do they trade the fear for?  Regret and guilt.  It's not a happy situation.

So I would approach the problem with the goal of easing these fears so that the woman can make a genuine choice from her heart rather than let her fear consume her.
 
On a social level, I would probably do things like provide free childcare in poorer communities, so the mother can work and earn money to take care of her child, or continue going to school.  I actually stole that idea from Obama. ;)  In addition, I would try to find ways to increase the quality of schools in poorer areas.  As it is, richer schools = better schools, and so the poor keep going in circles.  Basically, find things that will make it easier for the mother to give her child a good life, and you'll reduce some of the fear that consumes her.

Also, reform and improve the foster care system.  Address the issues that make people think growing up in the foster care system is a nightmare you wouldn't ever wish on your child.  Perhaps also offer tax credits or extra benefits to couples who adopt a child.

But the most important thing, in my opinion, is the hardest to implement.  I would make it a rule that before a woman can get an abortion, she must attend one or two counseling sessions.  The purpose of these sessions is not to persuade her to change her mind.  If it were, it would never work.  Abortion has to remain an option because it serves as the initial fear-reducer that will get them into the building, where counselors can hopefully help guide them to be sure they are making the best decision...the one their hearts tell them to make.

On a wide level this idea will only work so well because it relies upon an abundance of really good counselors.  If the counselor is pushing the woman towards one particular option (be it keeping the baby, giving it up for adoption, or having the abortion), she will sense that and resist.  The conversation really needs to be centered around the woman's situation and her psyche.  And the counselor must give up the idea that they can control the outcome, because by exerting control the situation is only made worse.

The idea is to get them to talk and think about their situation.  There might be an option they hadn't thought of, or a way to make it work they hadn't considered.  It also may be that they hadn't been thinking of the long term, only the short term goal of being rid of all this fear.  Regardless of the situation, their life would drastically change if they kept the child, and some of that fear is rational, and some of it isn't.  It would help to have someone you can trust, someone who isn't going to push anything on you but who will help you come to your own decision...one you can live with.

Yes, some of these women will still end up choosing to get an abortion.  But, if we approach them with compassion and understanding, I believe that many more women will make other, better decisions.  And our society as a whole will not look upon these women with either indifference or contempt but rather with compassion.

I think a combination of all these ideas plus many many more, all aimed at making the decision to keep the child or give it up for adoption easier to make, will help the situation the most.

But to just make it illegal, to me, is admitting we don't understand the problem, or that we don't have or want to give up the resources needed in order to really address it.  It's easier to just call something wrong and disallow it than to really engage the problem on all levels.  And that is what I think we need to do.

There's been a lot of talk about torture lately, with some people arguing that we should never torture based on our moral standards, and others saying that it is a necessary evil and must be kept up if we are to protect ourselves.

Ironically, it's the right, known for containing a majority of Christians, who are arguing for torture.

So here's my question: how can you claim to be both a Christian and a supporter of torture?

So, I'm having an interesting discussion with a friend on a message board.  He belongs to the Orthodox Church, believes that no one goes to Hell when they die, and thinks that Jesus' message was primarily about *this* life and not the next.  So far I agree.

Our discussion is centered around the events in Christ's life, and whether them actually taking place in the time line has any affect on the meaning derived from them.  I'm quite enjoying this discussion, so I'm going to paste some parts of it here for remembrance sake...and for anyone who wishes to continue it. :)

*****

So, it's important to you because it gives you a warm feeling that you're on the right path? lol, I don't mean it that harsh of course, but if it was important to the apostles, *why* was it important? Surely this seems to be a question worth exploring, right?

I guess I find so much meaning in the story that I'm not sure what affect its historicity would have on its impact?

I mean, say we had the bible, but the names were all changed...would it still have the same power? If it doesn't, is it a meaningful difference, or does it just have less power because it's not what we are used to? Or, say someone came up with undeniable proof that Jesus never existed at all, would that shake your faith?

I think it was important to them for a number of reasons, including validation of Jesus' claims, encouragement in their sorrow, hope that they share the same fate, and confidence that they could now risk their lives and do anything they dreamt of.

I see your point here. And I know for a great many people throughout history it has been somewhat of a security blanket that gives them courage and strengthens their faith. But, I guess, that's exactly my point. It's a huge comfort, and since when did Jesus tell us to seek comfort? Again, I'm not arguing that the story *wasn't* historically true, I just think that we tend to be way too attached to that aspect, and it can limit our understanding so that we miss some of the most profound and meaningful things in the story itself.

I guess I am just wary of attachment to particulars.

For me, even thinking that the story may be entirely myth, I still find incredible power in it. My life experience validates Jesus' claims. The concepts in the story give me encouragement in my sorrows and hope for my own resurrection (mainly in my life here, but sure after death too). It doesn't always give me the courage to risk everything and follow my dreams, because often my vision is clouded by fear. But when I am calm and centered, I see clearly and that courage comes to me in waves. I worry that a courage based on a particular historical event is a way to deny that fear. It's a subtle underlying aspect of human life, and it cannot be denied.

The only way to be rid of it is, as through Jesus' example, letting it in and not avoiding it. It's a subtle thing I'm talking about, how someone might push down a feeling of fear because of their unshattering faith in a particular event...versus understanding what that event tries to show us (regardless of whether it happened that way or not) and listening to that advice and being open and receptive...even to fear and suffering.

Let's not forget though that it was important to Jesus too. For some reason, it had to happen, he predicted that it would, and told his followers to look forward to it.

It did have to happen, in the story, because of what it means. Because of how it teaches us. It would make sense that Jesus would acknowledge that it has to happen, because part of his point is that even seeing something like this looming up ahead in our future, we must not be afraid, for there is nothing to fear. If you imagine Jesus' prediction as a literary device in the story of the resurrection, it makes a lot of sense. Not that it can't be real as well, but it seems that the meaning is there regardless.

But as to why it should be important historically, I guess I don't really have an answer right now, but it seems inseparable from the story, to me anyway. Perhaps they are pat Christian answers, but if it's just a story, and never happened, and the Son of God didn't exist, and the Incarnation didn't really happen, I'm forced ask what the point would even be then? Besides just trying to be a better person by modeling your life after a character in a story. And the Gospels, as well as the other NT writings, and the writings of those shortly thereafter, place great importance upon these events really happening.

Do you really think the Bible becomes empty and meaningless if these events didn't happen? Acknowledging that the events may not have taken place in real life does not take away from the profundity and the *truth* found in the story. This story puts into beautiful and precise terms what so many other stories try to get at...some with better success than others. It speaks directly to our hearts the way only stories can. And there are echoes of these truths in almost every story we write, in almost every life we live. But here we have it unclouded by the fear in our normal stories. Jesus is a character without fear (or rather, who does not act of fear), without sin, and the huge tragedy in his life puts God's lessons to us practically in neon lights.

It's so much more than just trying to be a better person. It's discovering the path to truth, to life. It's trusting in the process, even if it looks like it is leading you toward death...because the path to death is a path to rebirth. It teaches us that there is no need to fear, ever. And that love is a never ending spring; the more you pour out of yourself the more you have. It is about letting go.

Stories are meant to teach eternal truths in such a way that we can resonate with them on the deepest level. Christ's story is one of, if not the, most profound of all. I don't know about you, but when I talk about these things my heart fills with excitement and joy at the sheer *truth* of it all. It's incredible.

Question for you, what was Paul meaning when he said if Jesus didn't really die and rise again, our faith is in vain? If it's not important as an event that really happened, why do they all place so much importance upon it?

Well, I'm not a bible scholar, so I can't tell you what his original meaning was. I can only tell you what I gather from it. Why must Paul be talking about a concrete event? In the same passage he talks about the reflection between Christ and Adam. But you don't believe Adam existed. You have no attachment to the particulars in that story. Yet somehow what Paul says is true, isn't it? That what was introduced with Adam is now overcome by Christ. Is it an event that somehow canceled out a prior event? No, because the prior event never happened in real life. It was a myth. But the meaning of it is still strong...and the eternal aspect of the myth, the truth of it...is now reflected and expanded on in the story of Christ.

I don't think he's really talking about Christ being risen on a concrete level (though again, it may be concrete as well), but on a personal and existential level that goes much deeper. If Christ is not risen, if there is no rebirth after death, then your faith and your preaching are worthless. You do not fully believe in the meaning you preach. You do not truly have faith. You are still in sin because you are still in fear of death and suffering. And in your mind, those who are asleep (notice he doesn't say dead, interesting) have no hope of awakening, so why preach? I think he's showing how their point of view is reflective of an inner state of despair and fear, when it should be one of hope and life.

Anyway, just my perspective.

*****

See the thing about this idea is that it does get at some important things about reality, but if considered alone, gives us an incomplete picture.

Whether you think God is unchanging depends on your perspective on what God actually is.

If God is transcendent, outside us and outside of time, he is unchanging. For those of you who can't handle straight theological sentences, I'll say it a different way. Amidst all the change in the world there is an essence that remains fixed. This God is the ground of being. When we say God is unchanging, we mean that there is something fundamental to existence that is eternal and ever present. For instance, I find that there is a place deep within me (the place where God and I are one) where no matter what happens to me on the outside, somehow everything is okay. I'm not always aware of it, but when I do see it, I realize it's always been there, and all I had to do was let go of my own imposed desires and fears. For instance, if you go to the forests, or stand on a mountain, or look at the stars...the essential experience, though outwardly different, often feels the same. There is a certain unity of experience, a deep level where everything is one, only accessible when your mind is still and somewhat detached from your daily life. And this is an eternal and unchanging aspect of reality.

If God is immanent, in everything and everyone, then he changes every second. This God is dynamic and alive. He reacts and flows and changes along with circumstances, always in an effort to gently push in the right direction. This God is in contact with everything, this is the God of the details, the God of the living organism of the universe. And like any living organism, it must be willing to adapt and change as other parts of the ecosystem do. This is what it means to be alive. And we would all (well, those of us who believe in him) agree that God is a living God, right? If you still have trouble with it, think of it this way. God gives us what we need, doesn't he? Well, what if what we need in order to grow changes? He's going to change along with us isn't he? This God is very much *with us* down here, in every second of our lives, improvising with us continuously like a jazz ensemble.

Personally, I believe that God is both. Unchanging *and* ever-changing. The whole *and* the part. The heart *and* the limbs.

The next question is: where does the dogma belong? To which category? The eternal and ever present core? Or the outer, grounded in the world, constantly changing aspect? Or perhaps it belongs to both on different levels.

There is a certain comfort in letting certain things in and excluding others from our view.  The same goes with people.  There's people who have God, and people who don't.  People who know what's up, and people who are idiots.  People who pay attention when they drive, and people who should never be let out on the road.  People who have truth, and people who have no grasp of it whatsoever.

This method of looking at others has it's comforts, has it's securities.  It is a means by which we can understand the world by translating it into what is approved and what is not.  It certainly makes life much more simple.  Here's what's on my list of approved things, ideas, and people, and I reject what's not on this list.

We all do this, to a certain extent.  And it makes sense.  We *are* trying to constantly simplify our experience to make it easier to handle.

But it's interesting what happens when you stop putting people and ideas in categories.  You start looking closer, you start seeing more.  Because you've stopped filtering things out.  The priest at the church Ben and I go to was leading us through a meditation, and she said for us to stop filtering, and to let everything in.  Do not exclude any sounds, feelings, thoughts...just let it all flow and observe it.  Then, you start to see deeper.

The same is true for people and ideas, I think.  When you stop trying to declare something as either bad or good and just witness it, you see deeper.  And seeing this way allows you to see the truth hidden in everything, because it frees you from your misconceptions and even your opinions.  It humbles you because you *have* to let go of the things that make you comfortable in order to let everything in, and in doing so, brings you closer to truth.

Compassion and love break down barriers.  They stop us from doing this categorization and from simplifying the world.  Love asks us to look at the whole, to see each person, each idea, each moment as valuable in some way.  There is no in group or out group.  There is only truth, and what it is buried underneath.

And when you see things this way, you approach conversations, people, ideas with an entirely different perspective.  You start to understand the subtle language of the heart, and how it is speaking even through people's so called intellectual ideas.  You start to see how someone's pure intuition or pure desires were led astray.  And instead of feeling contempt for their ignorance, you can feel nothing but compassion and love.  You see their soul buried under so much weight, and you long to free them. 

You are no longer distracted by the wrongness of what people say.  It seems petty to argue about it, almost tragic.  And it gives you patience and strength.  When you talk with someone it's more like a jazz improvisation...each of you contributing ideas and playing off one another to build something interesting that may open up both of your understandings.  You don't feel attached to (or the need to reject) any one concept or dogma because you sense the truth in all of them.  This gives you a freedom, a spontaneity, a creativity that you never had before.

And it is all in ceasing to seek comfort, and treating people and even their ideas and their words with compassion and love.  It's not always about simplification; often, it's about inclusion and integration.

The Wisdom Jesus: Transforming Heart and Mind--A New Perspective on Christ and His Message

Cynthia Bourgeault

I read an interesting segment in the book I'm reading (thanks to Ben).  It was discussing the difference between the ascetic (self-denying) and kenotic (self-emptying) paths of spirituality, and how Jesus ascribed to the later.  The topic of Jesus's possibly active sexual life came up, and Bourgeault made the point that chastity and celibacy are two entirely different things.

Bourgeault gives us an example from a Buddhist story of two monks sworn to celibacy.  Their vows have told them not even to *touch* a woman.  They are journeying along and they find a woman waiting to cross a river, but who needs help across.  One of the monks walks over to her, picks her up, carries her across the river, and sets her down on the other side.  A while after the other monk looks at him, horrified and distressed, and asks, "How could you do that?  Do you not feel unclean?"

To which the first monk replies, "Why should I?  I picked her up and left her by the river.  You are still carrying her."

It seems that chastity, then, is not about what you allow into your personal space.  It's not an avoidance.  It's not ascetic.  It seems to be the frame of mind with which you let it enter.  A detachment, a letting go, and at the same time a welcoming.  This is the kenotic path.

The difference is in the frame of mind.  Asceticism is something you can do outwardly with no inward change.  Kenosis requires a completely different way of looking at the world.  It is the inner change that drives the outer.  There is no need to be confined by outer rules when your inward state is pure.

This is something I've come to notice with much of popular religion.  It focuses so much on outward states and rarely looks inward.  It seems that religion perhaps doesn't give us any credit in the inward department.  Which perhaps makes sense given that much of it considers us to be completely depraved.  And this is why so often religion feels disingenuous.  It works on changing the outside, which has no lasting or deep effects on a person.  It doesn't go down the core.

And really, I think that is what we are all seeking.  Something that gets down to the core of our being.

Since the whole of the Eucharist ritual is published on the website of the church, I figured I would share a couple parts of it that I really like.

Sophia and the Logos

"And the Logos answered: "They say I came for all,
but in truth, I came for Her Who came for all.
For it had come to pass that there were those who had
lost their way and, lacking in spark, could not return
unto the Fullness.
Seeing this, She came unto them, giving her life to the depths of matter.
And in truth She did suffer and become blind.
But our Father, sensing Her anguish, sent Me forth, being of Him,
so that She might see and We be as One again.
Though they see it not, it is She, the tender Mother of Mercy,
Who is the great redeemer."

Viewing the story through the Gnostic myth just makes so much sense to me.  That the Logos would come specifically to redeem her.  That it was her who gave up everything and suffered in blindness and ignorance so that her children might have the hope of rejoining with the Fullness once again.  And like I said before in a previous post, I really identify with the Sophia and the feelings that drive her. 

Before, I felt like I could identify with God or Jesus, but only loosely.  I felt some sort of passionate longing to fill up the hearts of people who suffer, but it could only loosely translate to the story I was taught.  I mean, I know Jesus was supposed to have sacrificed his life for us, and that God is supposed to be watching us longingly, wishing he could save us from all pain but knowing that it isn't in our best interests....but there was something missing.  I would often imagine them and how they would feel watching us struggle and make mistakes. 

But this...this is exactly what I was looking for but couldn't find.  That we were stuck in darkness and that Sophia loved us so much that she couldn't bear to leave us.  That she spread herself out, buried herself deep in every heart, behind every pair of eyes...even though she knew the power of ignorance and blindness would overcome her.  This sort of devotion and unconditional love...this is what I've longed to express but never quite had the right vehicle to explain.

"I have always been with you. I have whispered your name in the rustle of the leaves of autumn; I have called to you with the voice of the waves of the sea. I have watched you while I hid in the clouds. The birds have sung my messages, and I have given you echoes of my presence through all eyes that have looked at you—for in all creatures exists a spark of my Presence. I have waited for you, my beloved, for I have loved you and longed to give you life."

I really hate bringing up gender when it comes to religion...but part of me does wonder if it is because this love is feminine in nature that I can identify with it so much.  If that was what was missing for me personally.  I'm not sure.

Keep in mind I'm not advocating a literal interpretation of the myth. It is a myth.  But it makes so much sense on a deep level, as an allegory for my own spirituality.  I make no claims of cosmology, only claims of personal resonance.

Ineffability

And we invoke That which is no thing:
That which the mind cannot grasp nor comprehend,
But only respond in ecstasy and awe, here present now and forever.

One of the problems I've had with "traditional" religion is that it is so easy to start thinking that God is this or that.  That God behaves or thinks a certain way according to what the bible or the priest says.  It's easy to forget that God is so much more than an anthropomorphism.   Saying things like this keep that fresh in our minds, and apophatic theology is an important aspect of mysticism.

There is a song we sing that has the lines "there isn't anything she isn't, and there isn't anything that she is," she being Sophia (aka the Holy Spirit?).

I love things like that.  Apparent contradiction meant to elevate your mind to a different level of understanding.

And we talk so much about Sophia and the Logos...and their "characters" but when it comes to God...to the Fullness...we don't give him a character.   We call him Father, but we do as little as possible to form him to our understanding, to shape him into us.  References to him are vague, which is good.  We cannot grasp too tightly.

All in all, I am really enjoying being a part of this community.