What is Contemplative Christianity?

[InChrist]

That's precisely correct. I do think it's safe to say some interpretations are "better" than others, which would be based upon one's qualifications not only academically but in the case of sacred scriptures, spiritually. But not even the most academically knowledgeable, or spiritually enlightened soul can speak with infallibility. Yet, that is what is being claimed by the fundis when they say, "It's not me saying this, it's the Bible". That's total nonsense. It is them saying it and claiming infallibility by magically claiming it's not them interpreting the Bible. Ridiculous.

It not nonsense. It's not ridiculous and it's not magic. It's called reading comprehension. How difficult is it for you to read words and understand what is being said?

..."let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”Acts 4:10-12

I did not come up with the the verses above. I did not come up with the thoughts they are expressing. I did not write them. I do not give them any extraordinary meaning or interpretation. I simply read them, comprehend what they say, and accept.

 

[InChrist]

Problem is, we have to translate the words of the biblical writers and do a fair amount of extrapolation, since there are a lot of words for which there is no direct transliteration. Then exegesis is called for in order to get past cultural and sociological differences, as well auto get through expectations of anthropology. The work of biblical interpretation is quite daunting.

How complicated is it to understand the many plain thoughts expressed in the Bible, such as...forgive one another or God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life? Seems to me you are just coming up with excuses to avoid accepting the obvious plain truths of the scriptures.

 

[Noa]

I have not read this whole thread as I am new here and far too lazy to back-read sixty pages.

I just want to chime in that what constitutes 'contemplative Christianity' is often debated. The definition has changed and, to my knowledge, there is still no agreed upon definition. Which I believe is part of the point.

 

[InChrist]

Because the lenses are simply too thick and too imbedded. No one gets past all of the intricacies, which is why interpretation and translation is almost always a group effort, involving peer-reviewed scholarship.

Over many years biblical scholars have translated and interpreted by group effort coming to agreement on the historic essential doctrines of the Bible.

 

[InChrist]

I have not read this whole thread as I am new here and far too lazy to back-read sixty pages.

I just want to chime in that what constitutes 'contemplative Christianity' is often debated. The definition has changed and, to my knowledge, there is still no agreed upon definition. Which I believe is part of the point.

I think contemplative "Christianity" is best defined as an oxymoron.

 

[Noa]

I think contemplative "Christianity" is best defined as an oxymoron.

Perhaps this because I have not participated in the dialogue in this thread, but I am afraid I do not understand your point. =/

 

[InChrist]

Perhaps this because I have not participated in the dialogue in this thread, but I am afraid I do not understand your point. =/

Well, the term contemplative when used by those who call themselves contemplatives includes mysticism along with a variety of practices which I believe are incompatible and contradictory with biblical Christianity.

 

[Noa]

Well, the term contemplative when used by those who call themselves contemplatives includes mysticism along with a variety of practices which I believe are incompatible and contradictory with biblical Christianity.

Ah, right. Yes, that is part of why the definition shifts. Some are fine with the mystic implications, others are not. Some of the new Anabaptist movements get pretty close to what would in the past have been called 'contemplative' but they do not use the term so as to distance themselves from mysticism. Most commonly, I see people use the term when they practice a form of prayer that borders on meditation. But as I said, it is a confusing topic because people approach it so differently.

 

[Windwalker]

Why do you feel the need to so often include a bit of psychoanalysis in your posts? Are you professionally involved in the field of Psychology or something related?

Why do you feel the need to include theology in your posts? Are you professionally involved as a theologian?

I do have a considerable bit of insight into the human mind, if for no other reason that I engage daily in looking at the mind through meditation practice. But more than that, I also do a considerable amount of reading of material dealing with psychology, as well as being "gifted" in understanding the mind. I am also a self-taught musician who creates his own compositions writing music on the fly, and a fairly good semi-professional nature photographer, as well as a long list of other gifts I have without having formal "degrees" in them. I am also a professional in technology earning a respectable salary, and never went to school for it nor have a degree in it. I found it unnecessary. That is irrelevant to the fact I in fact have good insights, in technology, the arts, music, philosophy, psychology, photography, and the list goes on. Having a degree does not make someone good at what they do and make them legitimate. How well they do it does.

I do notice you chafe against anything that looks at the human mind, even beyond meditation to include psychology. Simply choosing to simply swipe it away without consideration, I find that telling on many levels. The real question is, how am I wrong in what I point out? I don't believe I am.

I may have used some of the words you used for clarity for your sake, but in doing so I was expressing my understanding of what you've been saying.

It wasn't that. I was just restating my words without explaining your thoughts as to how I arrive at that understanding. Here's the thing. In a debate, you should be able to argue the case your opponent does in order to demonstrate and actual understanding of their position. I do not believe you can. I do not believe you truly understand the basis for our points of view, only that you don't like what you hear. A good debate would be if you were to put on my hat and argue legitimately, from the postmodernist perspective, and I would put on the fundamentalist hat and make a good case arguing your points of view, from how you see it.

I know I could do that in regards to your position, as I once thought as you did. I understand all those argument and lines of reasoning and modes of thought because they once were my own. On the other hand, what I am saying is foreign to you. I would be extremely surprised if you had inhabited the modes of thought which characterize postmodernist, and integral thought. Nothing I see demonstrated you comprehend it, which means that you would be unable to put on my hat in a debate, sufficiently able to demonstrate a handle on what the arguments are and the basis for them. This is why I ask you to explain, not merely restate my own words, and understanding of the basis for what I say. I ask this because if you can, then we can have an actual discussion why, or why not, what I am saying is valid. Otherwise, you or I are just disagreeing from ignorance.

Actually while you deny the Bible is the infallible word of God on one hand, on the other hand you use the scriptures in an attempt to validate your mysticism and claim your interpretations are more accurate and enlightened than those Christians who do believe the scriptures to be God’s Word.

Let's be clear. My reasons for citing scripture is not to validate my views from a source of authority. That is your assumption because that is why you cite scripture. I cite it particularly in this discussion because you are saying it isn't in there, and because it is an issue for you, I simply show it it is in fact supported by scripture if that is what is seen as the factor by you to decide if it's valid or not. I don't use it to validate my own views, as for a long list of reasons I do not accept the Bible is the "final word" on anything. I do however see my practices and experiences consistent with much of what I see taught in the Bible. That means, it shouldn't be an issue for you. In other words, I don't reference it to prove I am right, but to demonstrate your objections are in fact not based on what you claim they are.

Along with that, you claim to be divine and God

To be clear, I believe everyone is, not "me" exclusively. But this is a bit of a metaphysical understanding, and ultimately not important to the discussion. You aren't required to think of it in these terms.

and certainly don’t seem to hesitate pointing out what you believe to be the misinterpreted errors of believers who hold to the historic essential doctrines of biblical faith which has been once for all delivered to the saints.

I am pointing out the fallacy of believing you can claim to both truly know what that is, and claim that what you believe is actually that. I don't make such a claim for those reasons, and it isn't valid for anyone to make those claims either. You're believing that violates reason, and legitimately cannot be called faith whenever it does that.

I don’t point out error of everyone; that is a generalization. It is only those who promote false teaching contrary to the scriptures,

Contrary as you understand them. You need to quit speaking as the source of authority in determining what is God's word for others. Sojourner and myself, as well as Well Named as shown they are not contrary at all, but consistent, even if not explicitly spelled out in the actual techniques one chooses to use, or comes up with themselves. The only thing you've offered that it isn't is your extrabiblical opinion that is is based on occult practices. That is not citing scripture saying it is, you know. We reject your opinion because the facts don't agree with it.

yet who somehow for self-serving reasons still want to be associated with (their redefined) God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, the Bible.

Self-serving. Hmmm... that's an interesting editorial addition on your part. This whole comment is rather odd, actually. It's like saying as a musician I have self-serving reasons for playing the piano. In reality, I think I'm attracted to the piano as an instrument (my primary instrument out of the 10 I play), because it resonates with something inside of me. That's a really good description. Why is it the Christian language works for me in the context of making music, or spiritual expression as the same thing in this context? Because it does?

You see, this is an interesting point. I choose to because it expresses something that sings in the heart, and it's language, it's timbre if you will, resonates with that which is inside. Why do you? Because you don't want to go to hell? Some self-serving reason like that?

I think since the scriptures reveal that God is the Creator and we are His creatures by His design to whom He has given His written word as a primary meaning of communication, then the Bible is certainly an Owner’s manual.

I think it's absurd to believe that God, Infinite Spirit, speaks primarily through a book. I don't know what else to say to this. What did people do before there was that book? Were they totally blind about anything of the Spirit? No, of course not. "The invisible things of him through Creation are clearly seen and made known, even his eternal power and Godhead".

Here's the key difference, you interpret the "Word of God" to mean the Protestant Bible, which is taken against facts to be magically without error. I take the Word of God to mean that which is expressed through all of creation through Spirit. That is consistent with my experience, as well as what the Bible says about what the Word of God means in their framework of understanding. "Thy Word", is that which is "spoken" put forth in many tongues, and many languages, before and beyond the tongues of men. It's a sad, limited God who can only be known by reading a single book called the Bible. "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

I agree with John. The Logos, what it expresses, shows, teaches, guides, cannot be contained in just one book. The entire Universe contains his "Word", both outside of us, and within us, Infinitely. You might do well to consider John's words.

I am sorry that you reject His instructions, Jesus as your Savior and scriptures as God’s revelation because in doing so I think you are missing out most importantly on what your Creator desires for you to understand personally, but you will remain unaware of God’s hand moving through history and events taking place in the world today right before your eyes which can’t see.

I'm sorry you sit in judgement of others as the right hand of God, and not see what is plainly in front of your face.

 

[Windwalker]

It not nonsense. It's not ridiculous and it's not magic. It's called reading comprehension. How difficult is it for you to read words and understand what is being said?

At which level? A 1st grader level, or Doctoral level, or various points in between? How hard is it for a first grader to understand what a Ph.D. in philosophy does? How hard is it for a non-professional reading ancient literature to understand what scholar can see, looking at the same thing? But more than that, how is it someone who fears and suppresses the heart can read and hear the heart in the words of others?

Here's the thing, in the "plain reading", as it is so self-called, there typically lacks any and all nuance, subtitles, shades of truth, multiple perspectives, and so forth. It becomes "flat fact". Flat, being the operative word there. I'm going to quote a few bits from what I shared with Sojourner the other day from that essay of Conrad Meyers, professor of Comparative Religion at Gustavus Adolphus College. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332

The problem is, no doubt, further amplified by the obviousness and banality of most of the television programming on which the present generation has been weaned and reared. Not only is imagination a strain; even to imagine what a symbolic world is like is difficult. Poetry is turned into prose, truth into statistics, understanding into facts, education into note-taking, art into criticism, symbols into signs, faith into beliefs. That which cannot be listed, out-lined, dated, keypunched, reduced to a formula, fed into a computer, or sold through commercials cannot be thought or experienced.

Our situation calls to mind a backstage interview with Anna Pavlova, the dancer. Following an illustrious and moving performance, she was asked the meaning of the dance. She replied, “If I could say it, do you think I should have danced it?” To give dance a literal meaning would be to reduce dancing to something else. It would lose its capacity to involve the whole person. And one would miss all the subtle nuances and delicate shadings and rich polyvalences of the dance itself.

The remark has its parallel in religion. The early ethnologist R. R. Marett is noted for his dictum that “religion is not so much thought out as danced out.” But even when thought out, religion is focused in the verbal equivalent of the dance: myth, symbol and metaphor. To insist on assigning to it a literal, one-dimensional meaning is to shrink and stifle and distort the significance. In the words of E. H. W. Meyer- stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Religious expression trembles with a sense of inexpressible mystery, a mystery which nevertheless addresses us in the totality of our being.

The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities; they are bald, clean-shaven. Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality. The result is to move in the opposite direction from religious symbolism, emptying symbols of their amplitude of meaning and power, reducing the cosmic dance to a calibrated discussion.​

Amen, and Amen. [Emphasis above mine]. You would likewise do well to consider the words above. Again, what is the "plain meaning", but a "bald, clean-shaven", point of view that lacks any real depth or possibility. You cite scripture like a book of facts. That is not Spirit. Spirit liberates the heart, the mind, and the soul, breaking free into possibility; not define its parameters in an "owner's manual" like that of a lawnmower. Humans cannot be reduced to just machines. That reductionism too is reflective of the bane of Modernity adopted into the guise of religion. You are a product of its ideas about the human being, and all your interpretations of scripture are colorized by it, even though you claim to be a fundamentalist rejecting its views. It's there, like a set of glasses you look through filtering what and how you can see.

I did not come up with the the verses above. I did not come up with the thoughts they are expressing.

But to you, you are adding a theological interpretation to them which says, "Our way or the highway". I don't hear that meaning in the same words you read. I hear things considerably more nuanced and layered with possibility and meaning. It has to do with which set of ears and eyes we hear and see with. It has to do with where someone is at in their understanding of themselves, the world, and others. Those determine what you can and cannot see.

I did not write them. I do not give them any extraordinary meaning or interpretation. I simply read them, comprehend what they say, and accept.

You quoted them, but you are supplying them in support of your beliefs and modes of thinking about them. I can quote the same verse to say something different if I cited it to say what I hear. Nothing wrong with that, but make no mistake, you are expressing YOUR understanding nonetheless. Words have no meaning at all if they are not placed into some context.

 

[Windwalker]

I just want to chime in that what constitutes 'contemplative Christianity' is often debated. The definition has changed and, to my knowledge, there is still no agreed upon definition. Which I believe is part of the point.

The simplest explanation is that is actually not "Contemplative Christianity", as it is contemplative practice within Christianity. It's not a theology or a set of doctrines and beliefs, but simply a practice that one does regardless of what denominations or theologies one has. It's essentially meditation practice, and "Contemplative Practice" has various flavors of what that is and entails.

I'll use a crude analogy to explain. Making love, is making love. What one does to make love is less important than the fact of making love. There are no "instructions" that come with being human in knowing how to make love. There is no "owner's manual" for your body in how to engage in this act with your mate. One can of course learn from others in what they say has been more successful for them in enhancing the experience, but one is completely free to experiment and figure out what works for yourself with your partner. There is no such thing as a "scriptural position" one assumes in the act of love making.

So it's the same thing with meditation practice. All that a particular "taught practice" is, is someone, such as myself, who comes up with what works for them which they discovered through practice and experimentation. Then others looking for guidance, to overcome challenges, obstacles, or difficulties they have might benefit from some guidance, being taught various "techniques" as it were from others who are have greater experience than themselves. It's exactly like as a musician and artist who develops a technique and a style. Others "follow" it, learn it, practice it, modify it, improve it, and so forth. The whole idea these things are "the correct way to do it", assumes a lot that isn't there, as if it's some cosmic "rule" that has to be discovered and followed to the letter of the law in order to achieve salvation.

I hope that helps a little, and feel free to ask anything else you wish to.

 

[sojourner]

I don’t point out error of everyone; that is a generalization. It is only those who promote false teaching contrary to the scriptures, yet who somehow for self-serving reasons still want to be associated with (their redefined) God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, the Bible.

You have yet to definitively show where "false teaching" that is "contrary to the scriptures" has been posted, and yet to definitively show that either God or the bible has been "redefined" in any way.

 

[sojourner]

How complicated is it to understand the many plain thoughts expressed in the Bible, such as...forgive one another or God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life? Seems to me you are just coming up with excuses to avoid accepting the obvious plain truths of the scriptures.

There is nothing in an ancient text, written in a foreign language, and from the perspective of a foreign culture, that is "plain." Seems to me you are just coming up with excuses to avoid doing the hard work of exegesis, when its results conflict with prior belief.

Looking at your example, what does that term "only-begotten Son" mean for the writer? Do you know? What constitutes "belief" for the writer? Do you know? Same with "perish" and "everlasting life." What was the writers perspective, what did he mean, and how does that differ from our perspective of the same? Having actually done the work of exegesis, I think it means something different than you think it means.

 

[sojourner]

Over many years biblical scholars have translated and interpreted by group effort coming to agreement on the historic essential doctrines of the Bible.

No they haven't. RCC doctrine with regard to, say, the Eucharist varies violently from that of the typical, American Pentecostal. There isn't even agreement on what the "essential doctrines of the bible" are.

 

[sojourner]

Well, the term contemplative when used by those who call themselves contemplatives includes mysticism along with a variety of practices which I believe are incompatible and contradictory with biblical Christianity.

Operative term: "what you believe." Other people (for example, Orthodox scholars) disagree with you with regard to what does or does not constitute "biblical" Christianity.

 

[sojourner]

Why do you feel the need to include theology in your posts? Are you professionally involved as a theologian?

WHAMMY!!!

 

[Noa]

Whammy should be a thing. We should make it a thing.

There is nothing in an ancient text, written in a foreign language, and from the perspective of a foreign culture, that is "plain."

This.

 

[sojourner]

I ask this because if you can, then we can have an actual discussion why, or why not, what I am saying is valid. Otherwise, you or I are just disagreeing from ignorance.

In other words, I don't reference it to prove I am right, but to demonstrate your objections are in fact not based on what you claim they are.

"Nuh-uh" is never a valid argument. Good job here!

 

[sojourner]

The early ethnologist R. R. Marett is noted for his dictum that “religion is not so much thought out as danced out.”

I love this metaphor. It's apropos to the discussion at hand for this reason:
When I was in seminary, and we were doing an exercise in How to Think Theologically, we were asked to come up with a phrase that metaphorically outlined how we felt about our spiritual walk. One guy said (I shall never forget this!), "I'd dance with God more, but he always wants to lead."

The problem with much of fundamentalism (as I have experienced it) is that it's full of people who talk about the "leading of the Spirit," but who, in reality, want to lead the Spirit around by the nose with their simplistic and shallow understanding of "what the bible says."

 

[sojourner]

Whammy should be a thing. We should make it a thing.



This.

"Whammy!" is "a thing." It's from the movie Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. It's a signature line that Champ Kind, the sportscaster, uses when somebody does something big.