Lessons of a Tea Connoisseur

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A Line in the Sand

Recently I had posed the question, what is the crux of Christianity?

I am quite certain many if not most Christians' answer will be the crucifixion or resurrection; that is the crux, the centrepoint, the fulcrum of Christianity.

I disagree.
I don't like that answer.
I don't like that answer because that answer in itself doesn't mean anything.
It's a squirrel-answer. It's a mindless answer members of Churchianity have been conditioned to recite. It's a mantra.

What does the crucifixion and resurrection mean? WHY are they important? Is it important that they literally happened? Is it important what they signify? Are their meanings intrinsically linked with their historicity? Do they hold metaphoric meanings? Do they represent spiritual evolution, healing, growth, or transcendence?

These are questions that have divided the church throughout history and continue to divide the church and Christians today.

I believe the Crucifixion and the Resurrection signify two things. The end or death of Religion (or more accurately, Religiosity) and the unique concept of Grace – Unconditional Grace (because conditional Grace is no grace at all).

I have long since moved past the argument of whether these two events literally happened or not. I'm more concerned with what they mean; what Yeshua gave us through his crucifixion and resurrection.

...the end of Religiosity. Freedom from trying to jump through hoops, to try to get right with God. But not just the Judea-Christian God, but also our attempts to get right with any God, or other forms of gods or “gods”. Whatever concepts we're shackled and enslaved by.

The end of religion. The end of the task-master. To be freed of our shackles, our bonds. To be unfettered.

How? Grace. Unconditional Grace.
Unconditional?! But there's gotta be some boundaries, doesn't there? I mean, it's a slippery slope to anarchy and chaos otherwise, isn't it?


At some point we have to draw a line in the sand, don't we? I think, ultimately, that is the main question the church has always asked. Where do we draw that line in the sand? Where does Grace end? At what point does Grace lose its power? Where does that line in the sand lie?

When do we say, “here and no further?” Isn't that the sad summation of church history?

A line in the sand?

I think Christians are asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be where do we draw that line in the sand. The question should be WHY are we drawing a line in the sand? After all, a line in the sand is a boundary, a border; a point of defining “them” from “us”.

Maybe a much better question should be, what are we trying to protect? What conditions are we trying to maintain? I think this has been the genesis of Churchianity.

What saddens me about Churchianity is that it is a path that leads its flock back into captivity; back into shackles; back into fetters; back into religiosity.

Churchianity undoes what Yeshua gave the world through the crucifixion and resurrection.
A line in the sand.

What is the crux of Christianity?
Sadly, a line in the sand. That is where my hopes lie and where my hopes are shattered; in a simple line in the sand.

Although I haven't yet abandoned Christianity, I have moved past it.

The Conundrum of the Unconditional

The Crux of Christianity

In Rob Bell's book - Love Wins - he spells out painfully and simply the problem (as far as I'm concerned, the real good news) with Christianity – that of an unconditional grace.

“And that question raises another question. If the message of Jesus is that God is offering the free gift of eternal life through him – a gift we cannot earn by our own efforts, works, or good deeds – and all we have to do is accept and confess and believe, aren't those verbs?

"And aren't verbs actions?

"Accepting, confessing, believing – those are things we do.

"Does that mean, then, that going to heaven is dependent on something I do?

"How is any of that grace?
How is that a gift?
How is that good news?

"Isn't that what Christians have always claimed set their religion apart – that is wasn't, in the end, a religion at all – that you don't have to do anything, because God has already done it through Jesus?” Rob Bell, Love Wins, page 11

This is Unconditional Grace.
This is the conundrum of the unconditional.
This is the crux of Christianity.

Ultimately, this only points out that we have a simple choice.
Either Christianity has always been flawed and little more than just another religion not necessarily worth keeping, or that what we have today is a hijacked corruption of what its founder(s?) intended.

There's no doubt that this conundrum of the unconditional, has and is causing a lot of rumbling and controversy in church circles. There are few acceptable options to the church... and this conundrum cannot simply be written off.
 

If they truly loved what they say they do, then they would follow it. This conundrum, this crux becomes a delusional mirror.

The Conundrum of the Unconditional

I believe a certain Christian view of Judaism (as a symbol, not necessarily the faith itself; possibly the Pharisees themselves) represents the Law, Legalism and the trap of legalistic religion – all religions; all religiosity in its numerous forms.

I believe Christianity with its unique concept of Unconditional Grace (which I believe Christendom and Churchianity will never fully understand nor accept or embrace), not only frees us from the constraints and shackles of Legalism, but also signifies the death of Religion itself in its most absolute sense.

Christianity cannot be a replacement for all religion. (Not even a benevolent once-and-for-all one). This makes Christianity a process. This makes Christianity a transitory state; something that one evolves through and out of, but extremely important and valuable for what it is. Maybe even globally necessary.

Once we realize that there is nothing we can do or need to do to “get right” with our God (or “gods”) - that we don't need to gain forgiveness or appease them because that acceptance, that forgiveness, that “salvation” was always there. Once we discover that innate and inherent unconditional grace I believe the only question left is, “Now what?"

The more and more I learn of it, I believe Buddhism might be a continuation of that question. Buddhism isn't the destination but the “how to” response. It can be a practical way to living with oneself and with others (or for others). (But let us be mindful, Buddhism itself is not immune to religiosity).

I realize that many Trapped-Christians believe God and only God can help us – never the actions or deeds of our own doing. I think these Trapped-Christians misunderstand this as Grace. (But it's conditional, and conditional grace is no grace at all. If it's conditional it is that path back to the Law, Legalism and Religiosity. That's why they are trapped. It's a perpetual circle)....  maybe I should stop calling them Trapped-Christians and start calling them shackled, or fettered; or simply Trapped. For they are by no means exclusively Christian. They are simply victims of religiosity.

”The Buddha said, 'To be attached to a certain view and to look down upon other views as inferior – this the wise call a fetter.'” From the Sutta Nipata, translated by K.R. Norman.

I realize that many of those Trapped also believe that Buddhism is some sort of self-help guide to earning one's salvation. A sort of “Who-needs God? I-can-do-it-myself” scheme. I think many (some?) believe, the Buddhists believe, that enlightened state of Nirvana is supposed to be synonymous and interchangeable with Heaven. They are not synonymous.

Clearly, this Western modern day Buddhism - this new opening petal of the Dharma lotus - needs to be better explored, better understood, better interpreted, and "unpackaged".

"The three Jewels of Buddhism are 1) the Buddha, 2) Dharma, and 3) Sangha.

"I don't believe this concept belongs exclusively to the religion of Buddhism. I believe Buddhism only expresses it through its own particular paradigm. In fact, I think these 3 treasures - these three jewels - are universal truths. I see these as three Lotuses.

“Nirvana shares one quality with the lotus. As the lotus is untainted by water, so is Nirvana unstained by all the defilements”.

"The first jewel – the Buddha – does not necessarily have to mean Siddhartha Gautama himself, but, in all likelihood, might refer to the awakened nature of all beings. I see this as extremely similar to the martial art's Taekwon-do's tenet Guk-gi (Self-Control). (And Solace is a fruit of Guk-gi).

"The second Jewel, Dharma, is the teaching, but let's not take this too literally. This doesn't have to mean Buddhism's teaching(s). We shouldn't become frightened that to accept this Dharma means a path away from whatever belief or religion we currently belong to. No, I think this treasure - this universal truth - is simply being open to learning. I take Dharma as taking and accepting truth whenever and wherever we find it. (In fact, this might very well fly in the face of propositional truth [fundamentalism?]). I see this Dharma as akin to what is borrowed from the Chinese -do, or Dao, or possibly Tao, meaning the way or path or route to something, and that something is the fundamental nature of the universe.


"The Sangha in Buddhism generally refers to the Buddhist's community itself. But the further we take this concept the larger one's Sangha becomes. On its largest level we are faced with the global community as our own, and I think this is a perfect place for us to reflect on the underlying concept of Compassion. I think it is important not to mistaken, or force a necessary interpretation, of this Sangha as meaning a specific and exclusive religious body of followers. I take this Sangha concept as being boundless and without boarders.

"I believe the most valued truth that we can discover is that of Solace and Compassion.
"And Solace and Compassion are entangled by Dharma." (Excerpt from The Three Lotuses).

Mindfulness

I recently went for my first degree Black Belt testing (Taekwon-do), in which a thesis, or essay, needed to be submitted.

My original Black Belt Thesis was about 10 pages long. The final edited version ended up being closer to 6 pages. Although I am confident much of what was cut was the proper choice, on hindsight there are parts that I regret removing, especially in light of what I learned through the actual black belt testing itself.

One section that was edited out of my thesis was on the topic of General Choi's* Jungshin Sooyang – Moral Culture. [It never made the final cut simply because it was not something my Master specifically taught, or for that matter, even made mention of].

The whole concept of General Choi's Jungshin Sooyang (the ethics and morality behind Taekwon-do) I believe, was built upon Buddhist and Taoist principals, and one Buddhist concept is that of Mindfulness.

In his book, Dharma Road, Brian Haycock has this to say;

“If you want to develop mindfulness, there are several options. First, you can join a monastery. This is the traditional way. For thousands of years, seekers have left their lives behind to take up a new life of contemplation and meditation...


Not all spiritual practice is about peaceful contemplation. The martial arts are based largely on mindfulness practices. The goal is really to keep your head under extreme conditions and react to the action without becoming distracted.”

I think this is interesting. In my black belt thesis I speak of something similar.

When I spend my energy worrying about Tomorrow and regretful for Yesterday, I do nothing but destroy my Today. The illusion is that our Today – our Now – is a tiny hairline separating Yesterday from Tomorrow. The truth of the matter is that there is no future and there is no past, but only an eternally endless Now.

I believe these points all came into coherence for me during the actual black belt test.

The test itself was 3 ½ hours long. It began with running for a half-hour, followed by having to do 200 sit-ups and 200 push-ups within 15 minutes. Then came the patterns – all 11 (near 300 memorized movements/strikes). Then having to perform 400 kicks (shoulder height or higher) within 15 minutes. Then self-defense (had to hold off 3 attackers for 5 minutes), followed by sparring. 3 Rounds with a new (fresh) opponent every round. Then, finally the board breaking (14 boards in total).

It was at the patterns stage of the testing that my legs felt like rubber. I kept thinking of how much more I had to do and how little energy I felt I had left. But it was also at this same time that my method of thinking changed. I cannot honestly say whether it simply happened or I chose it. I got to the point when I had to (literally) force myself to function exclusively within the Now. No more thinking about how much more I had to do. No more thinking about how my energy levels were dropping. No more thinking about time. Just focus on what I was doing right here, right now.


And I believe, that was a near perfect example of this Mindfulness.









* General Choi (1918 - 2002) was the founder of Taekwon-do.

Raft-centric

"[A] man, who going on a journey, sees a great stretch of water, the near bank with dangers and fears, the farther bank secure and without fears, but there is neither a boat for crossing over, nor a bridge across. It occurs to him that to cross from the perils of this bank to the security of the further bank, he should fashion a raft out of sticks and branches and depending of the raft, cross over to safety. When he has don this it occurs to him that the raft has been very useful and he wonders if he ought to take it with him on his head or shoulders. What do you think? That the man is doing what should be done to the raft?

"When he has crossed over to the beyond he must leave the raft and proceed on his journey. [A] man doing this would be doing what should be done to the raft. [T]he raft [is] for getting across, not for retaining."

Adapted from the Majihima Nikaya, translated by Christmas Humphreys.

Religion is a tool. Religion can be a useful tool, even a necessary one.
A tool serves its purpose, accomplishes its task and then must be either left behind for another to use, or simply abandoned and discarded.

Like a raft built to cross to the other side of a river. Once the other shore is reached, dragging the raft behind you through the trees, brambles, and thickets only holds you back. It is falling victim to the disease of Religiosity.

Our purpose was never to build, protect, guard, or worship the raft. Our purpose is the journey. We should never be raft-centric.

The Three Lotuses

The three Jewels of Buddhism are 1) the Buddha, 2) Dharma, and 3) Sangha.

I don't believe this concept belongs exclusively to the religion of Buddhism. I believe Buddhism only expresses it through its own particular paradigm. In fact, I think these 3 treasures - these three jewels - are universal truths. I see these as three Lotuses.

“Nirvana shares one quality with the lotus. As the lotus is untainted by water, so is Nirvana unstained by all the defilements”.

The first jewel – the Buddha – does not necessarily have to mean Siddhartha Gautama himself, but, in all likelihood, might refer to the awakened nature of all beings.  I see this as extremely similar to the martial art's Taekwon-do's tenet Guk-gi (Self-Control). (And Solace is a fruit of Guk-gi).

The second Jewel, Dharma, is the teaching, but let's not take this too literally. This doesn't have to mean Buddhism's teaching(s). We shouldn't become frightened that to accept this Dharma means a path away from whatever belief or religion we currently belong to. No, I think this treasure - this universal truth - is simply being open to learning. I take Dharma as taking and accepting truth whenever and wherever we find it. (In fact, this might very well fly in the face of propositional truth [fundamentalism?]). I see this Dharma as akin to what is borrowed from the Chinese -do, or Dao, or possibly Tao, meaning the way or path or route to something, and that something is the fundamental nature of the universe.

The Sangha in Buddhism generally refers to the Buddhist's community itself. But the further we take this concept the larger one's Sangha becomes. On its largest level we are faced with the global community as our own, and I think this is a perfect place for us to reflect on the underlying concept of Compassion. I think it is important not to mistaken, or force a necessary interpretation, of this Sangha as meaning a specific and exclusive religious body of followers. I take this Sangha concept as being boundless and without boarders.

I believe the most valued truth that we can discover is that of Solace and Compassion.
And Solace and Compassion are entangled by Dharma.
These are what I call the Three Lotuses.

Solace, Compassion, and Dharma

That's one of the reasons I have three lotuses tattooed on my arm. It is one symbolism it holds to me. But not the only one.

The third lotus has a skull within its heart. It reminds me of impermanence; of both mortality and immortality. As I myself am mortal, I know of my own impermanence, of my own mortality. Yet the other two lotuses represent my children, and through them I have achieved immortality.

The final significance is the only method I have discovered to overcome Lust. (See A Practical Guide for the Spiritual Sojourner: A Cure for Lust).

The Hidden Faces of Fundamentalism

We have two people in a car involved in a discussion about the nature of the car's occupants.The first says, "There are only two categories of people in this car.Me, and not-Me".
The second occupant isn't impressed by this sort of categorization and disagrees. The second occupant sees the catogories in terms of Him and not-Him, much to the first person's dismay.
Both argue that they are dealing with cold, hard facts and therefore won't back-down because they hold the truth and are unarguably in the right!

I believe this is how most Westerners think and function; in dichotomies. This is a Western-paradigm; a Dichotomy-paradigm.

Both arguing occupants in the car have missed several facts.
First, that the truths they cling to, are only 'facts' from a certain point of view and are conditional truths at best.

(A person believes the sky is blue. It is an obvious fact - don't be silly! Just look up! It is not a conditional truth and certainly not true only from a certain point of view. Fact. Plain and simple. Right?

A second person (who only goes out at night) believes the sky is black. This - clearly - is a fact. It isn't a conditional truth, now is it?
Only through a non-dichotomy-paradigm can these two conditional truths be reconciled and a larger truth be discovered - the fact of night and day.
...but interestingly enough, this fact, this truth of night-and-day, is itself only valid from a certain point of view. It is only true under certain conditions.

Day and Night are in themselves only an illusion; a man-made construct. Just take a step off the planet. They no longer exist. It's no different than the two people in the car arguing about is it "Me and not-Me" or "Him and not-Him").

Secondly, they miss the point that they are actually agreeing with one another in the sense that they both agree that there are two occupants in the car. They just can't (won't?) agree on how to catergorize them.

A Harmonious-Dichotomy-paradigm can accept both seemingly contradictory facts as true. No, not contradictory, but harmonious facts.

What are the nature of the car occupants?
a) Me and not-Me?
b) Him and not-Him?
Answer: Yes.

The Japanese have an expression - a single work really - Mu. Unask the question. The error is not within one's answer, but within the question being asked itself.

Another simple example is that of theft. Stealing is against the law almost everywhere (Let's leave well enough alone that the Law does not define what is and isn't Truth). Even people who may frquently steal will most definitely not accept being stolen from.
There is an unaccounted for illusion here; the assumption and understanding of ownership. The truth in this example supersedes the question.

"Stealing implies ownership". V from V is for Vendetta

Is stealing wrong? Is theft a simple black and white issue?
When you pose the question of whether stealing is an absolute, you are asking the wrong question. Is ownership absolute? What is ownership? How exactly do we define ownership? What can I claim that I truly own? If I have paid for something, if I've bought something, does that mean I own it? How does that apply to slavery?

Let us jump to another example.
I have my thoughts and opinions and beliefs as to how the universe came into being, but I don't need to be right. Ultimately, we will never know this one truth. It is nothing but an opinion and a belief. (Does might make right?)

One core tenet of Buddhism is that when we attempt to force our beliefs into facts, this is the genesis of human suffering. This truth supersedes any other.
Creationism or Secular-Atheistic Evolution?

Mu. (You're asking the wrong question).

The Western Dichotomy-Paradigm deals with truth often exclusively in terms of knowledge only. The need for truth in certain circumstances is irrelevant and unnessary, especially once we introduce Wisdom (and remember, Wisdom cares).

In our first example, the fact is that there are two people in a car.
In our second example, the fact is our planet spins on its axis and revolves around the sun.
But facts aren't truth. We interpret these facts into our subjective truths.

I think an important issue is our methodologies in pursuing truths rather than actual facts and/or truths we discover. I think it is vitally important how we come to the truths we claim to hold rather than what our end results are. It is important to be aware of the illusions we cling to.

And for those who insist on clinging to their fundamental illusions - ultimately their 'facts', their 'truths' and their inflexible beliefs, will lead to conflict and an obstacle to peace.

Review of "Clean Water for Elirose", by Ariah Finz

What I loved so much about this children's book was that it didn't just speak of ideas (and educate through its teachings), but that it offered a very real way for children - who are often times very aware and interested in problems of the world - a direction to actually do something about it.

Two lessons struck me the most. (And I hope, as an adult, I'm not missing its point)
The first was to make children aware of things we take for granted. Like Maria first starts off by saying, "Do you like it if your drink is dirty and yucky? Me neither", only later to be introducted to Elirose who,  "Has to walk a long way every day to get water for her family. And the water isn't even clean, it's yucky and dirty."

The second are some very practical activities children can do to raise money to help, but more importantly, to learn that they have the ability within their own hands, to change to world. They aren't helpless.

The book ends with questions for discussion along with ideas and activities to participate in!

What a beautifully simple yet profound book.
I plan to have my children read it and hear their take on it.





Disclaimer: I received this book free from SpeakEasy Blog Network. Providing me a free copy in no way guarantees a favorable review. The opinions expressed in this review are my own.

XXX-mas: Porn for the Soul

I can remember my dad saying every Christmas time how he was upset that the commercial industry would abbreviate Christmas to Xmas. He thought it took the spirit out of it. I can remember thinking this same thing for years myself. It wasn't until I was in St. Pius X Catholic High School that I learned what the X in Xmas stood for. Khris-tos in Greek, meaning the anointed. I would have never guessed that the Greek letter “X” was often used as the abbreviation for the “Christ”, or the Messiah. It made sense after learning this, and I couldn't really fault my father for not reading Greek. I don't read it either; I guess few do. So, in this case, it wasn't so commercial.

Christmas is never the same until you have children of your own. Christmas this year will be the 16th year we, as a family with children, celebrate Christmas. But this year, like last year and the year before, I'm not looking forward to it at all.

I know why that is. Ultimately, I'm teaching my children the value of porn. Yes, that's right, porn, as in pornography. Not the culture of porn, and definitely not the imagery of porn, but the philosophy of it. The philosophy of porn teaches us the quick fix. It teaches us near instant gratification. It offers us something we all legitimately desire and crave, and hope and long for. But offers something shallow and hollow in its place. I like what society thinks porn should be. It's supposed to be fun and exciting, and alive and pleasurable. It supposed to simply be sexuality. Sexuality is a normal aspect of being human and we enjoy it within our relationships – it is supposed to be harmless. No one really gets hurt. But why does porn leave me empty? What's missing? Porn is really a bait-and-switch sales tactic, isn't it? Porn's selling you one thing, but delivering you something else.

One kind of Christmas teaches our children and us materialism. And the fat ol' jolly elf named Santa Claus – who Coca-Cola Ltd. played a big hand in creating and establishing – only adds to this frenzy. But, I say to myself, that's only one kind of Xmas – that is only the secular, commercial driven materialistic kind of Xmas. This kind of Xmas is so akin to porn that I have to start teaching my children otherwise!

Another kind of Xmas is attempting to connect with the religious facet of it. "The real meaning of Xmas", as some say. "Jesus: He's the reason for the season", and cute catchphrases like that. Of course it's all true, but sometimes it sounds like a formulated marketing scheme, and I'm beginning to wonder if it really is.

So how do you connect with a spiritual part of it? I guess you go to church. We attend church. We sit and watch the spectacle and entertaining shows and hope to have our emptiness filled. Like porn, a different aspect of society (Christianity) tells us what Xmas should be like. Like porn, we're still searching for gratification - not physical pleasure, but spiritual gratification. Attending church, especially at Xmas, is supposed to be exciting and alive! It's supposed to be a celebration of our liberty and salvation! Not only is it supposed to be harmless, but's supposed to be just the opposite! We're expecting - somehow - to be healed, to be made full and whole again. This kind of Xmas is still nothing more than the bait-and-switch sales tactic. This kind of Xmas is selling you one thing, but delivering you something else.

But is this even true? It's been historically established that Yeshua of Nazereth wasn't born on December 25th - or for that matter anytime in December. 
Like far too many Christian holidays or celebrations, previous pagan celebrations had been paved-over in Christianity's attempt to erase or snuff them out. If this really is "the reason for the season" then we're really celebrating anything but tolerance, love, or good-will.

I can't speak for anybody but myself, but Xmas celebration in church leaves me feeling empty. Maybe because Xmas - and I mean the religious aspect of it - has really become XXXmas. The religious Christmas today has become, for many people, porn for the soul. They're showing up looking for their "fix". They're searching for the quick fix - whatever that may be. They're looking for the permanent "feel-good" pleasure of the spirit, but are left with something that very quicly fades, and often times leaves feelings of guilt.

The true meaning of Christmas has nothing to do with church. And it doesn't have to do with giving to the poor. Giving to the poor is about charity, not about Christmas day. If you honestly believe Chrimstas is about giving to the poor, then you're trying to fulfill some sort of checklist the easy way. And I know this is a cliche, but Christmas is about giving. But it's not about giving gifts and presents. It's not about volunteering at the soup-kitchen once a year and serving the poor. It's about giving ourselves, our time, our relationship, our friendship. And not for just one season of the year! Strangers make the worst people to give these gifts to, because it makes these strangers little more than "projects" or receptive object of our "obligatory" dues. These "gifts" do not come from the heart, they come from some sort of installed sense of obligation. We are attempting to appease our own sense of hollowness - our own sense of guilt. Because deep down inside, these people know how miserable, wretched, and empty they truly are. Deep down inside they know that no one single day has that kind of magic to cure what ails them. They are fallen and they damned well know it. To hope and search for this kind magical cure at XXXmas is looking for love in porn. We will never succeed.

I cannot find the meaning of Christmas in the materialism of this commerical "Holiday Season".

I cannot find the meaning of Christmas in the pews of churches and in the holy quest of porn for the soul.

The meaning of Christmas must lie beyond the churches and beyond the shopping malls. There must be another kind of Christmas.


(Notice: This is a significantly older piece, rewritten from 2006 and reposted. Some of you may be familiar with it).

Hook-Line-and-Sinker, or Through-the-Looking-Glass?

Old Highway 17

I have a vague memory of the first time I encountered God. I shouldn't say “God” for at that time in my life I held absolutely no concept of the divine.

“God's” a funny word. We should really be careful when we use that word. It means so many things to so many people. To a child it's an old man with white hair and beard sitting on a cloud. To some it's an impersonal entity or force running or guiding the universe. To others it's a universal-mind itself. To many God has been imbued with a personality - “personhood”. I suppose this is necessary for our very finite minds to wrap themselves around a very infinite being – the Being. The problem with this is that we also tend to pass on all too human traits. Jealousy, anger, Tribalism, Nationalism, Hatred, let alone using God as a tool to further our own agendas and ends.

Allow me to just say that I can remember the first time I encountered something other.

My mom and dad and I were on a car ride. It was long before my sister was born – during that long chapter in my life as the only child.

I can remember that I had absolutely no sense of time-reference. Not days of the week, not actual dates (numbers), not even larger time-frames, like Grade-1, or Grade-2. It must have been pre-kindergarten so I'll put myself as being under 4 years old; probably 3.

I can remember the car traveling what felt like west-bound (not from my childhood memory, but from how I remember it as an adult), but towards to main-city of Ottawa with a body of water (river?) on my right and rocky fields to my left. (For any locals, I figure it was Old Highway 17 between Ottawa and Wendover).

We stopped at what I can only remember as a sort of rocky quarry. I can't remember any machinery or equipment so it probably was more of a outcrop of rocks than a quarry proper, but there was definitely what appeared to be a sharp (cut stone) wall behind, with a litter of stones and rocks everywhere.

I remember my goal was to find and collect rocks! (Not any sort of special rocks. Just rocks!) It felt like I must have been miles away from where my parents were. I was busy 'exploring', but in all likelihood, I'm sure I wasn't far from them.

And then, suddenly, I became aware of a presence. Like someone or something accompanying me. Friendly, warm, caring. I never questioned whether it might have been my imagination or not, I think I was simply too young. But that memory has always stuck with me.

Ultimately, it was the genesis of my searching out God.

However, simple and powerful that one 'encounter' with the unknown was, it wasn't my any means the only one.

I have had several paradigm-shattering encounters and experiences in my life. This earliest one in the quarry was the first. Then there was my dream of The Storm in '83. My mother's death in '87. My precognitive dreams the led to my wife and marriage in '90; the end of a 10-year exile from God in '97. The birth of my autistic son and an experience 20 years later at my mother's grave.

All of these experiences have feed this quest and journey and search.

~

Allow me to switch gears – change topics. I think I might go at this from a different perspective.

I have never been one for institutional religions and I know by some people, I have been accused of taking the easy path; the path of least resistance.

I have been told by some that being an adherent to a particular church or temple (or religion or even community) requires a commitment not unlike a relationship, or even a marriage. By these same people I have also been told that I fail to make this sort of commitment. I should actually be insulted (most specifically because of the comment to failing to commit to a community) because – really – what I am being accused of is a lack of loyalty, and loyalty is something I do not lack.

I have recently reflected upon, not so much my experiences themselves, but upon my attempts to search out the truth behind them, and what I discovered.

Often times, I so wanted the truth to be enlightening, to lift all worry and anxiety and give me an overwhelming sense of peace, that I would be more than willing to suspend my disbelieve, to suspend my cold analytical eye. And sometimes, briefly, it would work.

As my searching brought me into more and more contact with more and more people and others' experiences my understanding of God, my belief of God, grew and changed. Ideas and images that I struggled with died and newer, better ones came into existence. Certain problems with the idea of God ceased to be issues once viewed from a different point of view. Spiritual maturity? Possibly.

I have often wondered whether I subject myself to believing something hook-line-and-sinker. (Because when I think back to numerous experiences and involvements with various groups it's kind of embarrassing. My, how I've changed). Am I just lost soul, floating from one to another faith, desperately embracing everything or anything like a drowning man clings to anything thrown to him? Maybe my naysayers are right.

I came to realize something that I eventually called -ologies.

You know, as in Archeology. Biology. The science of, or the study of any said topic.

However, it was with Theology that this method fell apart in my opinion.

As a biologist studying a paramecium under a microscope this same analogy absolutely could not work – or at least would fail miserably – in the realm of theology.


You could not objectively observe and study God from a distance. (And on a side note, I think that is what's wrong with so many churches, religions, and theologists today).

In this particular “science” you must go through the looking glass. The biologist would need to use his microscope as a slide to sit side-by-side with the paramecium he is studying (and hope it doesn't mistaken him as a food source!)

You cannot 'study' God. You experience it. The act of “studying” God is to change you. It doesn't work any other way. Or so I thought.

I don't think I take the path of least resistance. In fact, I've come to the conclusion that 'how' I pursue my searching for this encounter I had as a 3-year old puts me in danger.

I think what I 'do' is not so much like a lost soul adrift, nor like a drowning man desperately clinging to absolutely anything thrown to him, but more honest and more akin to traveling through the looking glass. Putting myself 'out-there' and allowing myself to be affected and changed by my encounters. Not objective and distant.

But the more and more I've practiced this, the more and more I realized that it wasn't God that I was encountering and experiencing, but people. It was people's hopes and dreams and ideas, and projections that shaped what we hope God is. (And even what God isn't in the case of Atheists).

Broken China

I've realized that I am a potter.

I've spend most of my life inadvertently making theological pottery. Beautiful China if you will.

I've also realized that God has spend most of his life breaking it.

So, my question is really, do I, as a spiritual sojourner, indiscriminately swallow numerous 'truths' hook-line-and-sinker, or do I practice going-through-the-looking-glass? I have found precious few brave enough to travel down this path. Allowing oneself to be changed is a scary thing.

Path of least resistance? I think not.