Happy Blog Day!

In the festive mood of "Blog Day" I have found five blogs that I'd like to read and recommend. I just found out about them within the hour, but each looks interesting.

1. The Forbidden Gospels Blog. This looks like a nice academic blog dealing with early Christianity and Gnostic themes. I like what I've read so far.
2. Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. Another academic blog but this one deals with, as the name implies, religions of the ancient Mediterranean.
3. Codex. A blog that claims, "musings on Biblical Studies, Biblical Hebrew, Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Popular Culture, Religion, ..." I loved a video posted about late night evangelical Christian T.V. shows -- Hilarious.
4. MetaPagan. Listed as, "a collaboratively edited listing of blog and news stories about Pagans and Heathens." I looked it over really quick and it seems to be a well written blog.
5. Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism. This blog seems really interesting written by a Rabbi. The irony is that I found this blog while looking at a list of "Pagan" blogs -- it was right there.

Happy Blog Day!

A different look at Gnosticism

I was having a conversation with someone, about the post I made below and my frustrations. He gave me his take on Unitarian Universalism which I thought was very good and worth posting about. He said (and I'll probably do a poor job trying to paraphrase him) that he views Unitarian Universalism as a form of Gnosticism in that everyone (at least in theory) who attends a Unitarian Universalist congregation is on a "A free and responsible search for truth and meaning." He said that the freedom to search for truth and meaning is Gnostic in character and the willingness to do it in community had special meaning. We talked about, "What do Unitarian Universalists believe?" and "What do Unitarian Universalist ministers do?" His response was that Unitarian Universalists search for truth and ministers help people find truth, but he went further and said that they don't simply preach a checklist of dogma but help guide others while allowing them to still have the freedom to search for truth and that this was much harder than preaching a litany of doctrines.

I thought this was very insightful and I've been pondering it for a few days now. Gnosticism, and search for truth and meaning are very important to me. I see much truth and meaning in the spiritual practices that I am engaged. Last week during the religious education program at Yellow Springs UU Fellowship a friend was facilitating the class and we were discussing what Unitarian Universalism was to each of us. I used a metaphor of a protective umbrella in illustrating what Unitarian Universalism was to me. I conveyed that I see the "world" as a storm with a lot of rain. Unitarian Universalism is like a protective umbrella from that storm, but it is not who I am -- but it does protect me from the storm. Other aspects of my spirituality could be represented by parts of clothing or even parts of my body -- depending on much a part of me they really are. Some of these spiritual practices have been transforming and, I believe, are an ontological part of my being -- the affects of the sacraments (baptism, confirmation, and holy orders) for example, or the various initiatory transformations I've undergone. My own praxis as an individual is good enough to protect me from the storm of the world (I'm well protected), however, having that umbrella as further protection is an added benefit as I weather the storm of life. Even in times of great joy when the storm recedes and the sun comes out the umbrella can still protect me. Instead of protecting me from rain it can protect me from too many rays of the sun. The protective umbrella of Unitarian Universalism can help me in my own search for truth and meaning.

I reflect on who I am as a person, and my search for meaning and wholeness. This is no easy task, and not something to take lightly. Education and learning is a transformative experience for me and is something that I must pursue, I cannot imagine myself doing anything else at this point in my life. The cost and hurdles will be difficult, but as my friend mentioned to me earlier in the week I must have faith. Sometimes it is hard to have faith, especially faith in yourself. I just have to remember to breath, and take one milestone at a time.

Just keep coming back....

A friend of mine sent me an e-mail with a link to the below video:

Betty Butterfield visits a Unitarian Church.



Of course this is meant to be a sarcastic and humorous (of which it is, I had tears in my eyes). But it has caused me to think, and to think a lot about aspirations towards UU ministry. What do Unitarian Universalists believe? What do Unitarian Universalist ministers do?

I know, I know. There are the UU Principles, which I think most liberal minded people subscribe to regardless of whether or not they claim to be a Unitarian Universalist. There is also the "Living Tradition," which looks good on paper but is that really a "universal" within Unitarian Universalism? I've met too many Unitarian Universalists who are damaged goods when it comes to these Living Traditions, preferring only one aspect of the Living Tradition and discarding the rest. For example, when I was at UU "Leadership School" I wanted to do a guided meditation for the worship service our group was leading. I was asked by the chaplain of school to "be careful of my language" and perhaps "tone it down." I toned nothing down, and did it exactly as I had intended and it went just fine, but the point is that he was more sensitive to the atheists at the school than to the theists, again "preaching to the lowest theological denominator." Recently in my congregation a woman was highly offended because we had a speaker who said the word Jesus either once or twice, and that made the woman a "fundamentalists" (because she said Jesus). The woman was a United Methodist.

So I understand correctly. I'll need to get a Master of Divinity to preach officially within a Unitarian Universalist context. I've already conducted marriage ceremonies, funerals, and other rites of passage. I need that M.Div to be able to preach, since it doesn't seem Unitarian Universalists are prone to many rites of passage other than weddings and funerals -- which I have been doing for at least six years now. Instead of a Master of Divinity I wonder why the UUA the MFC doesn't simply require potential ministers to join Toastmasters and learn public speaking. I already have a decent understanding of theology, history, etc...

I'm a little frustrated right now, if thats not already evident.

I cannot think of doing anything else other than ministry or teaching, or both. Yet I find myself reading about how debt is a problem, internships unrealistic, more debt issues, and poor formation! Is this just a Unitarian Universalist problem, or do other denominations have this problem? I enjoy leading worship services/liturgy, I really like facilitating rites of passage, and I like teaching and conducting workshops/study groups.

I am digging really deep right now. I know I want to attend graduate school to pursue theological studies. What I am not sure about is whether I want to pursue ministry in the Unitarian Universalist Association. I need to ask myself, "Is it worth it." The Unitarian Universalist congregation I belong to is "lay lead" and I'm not sure they are going to be able to provide the support and guidance that I will need as I explore the possibilities of ministry within a Unitarian Universalist context. This is very frustrating to me.

I find myself moving closer and closer towards a more Christian-identified mindset, but I don't want to abandon my roots and I feel isolated spiritually. I know my wife would probably divorce me if I said I wanted to attend a Christian Church, not that there is even one out there that I feel comfortable with theologically. I am very happy in the "Independent Sacramental Movement," but that will not pay off my student dept or put food on the table. This sort of thinking forces me to think, "Is it about vocation and calling or about getting paid?" I don't want to be about money, but with my debt I need to be mindful of how I am going to pay back what I have borrowed.

In a couple of weeks I'll be attending Between the Worlds, an Alternative Spiritual Gathering for Gay and Bi men. I'm facilitating a workshop on Gnosticism and Freemasonry. Hopefully, BTW can be a time of prayer and reflection for me and I try to ascertain my place in the universe.

Belief in things we cannot see...

I was talking with someone recently who doesn't have "much use for Christianity," and I made a passing comment about Angels. Her response was, "I wouldn't know I don't believe in Angels." I was perplexed by this statement. The reason why I was (and am) perplexed is because this person believes in faeries, dragons, nymphs, satyrs, and all other sorts of mythical and mystical beings. I have absolutely nothing wrong with mythical beings, and think their existence (at least on some plane of existence) is just as plausible as the existence of angels. I wonder what is the heart of her rejection of angels? I've tried to find out, but I don't think the "real" reason is presented. All I get is, "I don't believe in the Christian God, and I don't believe God needs messengers."

Does the rejection of one mythical being somehow validate one's belief in their own set of mythical beings? I'm not a Muslim, but if I accept that Angels CAN be real then I should at least acknowledge that Jinn can also be real. The existence of Jinn do not, in any way, invalidate my beliefs -- nor does the existence of angels, faeries, dragons, nymphs, and satyrs.

The heart of my post is my confusion, and even "hurt," over people I know who reject Christianity (especially my Gnostic variety) even on a philosophical and theological level. If "thought" can manifest into being, through an egregore then what about the collective egregore of the Christian tradition? It would seem that such an egregore would be fairly substantial, and rejecting that egregore doesn't make it any less substantial.

In the end it simply seems that people will hate and reject what they will without any logical reason for doing so.

A Look at Ordination & Consecration

There are many different forms of ordination. The type of ordination that I wish to address in this entry is the type of ordination that is transmitted through apostolic succession by a bishop -- in my case within the Sacramental Christian Movement (also known as the Independent Sacramental Movement), in my case of the Gnostic variety. This is a specific type of ordination and involves a bishop laying on of hands and an energy transfer by passing on a lineage of apostolic succession (allegedly) originating with Jesus Christ and passed onto his disciples and to a succession of bishops down through the centuries to eventually reside within the bishop conducting an ordination or consecration in our modern times. This sort of ordination/consecration is special because it contains this energy transfer, and that energy transfer does have an affect upon the person being ordained/consecrated.

In a theological sense this energy transfer places an "indelible" characteristic upon the soul or spirit of the individual being ordained, that is a characteristic that cannot be removed. This alteration, conducted sacramentally, is similar to the sacraments of baptism and confirmation because it changes who you become after the ordination takes place. For those individuals who subscribe to the idea of reincarnation I would even hypothesize that the indelible characteristic of ordination is passed onto subsequent incarnations, and because of this a level of responsibility needs to be acknowledged by the potential ordinand. Things to consider:

• Do I accept this ordination/consecration forever in this lifetime?
• Do I accept this ordination/consecration forever for all subsequent lifetimes?

You might find yourself, in the future, in a position where you might no longer subscribe to a desire for priestly or apostolic ministry but the status of your spirit or soul is not changed by your willingness to "leave" a sacramentally ordained or consecrated life. It will still be there no matter what your future disposition becomes. This is something very important to consider, and to evaluate in your life.

Something else to consider is the person who is ordaining or consecrating you. The originator of the priesthood/episcopacy is Jesus Christ, however, when an ordination or consecration is conducted those individuals within the succession are also passing something of themselves onto the new ordinand, and this is an important consideration. Things to consider:

• Is the person who is about to ordain/consecrate me a person with whom I would normally be "in communion" with?
• How do I view the person ordaining/consecrating me? Do I respect them?
• Would I ordain/consecrate the person who is ordaining/consecrating me if the situation where reversed?

These are important questions to ask yourself because an ordination/consecration is a very powerful energy exchange and the energy passed onto the new deacon, priest, or bishop will affect each of us different ways.

Again, something else to consider is how you plan on coping with the changes that will take place after an ordination or consecration. Instead of looking at this energy exchange as, "I'm a new priest," or "I'm a new bishop," think of it as now being a priestly initiate or episcopal initiate into the sacred mysteries of the priesthood and episcopate. The essence of the priesthood and episcopate is mystical in nature, and NOT administrative or jurisdictional -- these are constructs resulting from the priesthood and episcopacy and not directly linked to the mystery of the sacrament. The mystery of the sacrament is about the sacraments themselves, and not about anything else. All too often I have seen bishops within the Sacramental Movement focus their attention on the jurisdictional or administrative side of episcopacy, but this is not what the sacramental initiation of consecration is about -- it is about the fullness of priestly initiation and the fullness of the sacraments. Things to consider before ordination and consecration:

• What was my life like before ordination/consecration?
• Am I equipped to deal with a major change in my life?
• Am I ready to deal with the added responsibility that this change will bring upon me?

Things to consider after ordination and consecration:

• How has my life changed since ordination/consecration?
• Do I find myself depressed? What will I do about this depression?
• What is my support network, do they understand ordination/consecration? Do they support my decision? What sort of support do I have from other priests and/or bishops?
  

Having a support network is important for a new priestly or episcopal initiate. It is important because the affect that it has on an individual is specific and peculiar to each individual. Having had experience with energy transfer and initiations I was somewhat prepared for my episcopal consecration and was able to channel the affect in a positive manner: I left full time employment and went back to school full time, radically changed my lifestyle (had to slim things down) and had to deal with the changes that result from becoming a full time student again. I had a supportive network for my life changes, but not necessarily a supportive network for my decision to get consecrated (although it has gotten much better). The affect of my consecration could have been horrific since I was dealing with the recent death of my father a month prior to my consecration, and dealing with the depression resulting from that loss. However, being aware of the affects of consecration helped me ride the storm of emotions I was feeling at the time -- both from dealing with death and also from dealing with the death of myself as the old me was replaced by a new "me."

As a final note I want to also point out that consecration is not about wearing purple, wearing a mitre, or other episcopal regalia. All these items are externals and not absolutely necessary for administering the sacraments. Please ask yourself, "Do I fantasize more about wearing a mitre than imagining myself as a apostolic representative of Christ?" The deep responsibility of ordination and consecration far outweighs any sort of external or "episcopal privilege."

One more point to consider. In the Sacramental Christian Movement (also known as the Independent Sacramental Movement) the idea of jurisdiction is a construction of our modern sensibilities. It is simply absurd to think "if I create it they will come." Jurisdictions (i.e., new "denominations") are created almost every day, and they also die everyday. What exists is the episcopacy, the priesthood, and the deaconate. Until there is a renaissance within the sacramental movement and circumstances radically change the situation will be as it is now, which is very fluid. If a priest doesn't like his bishop he or she will simply go someplace else. If a bishop is unhappy with her fellow bishops she will create her own jurisdiction. This is the nature of this movement. It is unfortunate that it is this way, but this is simply the nature of the movement. This is why I view consecration and ordination as an initiatory experience and not simply as admission into a jurisdiction clergy roles. The apostolic succession sees through any jurisdictional lines and does not recognize "clergy roles" or "jurisdictional canon law." It acknowledges only correct "matter and form."

Every man and woman is a Star

From July 21st until July 28th I was at Midwest Leadership School, a leadership training opportunity sponsored by three districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association one of which I belong. Much of the school was beneficial, but the Theology - UU History section had much to be desired. What precipitated this reaction? An "Us vs. Them" mindset that seemed to dominate the instructor's lectures. The person conducting the Theology training was a UU minister, and I would by lying if I said I was impressed. Initially I liked what was being said, but on the second day of Theology (it was covered five of the seven days of training) it started to degenerate into why Unitarian Universalists are better than others.

It started with anti-Catholicism and attacks on Pope Benedict XVI. Not simply attacks on Benedict's theology but personal attacks referring to Benedict as "The Rat," a play on his former name of Joseph Ratzinger. I went to the minister in question that evening and said that I didn't think it was good form to insult Pope Benedict in the fashion that he did, using as an example transexuality: If you have a man named John, for example, who identifies as a woman and goes through the surgery to become a woman and is now Julie is it good form, if you do not like Julie, to refer to her now as John? I proposed that it was not acceptable to do so and that the ontological transformation from John to Julie was enough to justify referring to this person as Julie, and if you do not like Julie indicate that "I do not like Julie" instead of "I don't like John." I indicated it was an ad hominem attack to refer to Pope Benedict XVI as "The Rat," and that it was also "bad form." He said, "I hear what you are saying but I don't agree." He used the term "The Rat" the next day, and even went into an anti-Catholic diatribe.

By Wednesday there was a reference to "irrational" belief as part of a litany of qualifications that lead to "childish" spirituality and psychological development. It was indicated that this childish spirituality is akin to fundamentalism. As examples for irrational belief he used such ideas as the resurrection, virgin birth, and others. If he would have said "literalist" I could have accepted this, but he used the term "irrational" and said, "There are seminaries all over the country that teach irrational beliefs..." It seemed to me like a clear attack on Christianity, since he referenced Christianity several times and often in a polemic sense, but I found it also an attack on any religious tradition that embraces paradox, which is often akin to the irrational. There was some turmoil in the class, and he agreed to meet later in the day to discuss some of the issues of concern. He then went into some personal data about himself to give us all an idea of "where he is coming from," which was to me simply an appeal "to emotion," and irrelevant to the discussion.

I went to the meeting that was established to discuss these issues, but instead of a dialogue all I received was justification. It quickly became clear to me that "fundamentalism" is alive and well even in the liberal tradition. Inconsistent message (the handouts referenced such things as "When my brother suffers I suffer"), black and white thinking, extremism, and what I believe is "Us vs. Them" thinking.

My solution to dealing with what I felt was uber-rational Unitarian Universalism fundamentalism was to boycott the Theology lectures for Thursday and Friday, which I found out later could have gotten me expelled from the training. Fortunately, I wasn't asked to leave. During the time that the rest of the students were in the Theology lecture I read some books that I had purchased there -- which were very good.

Today I paid a visit to Methodist Theological School in Ohio, the graduate school I hope to attend next year. I sat in on a beginning homiletics class and there was one particular sermon that speaks to my experience at Midwest Leadership School. The sermon was about "evangelism by example" (my words). The speaker spoke about being an example of the Christian faith, and he did a very good job. I thought to myself, "If only the UU minister had talked less about the "other side" and more about how to be a good example of Unitarian Universalism we could all start to build a better world where diversity is cherished and where insulting rhetoric kept to a minimum."

Religious Fundamentalism is a problem in our world. But so many times it is easier to mirror this fundamentalist behavior with a slightly different emphasis. Liberalism taken too far can be just as oppressive as conservative fundamentalism. It is so easy to write "I must love my neighbor," but far more difficult to practice the love. Does it do any movement any good to talk about diversity, respect, and justice and then point fingers of scorn?

The monastic vocation is a vocation of silent evangelism, the subtle preaching by one's actions and not words alone. This could easily be a positive model for Unitarian Universalists who attempt to be an oasis in a sea of turmoil. Often Unitarian Universalists fall short of this vocation by their own polemic attitude towards an "other." We could learn a thing for two from the Thelemites: "Love is the Law, Love under Will," & "Every man and woman is a Star."