Still drunk on new wine, aye?

Thank you Tony for your response. It's been decades since I've actually been drunk (not that it ever happened very much, but back in my foolish youth, I did imbibe a bit too freely on one or two occasions!) Nowadays I wouldn't want to repeat the experience. But I wish I could be "drunk on the new wine of the Spirit" sufficiently so that I wasn't dragged down by fears and doubts, so that I could feel free to be who God wants me to be without feeling I have to "compete" with everyone else!

"If we feel we shouldn't use the old familiar, well-loved ones..." It resonates with what Michael Kelly sj was saying about the cost involved in moving away from the old devotions. If God seems alien or distant, I suppose it's up to us to work at re-furnishing the house of piety until god seems at home again.

>

I love your way of expressing things Tony! And this is where we need the "wine of the Spirit", to give us the courage to go forward, not back. But we need the wisdom of the Spirit, too. We can't just assume that it's a case of "out with the old and in with the new", as sometimes the comfortable old furniture might do the job better than something new! Above all, we need to remember that the aim is to enable people to be in intimate contact with God - to make a home where both they and God can be comfortable together - and to do that, people need to be able to choose their own "furnishings"!

As you may know, Francis, in English there used to be both a singular and plural form of "you"; in fact our modern "you" was originally just plural, but as is often the case with languages, the plural "you" also became the polite or formal form, which you would use in most cases, even if you were only talking to one person. The singular, and more intimate, form was the now-obsolete "thee" and "thou". It's interesting that this remained as the second-person pronoun for God long after it had disappeared from everyday speech, and is still used by some religious people. It's sadly ironic that a form of address for God that should be a more intimate form now makes God seem more distant and not such a part of our everyday world.

I also want to thank you, Francis, for your very positive contributions to this thread about how we name God, or more accurately, how we use our limited human capacities to relate to Something that is beyond our comprehension. I actually love your idea of God being "All-that-is", but I seem to need a more "personal" way of relating to God, which for me is through my experience of family.

I have to say how very energised I am by this and earlier conversations - particularly about the Conscience-Spirit link. When I read these musings I had one of those light-bulb moments that tells me we've really hit upon something here worth exploring. I'd never thought about it in exactly these terms before, but have been gradually coming to this realisation and when I read these posts, I found myself resonating very strongly with the rightness of the insight...felt it on a cellular lever, so to speak. "I will write it on their hearts" and there's no denying when you hear it.

I'm not saying that these discernments are the last word on the subject, but rather an energising avenue (no doubt full of surprises) to explore further.

Ain't it GRAND?

Thank you Sue for your response, and thank you especially for your tact in suggesting that maybe I hadn't really expressed what I meant to in my comment about "only having words and names" with which we can connect to God.

Of course you are absolutely right. I hadn't really thought through what I might be implying in my comment; I suppose I was thinking in terms of what we need to develop a long-term relationship with God, though maybe even there, names are not necessary for everyone. And yes, you are undeniably right that most of us have experienced moments when we feel deeply connected with a sublime "something" that goes much too deep for words or names, and which at least some of us would see as an encounter with the Divine.

I also take your point about the need to avoid the baggage that comes with the traditional theological language about God. Even now, when I hear or read the word "God", sometimes I'll get an image in my head of the "old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud", presumably because it became so entrenched in my mind as a child, and maybe because it's really hard to know what to replace it with! In fact, for this and other reasons, I base my faith on a relationship with Jesus, as he is quite literally (in my view) God with a human face. And since my family has always been so central to my life, I use the family as a basic metaphor or symbol for God and for my faith in general. This, I find, is definitely a counterbalance to any tendency to become too bogged down in the baggage of traditional theology. Family is all about growth and change, yet within the firm, reassuring context of ongoing relationships (or, ideally that's how it should work), so this leads me to an experience of God, and a relationship with God, that is not likely to remain unchanging and stuck in the past. Also, despite being a woman, I'm not bothered by the traditional male imagery for God, because when you are in a relationship with someone, the significant thing, the thing which enables you to identify with that person, is the relationship itself, not any similarity which that person may have with you yourself. Hope that all makes sense!

Of course I'm not suggesting that everyone should approach the Mystery of God in this way, or that my way is better than anyone else's, or anything like that. It works for me, and I think that's about the best that most of us can hope for.

Sue, in some languages (french,eg) there is a singular and a pliral 'You'.

Francis

THE place, the very spot [the locus] where the Creator Spirit interacts with the Universe in a directive way is in the human conscience.

Tony, I like very much the way you are phrasing this and where you are taking it.

Sue

Francis, love your Awlthatis! Do you think it might lack.....some more intimate....relational quality though? How would a simple You...in whom we live and have our being....how would that go? The 'you' of every love song?

Sue

I delight in the name given me because it reminds me of the man from Assisi who who gained actuality within himself in accepting that all is one in the person Jesus. He is renouned for his regard of all being related to him. The asceticism he adopted, which I failed to adopt (except that living in the way I did by choice was enough pain for anyone to bear), was simply a response to his thought: "why shoud I not carry as much pain as my elder brother Jesus?"

What I came on to say, Sue and Cathy, is that we look to the origins of names in what they meant in ancient times. Why should we not be creating, instead of copying ancient names (the Church made us do it at Baptism) names that have meaning. For example I refer to God as All-That-Is. That means a lot to me but might seem silly because we are used to ancient names. If it sounded like an Indian name some people would grab at it but calling someone with English words doesn't work. Awlthatis might have a chance but not esoteric enoughj. Huh?

Francis

Wow!, Tony. You are on to something there, as you do so often.

What if the direction human development takes from here on, and indeed the development of the cosmos, is dependent on our choices?

What if the creator spirit positions itself within the human conscience and waits upon the free choice of the human being?

What if we - you and me, and the individuals who have their hands on the tiller in world governments and banks and universities and religions...: what if the creator spirit has given our conscience this duty and this responsibility?

Is this far-fetched? Actually no, it's not. It is already contained in: "Whatsoever you do to the least..." But it has my imagination spinning today...

It fits in especially for me as, in the metaphor of God begetting a son and so giving to that son all that God is, so, we, in union with the man Jesus who becomes Christ for us, enliven and progress evolution spiritually and physically according (as you suggest, Tony) the free will of the Son. What a mystery to meditate on and rejoice in. In the metaphor of father begetting a son, the father passes his self on to his son to perpetuate. The wonder of what all shall become though divinity becoming realized is unlimited and beyond the mind of humanity that has been deflated by self denigration and is gradually gaining actuality.

Francis

Cathy, that's a great story about Lucilla. And Jo-el. We chose Samu-el for the One who Listens to God. Not sure it worked, but then how would we know?

In your ending you wrote:

But then, we only have words and names with which to connect to God, and if we feel we "shouldn't" use the old familiar, well-loved ones, then maybe the effect will be to make God seem alien and distant. Names are powerful. How we get around this I'm not sure. In fact, maybe we just need to accept that there is no way to get around this, to name God in the way that best enables us to enter into relationship with God, while at the same time respecting other people's ways of so doing. This latter, I think, is the most essential element if we are going to avoid confining God to our own little box.

"If we feel we shouldn't use the old familiar, well-loved ones..." It resonates with what Michael Kelly sj was saying about the cost involved in moving away from the old devotions. If God seems alien or distant, I suppose it's up to us to work at re-furnishing the house of piety until god seems at home again.

Thanks for your post. Still drunk on new wine, aye?

tony

Whoops! Sorry Brian.

I fear I may have thrown a spanner in the works by posing a "What If?" question: "What if the entire Jesus story were more legend than fact?" From the Newsletter.

I'm sorry, Brian, but my opening remark above was meant to show my appreciation for a quality I admire in you: you really do work hard to broaden discussions in a way that offers a wide range of readers/contributors a chance to take part, or at least another line to think about. Unfortunately I was too abrupt for the written word and it came across wrong. So now, THANK YOU for widening the field. My entries in response accepted that broader scope.

I am still marvelling at the idea that would have evolution entering a stage in which the driving force is focussed on a point that has the capacity to make quantum leaps, jumping out of its premises of logic and value and rationality into something willful and "not justified", namely our capacity to chose freely.

What if the direction human development takes from here on, and indeed the development of the cosmos, is dependent on our choices?

What if the creator spirit positions itself within the human conscience and waits upon the free choice of the human being?

What if we - you and me, and the individuals who have their hands on the tiller in world governments and banks and universities and religions...: what if the creator spirit has given our conscience this duty and this responsibility?

Is this far-fetched? Actually no, it's not. It is already contained in: "Whatsoever you do to the least..." But it has my imagination spinning today...

Cheers, tony.

PS A note from home: This mornhing Sue called me out to see a new rose bud on our blackboy rose - which always blooms early but never in June.
Is it a miracle, she asked?
No, said I, it's only a singularity!

But then, we only have words and names with which to connect to God, and if we feel we "shouldn't" use the old familiar, well-loved ones, then maybe the effect will be to make God seem alien and distant. Names are powerful. How we get around this I'm not sure. In fact, maybe we just need to accept that there is no way to get around this, to name God in the way that best enables us to enter into relationship with God, while at the same time respecting other people's ways of so doing. This latter, I think, is the most essential element if we are going to avoid confining God to our own little box.

Cathy, thanks for your excursion into the meaning of names. Sent me scurrying into Wikipedia to explore our family names.  When I told my beloved that his name, Michael, means 'Who is like God?' he responded 'I am who I am'.  Such a shame I had to inform him that it was a question, not a description!

More seriously Cathy, I think you make a good point about naming God in the way that best enables a relationship with God, and respecting the names that others use.  However, when you say that we only have words and names with which to connect with God, I wonder if this is what you really mean.

What of those numinous moments, when one feels totally connected to 'something', an ocean of being, that is totally beyond all names and forms - a 'God-experience' - even if one hesitates to describe it as such? There seem to be no words or names of address that really fit.

Maybe,  despite the realization that no names fit this experience, people do still bestow a name that helps them to reconnect to the experience.  I don't seem to be able to do this, so just use the 'God' word as one would use a finger to point to the moon, but you and Tony seem very much at ease with using names as well.  

So I wonder then how you manage to keep at bay the theological baggage that adheres to the names of God? I mean we have had enough trouble ridding ourselves of the artistic image of a grey-bearded old man sitting in judgement  The theological images are more subtle - almost like computer viruses that attach themselves, unbeknownst to us, to corrupt our communications.

Sue

Brian, you sure know how to extend a discussion and open lots of doors. I'm not going to answer your questions directly, but I'd like to refer to a comment for this Sunday's readings from the St Louis Liturgy Centre. John Kavanagh sj tackles the question of the relevance of a personal god in the modern world:

Walker Percy in Lost in the Cosmos, mused ironically about the strange fate of postmoderns who spend millions trying to get chimps to talk and billions on space stations attentively listening for an extraterrestrial blip that might speak to us.

Meanwhile, we are sheepish about the possibilities of a personal God and positively skeptical about whether God has anything important to say to us. More strange still, humans wonder whether they have anything meaningful to say to each other. We, like God, seem impoverished in this age of personal deconstruction. Some high-priced academics even pontificate that there is no author, there is no text.

And towards the end:

The long, historical unfolding of our trinitarian faith is central to a dramatic struggle over human meaning and destiny. It is a strategic player in the grand competition for our minds’ allegiance.

Are “itness,” “thingness,” matter, and force the ultimate categories of existence? Or is there something else? Someone else? Someones else? Is the cosmos mute? Or does it address us as the voice of God?

http://liturgy.slu.edu/TrinityB060312/theword_encountered.html

+++

May I also drop in something I devised as I posted a response to Francis [above] a little while ago, because for all its novelty, it strikes me as getting to the nub of the question, but I've not heard of it expressed this way before:

I think the idea that Sue came up with last week and Jerome underlined this week, that 'our conscience is the holy spirit' might be expressed this way:

THE place, the very spot [the locus] where the Creator Spirit interacts with the Universe in a directive way is in the human conscience.

This aligns the concept of free will with the concept of emerging directed evolution. It by-passes the problem of an interventionist god suspending laws of nature to change direction, and it elevates the mystery of free will in intelligent beings to the level of necessary co-cause with the Creator Spirit. And, of course, it loads the whole problem onto Free Will, which is a mystery no-one wants to deny the existence of, even if philosophically it is incomprehensible - except when we're in criminal mode of course, when we like to say 'the Devil made me do it', or 'I was following orders'.

Thank you for your response, Tony. The end part of your post is welcome to me as it gives me an alternate way of looking at my understanding of my spirituality which for me is a kind of wrestling with One who would not give a name.

"I think the idea that Sue came up with last week and Jerome underlined this week, that 'our conscience is the holy spirit' might be expressed this way:

THE place, the very spot where the Creator Spirit interacts with the Universe in a directive way is in the human conscience.

This aligns the concept of free will with the concept of emerging directed evolution. It by-passes the problem of an interventionist god suspending laws of nature to change direction, and it elevates the mystery of free will in intelligent beings to the level of the necessary co-operators with the Creator Spirit.

What do you reckon? Is it Old Hat??? Or is it another way of saying what you wrote above: "The acceptance of creativity... to keep the heart of being pulsating..." "

Oh! How I would welcome enlightenment, and I'm grateful for Yours, Jeromes's and Sue's thoughts and expressions, that might enable me to define for others (I personally have no need) the wonder of simply being. The word conscience surely expresses what prompts me to be one way or another (of course free will is evident) in the course of spiritual and physical evolution. To use the metaphor of river there is something in me that tells me not to choose battleing a granite or limestone cliff in the surge of the river and not to waste time working against the force of the river. I onlu know of the word 'conscience' from others but if it means

the very spot where the Creator Spirit interacts

...then that is what keeps the heart of being pulsating to pressure life giving energy to me, each tiny and huge element of the totality (universe)of all that is.

I regret my poverty of expression that limits revealing the wonder of being and my place in it. Many words used by theologians seem to have too many meanings for me. I will go on wrestling and do appreciate the help you,Tony, especially, are giving me here.
Francis

"The life of Jesus tells me that humanity is not just connected to God, but somehow part of God."

Jerome, thanks and I comment on a sentence of yours. As you would have observed my raising such has not instigated much discussion though I am aware many members find the melody of it lively and dancefully enlightening. Many have come to it from a different direction as me but I find the concept truly a wonder of wonders.

Francis

The acceptance of creativity
is a marvel we rejoice in
to keep the heart of being pulsating
to express the divinity (father,son,spirit) we cherish
within us and around us,
literally, of our being.

Francis, your spirituality, like everyone's is unique and personal to you. The difference, if I may be so bold as to suggest, is that you have kept your awareness of your spiritual life right through, avoiding the easy path of substituting the taught formulas in place of your own perception. Thank you for so often sharing what you perceive, risking all to allow your light to shine before others.

I think the idea that Sue came up with last week and Jerome underlined this week, that 'our conscience is the holy spirit' might be expressed this way:

THE place, the very spot where the Creator Spirit interacts with the Universe in a directive way is in the human conscience.

This aligns the concept of free will with the concept of emerging directed evolution. It by-passes the problem of an interventionist god suspending laws of nature to change direction, and it elevates the mystery of free will in intelligent beings to the level of the necessary co-operators with the Creator Spirit.And, of course, it loads the whole problem onto Free Will, which is a mystery no-one wants to deny the existence of even if philosophically it is incomprehensible, except when we're in criminal mode of course, when we like to say 'the Devil made me do it', or 'I was following orders'.

What do you reckon? Is it Old Hat??? Or is it another way of saying what you wrote above: "The acceptance of creativity... to keep the heart of being pulsating..."

Walking peacefully along,
tony

Thank you Cathy. I enjoyed your post and found it refreshingly informative.

Francis

Thanks again, Tony, and everybody else for your reflections this weekend. I am sorry I had to shunt the reflections this week into second place because of the launch of Chris Geraghty's book yesterday.

Two major themes have emerged in my own thinking as a result of mulling on what you have all written and on the readings themselves. The first has simply been on this single word "marvel" that you introduced into the discussion, Tony. Over a longish period of time now I think my own appreciation of this great Mystery we condense into the word "God" is more motivated, or animated, by a sense of wonder at the "marvel" of Creation far more than by the legends that we read about in Scripture. This video that Tom McMahon introduced us to in his commentary of 2nd March 2011 speaks to me more of why I believe and what I believe more than anything else...

I honestly believe today far more through the evidence of my own eyes of the "marvel" of Creation and Life more than on the basis of the evidence of ancient witnesses, prophets and the writers of scripture. To me it defies logic that this "marvellous thing" we call Creation or Life simply came about by random chance, or that it eternally existed, and didn't need some "Creator Genius" who constructed the entire fabric and set of laws through which Life (and each of our lives) continues to evolve. It needed, and continues to need, an Alpha Point or Origin and I have a deep sense in me of a need to offer some kind of thanks and homage to that Source of Life.

I find I have no need of "miracles" in the sense of a God "reaching down" to get the sun to dance, to change water into wine, or wine into blood, or to "cure" the mental and physical illnesses that afflict me or my family. "The miracle" is "us" — even the most disabled person — is a "living miracle" in the complexity and genius of how we are created and how all those molecules, cells and neurons that make us up enable us to do and think the things we do and think with ourselves still only having the vaguest understanding of our own selves and how we "do" the things we do and think.

There's a fabulous series showing on the ABC at the moment "The Origins of Us" presented by Dr Alice Roberts. There was a beautiful little segment in the program last week just looking at the "miracle" of the human hand. Forget about all the more complex organs of the human body such as the brain, the heart, the immune system, or our reproductive organs, each human hand is itself a "marvel of creation" and itself a "miracle". We don't have to look at "dancing suns" to believe in the existence of some genius or an all-powerful God. We simply have to hold up our own hand in front of our eyes and "marvel" at the genius of its creation and what it can do. [You can read more about the series HERE or click the image at right to access the iView version until it expires 9 days from the date of this post.]

Turning now to the big "What if?" question: "What if the entire Jesus story were more legend than fact?"

I don't know if it has been caused so much by this week's reflection or from other things I've been reading, listening to, or watching, I have found myself mulling on these questions. What if the resurrection never happened; what if the "Virgin Birth" story was merely legend borrowed from the more ancient mythologies and religions like Buddhism or Mythraism [See, for example, the discussion on the Mythology of Virgin Birth on Wikipedia HERE.] ; what if the entire Christian theology we believe in is essentially borrowed and added to from the Ancient Jewish legends of our religious forebears and "plonked" on the human form of this humble carpenter from Nazareth? I find myself asking: would I still believe in God the Father, Jesus his Son, and the Holy Spirit — the Mystery of the Trinity — if these things were more derived from legend rather than historical fact? I find myself asking: do we need the stories of the New Testament to be factually true for our religious beliefs to be "true"?

I've written about this before but usually confined myself just to the question of the Resurrection and specifically in relation to St Paul's claim that if the Resurrection didn't happen then our faith is in vain. I have long found myself sceptical of that claim of St Paul.

The question I find myself mulling on that flows out of all of the above is this: Is Scripture, is the Catechism, is Canon Law, are all the so-called "teachings" of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, trying to teach us "factual history" or "factual science" or are they trying to teach us things that are "beyond history, beyond science, beyond observable fact" and in the realms of spirituality and theology?

What do each of you think: do you believe in the Jesus story, the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity, because they teach you history, science or "fact"? Or do you believe and "marvel" at these stories because they teach us, inform us, about the great theological Mystery at the heart of Creation and the "being" of each one of us?

Tony, I really love your reflection this week: it's one of your best. I too have always been fascinated by the emphasis put on "naming" in the Bible, where it seems that a name is not just a convenient label to distinguish one person from another, but has a much deeper significance. I get the impression that Biblical names are the names also of the sacred spirit in each person, and are not just an individual's legal and personal identity.

In a sense, this same process occurs when parents ponder over a name for their new baby. Obviously, parents are going to choose a name they like the sound of, and often they want a name that has an appealing or appropriate meaning (that's why you can get all those books about names for babies and their origins and meanings!) Sometimes the name may also have family or religious significance. To my way of thinking, all this shows that, probably unconsciously, parents are seeking a name that will cover the child's "soul" or "spirit" and not just be something to call the child when you want their attention!

Looking back, I certainly feel this was true of the names Mike and I chose for our children. It was lucky we had one son and one daughter, as we had one boy's name and one girl's name that we really liked. It was Mike who suggested "Joel" for our son. You could say that Mike had come across the name by mistake: he had asked a friend what the latter's baby son was called, and the answer which Mike thought he heard was "Joel". In fact, the friend had said that his son's name was Joe! I also liked the name, both in itself, and because one of my favourite Biblical passages comes from the Book of Joel. This is the passage which, according to the Book of Acts, Peter quoted on the first Pentecost:

Joel is something of a prophet, I'd say; not in any really obvious or radical way, but in his ability to get on well with people of all ages and very different backgrounds, and his willingness to help people out in his own quiet, no-nonsense way. I think he gives people hope that the world can be a better place - not just the "big wide" world, but even more to the point, their own small, most immediate worlds, and that certainly seems to me to be the sign of one on whom the "Spirit has been poured". When it comes to the actual meaning of the name "Joel", interestingly enough, it is more-or-less included in the First reading which Tony quotes "the Lord is God", or more exactly, "YHWH is God", or "the One we cannot name is GOD".

Our daughter is named "Lucilla", though mostly she gets called "Lucy" for short. That name is of course derived from the Latin word for "light", and she certainly is one who seems to have light emanating from within her, from the depths of her spirit, and brightening and warming everything and everyone one around her. But to me, there's also a lot of significance in where I came across the name "Lucilla". While I was pregnant with Joel (our older child), I read a very interesting book about St Augustine in the years immediately before his conversion. The book was actually a novel, but the author was a classical scholar, so I assume there was a lot of historical truth in it. "Lucilla" was the name which he gave to St Augustine's mistress in this book (I gather that her real name is not known). I was rather astounded when I read this book, because from what I'd been taught at school, I'd gathered that Augustine was very promiscuous until he converted to Christianity. Well, admittedly, it seems he had trouble controlling his sexual urges, as we all know to our cost (presumably this was the origin of his repressive, misogynist and sometimes quite bizarre beliefs about sexual morality). But it seems that, although they apparently had a very active sex life, he was always faithful to "Lucilla", who, for her part, was a loving and faithful partner, the mother of his only child, and a Christian to boot. It seems they would have married except they were not permitted to, since he was upper class and she was the daughter of a freedman and freedwoman (i.e., her parents were ex-slaves). According to this book, she became a nun when Augustine converted. So, I thought, far from being the lascivious partner in his decadent lifestyle, which was what I would've expected from what I'd been taught, she came across to me as someone who should've been canonised as a saint! People traditionally name their children after saints, and we named our daughter after her

So, names are important, but they are symbols, they are not the person or thing named. You could also put that round the other way: names are only symbols, but they are very deep symbols and very important to us. That's the whole problem, particularly when we are discussing the names by which we try to relate to the great Mystery we call God. We all know that a rose under any other name would smell as sweet, and that we should not get too attached to any name or description for God, because of the danger of reducing God to that particular concept. But then, we only have words and names with which to connect to God, and if we feel we "shouldn't" use the old familiar, well-loved ones, then maybe the effect will be to make God seem alien and distant. Names are powerful. How we get around this I'm not sure. In fact, maybe we just need to accept that there is no way to get around this, to name God in the way that best enables us to enter into relationship with God, while at the same time respecting other people's ways of so doing. This latter, I think, is the most essential element if we are going to avoid confining God to our own little box.

Cathy - a name that comes from the Greek word for "pure".

Tony, this organization, Catholic Diocese of the One Spirit, does look intriguing, though I feel a little uneasy about how structured it seems. Overall, the approach seems very refreshing. I notice John Chuchman is on the US Member Roster.

I'll be interested to hear more what you think about it when you have had time to digest all those pages.

Sue

Jerome, I have always enjoyed reading your "take" on the Readings for each Sunday, and I have missed your contributions over the last - did you say it was ten weeks? Maybe you told us you were going to be away and I forgot, but I started wondering if either you or someone close to you was seriously ill, or if there was some other reason like that for your absence. So I'm glad you are okay, and it's good to have you back

Jerome, we've been missing you too, very much. Some of us were worried something may have happened to you.

But here you are, and right on track. You've summed up much of what has been investigated/shared/discovered/intuited over the past few weeks. Spot on. You have been reading back numbers, I suspect. Thank you.

NOW, how can we help society to refocus on what is really important?

Mostly, in this place, we talk about the institution, with a nibble at the life of the spirit in us. This Sunday Readings segment provides an opening for excursions like the one you quote from last week, with the idea that 'our personal consciences are the spirit of God'.

(You know I'm a stickler for exact meanings when the chips are down. Can I ask, is this the same statement:
our personal consciences are the sacrament, the effective sign, the point of engagement where the spirit works in the world. I think it's the same thin, but avoids any conflict of identity between the Divine Spirit dwelling in us and the human spirit.)

As sacraments, the way we help the world refocus is to be enlightened and well-focussed ourselves.

Does it work? I can only give an example on the small screen: my wife has long been very doubtful (to put it very mildly) about the value and validity of the institution and would prefer to have nothing to do with it, but she supports my small efforts here, acknowledges my need to make some sense of my 30 years as a priest, and encourages me when I ask her to read something I've written before I post. I have the feeling that we are not the only couple in this sort of situation. Sue enrolled as a member of Catholica, but as it turns out it's not her thing to follow a discussion forum. Now to my point: in this little domestic community we are thriving in spirit life. We talk about the Mystery, we share our problems, we voice our disillusionement, we rejoice in our happiness, we know the Spirit of God moves us, and we are full of wonderment and gratefulness. And we know that on this forum there are many others like us. And when we go down the street together we can't help noticing that people welcome us with a smile as they see our togetherness. It wasn't always nice like this over our 25 years together, but now it is, and that's what we are happy to share.

That's how, for starters. I think it is the absolute starting point.

No, I'm not going to go on about the institution. Not my forte.

But today I did find this http://onespiritcatholic.org/
The Catholic Dioceses of One Spirit.

A quick scan has been very satisfying: surprisingly so. I expected to find some way-out element that would turn me off, but so far I haven't found anything. I would wish some others would have a look and we could share our thoughts: Is this the New Way already a going concern?

Cheers, Jerome, and thanks for coming back.
tony

How I have missed the weekly reflections on the Sunday readings during the last 10 weeks or so!
Tony I am so glad to see that you are still going strong with your inspirational reflections.
It is a real plus that your efforts have resulted in achieving a category of its own in the forum – well deserved.

Now about the Trinity!!!!!
The life of Jesus tells me that humanity is not just connected to God, but somehow part of God.
The spirit of God is living in our personal consciousness. The level of alertness, awareness, of our conscience depends on our willingness to listen, to study, to adopt Christ’s Way.
So our personal consciences are the spirit of God.
Somehow that makes us part of God, part of the divine.
That suggests that the future is in our own hands!
It suggests that the effective power of God on earth is manifested by the efforts that we put into loving and caring for people, for all creation.
How awesome, how scary is that!
How can we help society to refocus on what is really important?

That's why we need to speak very softly when we use the Name that is the most personal name of god, the name that was revealed by Jesus, the name that gives access to the inner core of the Mystery. Take off your shoes. Tread softly for you tread upon my dreams. Speak softly, as you speak to the one you love when you are in deepest communion and you call him or her by their dearest name. The name that we as children are allowed to use for god: father, son, spirit.

Tony, this is beautiful.  You are going right back to how the terms God, Jesus and Spirit, are used in the Gospels as father, son and spirit, as intimate names for the mystery rather than as an invitation to try and theologically define God as three persons in one.  

The problem with theological definitions is that the reality of the mystery somehow escapes through the cracks and all that is left is an empty shell - or a 'golden calf' to be worshipped in it's own right!   'I believe in the Golden Calf.....'.  No, I'm not trying to mock, just trying to dismantle some of the theological superstructure that stands between us and the mystery.  A wrestling with God, if you like.

I am glad that Jesus did not talk about a Trinitarian God, which sounds awfully like a god with multiple personality disorder (ie. a person who seems to have two or more very different personalities within).

Jesus was also a monotheistic Jew.  Reading the Old Testament does not give to me any sense that God and spirit are in any way different beings/persons/personalities, any more than saying that you and your soul should have separate identities.  The Jews also don't talk about a two-in-one God do they?  So why do we have to have a three-in-one God?

Sue

It used to be said that the people of the desert had the most acute eyesight, measured by how many stars they could count in different galaxies. Clear sight is one of the things we lose in modern complexity with so much artificial illumination.

Is a fact that the australian indigenous peoples have the most extreme long sight ability.
These indigenous aussies spoke of constellations with whitey when he first arrived that whitey could not see.

Must have been frustrating to be pointing at something so obvious to themselves ....and yet couldn't get these 'knowledgable ones' to see what they could see.

'Dillusional' was whiteys conclusion of course.

That speed would get you to the moon in one hour! But still it will be 4 billion years before Andromeda and our homely Milky Way collide in a swirling maelstrom of stars that will take another 2 billion years to settle down into some sort of orderly shape.

The stars inside each galaxy are so far apart that they are not likely to collide with each other, but stars will likely be "thrown into different orbits around the new galactic centre".
...
Andromeda was first spotted as "a little cloud" by the Persian astronomer Abd-al-Rahman Al Sufi in 964.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/cosmic-mashup-galaxies-set-to-collide-2012...

It used to be said that the people of the desert had the most acute eyesight, measured by how many stars they could count in different galaxies. Clear sight is one of the things we lose in modern complexity with so much artificial illumination.

Sue, I thought this was timely following your observations of the stars and the blackness of the void last night. "The heavens proclaim the glory of god."

In "explaining" the dogma of the Trinity sometimes a trite little quote attributed to some mythical child was used: "If god is just one person, who does he talk to?" Maybe this reflects on the boredom of doctrinaire and conformist religious attitudes. The god I fancy is always on for a wrestle, and maybe our sense of fun and adventure is also in god's image. Imagine watching the endless Sound and Light show on the galactic scale...

How about this for a trite saying:

Glory be to the Father and the the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end...

Familiarity can be the death of wonder, unless...?

Enjoy your Cohen,
tony

Tonight I have been wandering around Circular Quay, looking at the play of light on the Opera House and other buildings. Enjoyable as that was, what I enjoyed more was the 'buzz', the crowds of young people, young families and older people enjoying a night out.  Yet that play of light that was Sydney's Vivid Light festival was nothing to that play of light we see every night and take for granted.  Sadly, for those of us who live in brightly lit cities, the night skies cannot be appreciated in the same way as in the country.

Now I am home, with a glass of wine, in memory of the one who proclaimed the closeness of the Kingdom of God - and some Leonard Cohen songs in the background - and reflecting on Tony's offering for this week.  But I find it difficult to go past the poetry of those beautiful words,

"Ask now of the days of old, before your time,
ever since God created man upon the earth;
ask from one end of the sky to the other:
Did anything so great ever happen before?"

That majestic poetry, to be recited and savored, treasured in the heart along with images of the night sky that it conjures up.  Just say it, let it roll and resonate.  It's like that bit that begins 'In the beginning was the Word.....'. So much beauty and resonance.  This is just the smallest, smallest glimpse of the Kingdom of God that is so close at hand.  And gazing at the night sky is another one, not just the brilliance and multitude of the stars, but the dark emptiness between, behind and beyond.  The mystery and marvel of it all.

And then Tony talks about Jacob wrestling with the one that would not reveal a name...And I am reminded that this story was important to me once.  It was permission to 'wrestle with God'.  Don't be afraid, wrestle with God if you want to enter into the Mystery.  There is a Sufi (?) saying that if God will not embrace you in love, then make him embrace you as a wrestler.  And Jacob showed the truth of that.

Enough for tonight, Leonard Cohen has just announced that he

'Studied deeply in the philosophy of religions, but cheerfulness kept breaking through'

Sue

"...as we shape and form and direct the advance of evolving awareness?"

Thank you, Tony. Your words have touched so gently the mystery I, and all of us, have lived with and made the only yearning that gives a flow to the, often dangerous, swirls of the river of life. How often have I, throughout the years given me, breathed a sigh of contentment that God is near and nearer that we imagine with our slow to perceive thinking. The wonder I have in allowing thoughts of the inner cosmos to flutter through my mind somehow reflects the mystery of our relationship with God (father,son, spirit). I cannot escape (even if I wanted to) the delirious concept of being one with such a nystery, even though worldly-mindedness easily distracts from it. It requires of me a full participation in the living out the fullness of all that life has given me, remembering with a divinely inherited compassion for the unadjusted, weakened, suffering, victimized and disillusioned (all,sadly, with or without their own fault) and the need to allow evolution to progress our being to the highest perfection to what we might call heaven and beyond. The acceptance of creativity is a marvel we rejoice in to keep the heart of being pulsating to express the divinity (father,son,spirit) we cherish within us and around us, literally, of our being.

Tony, I'm so appreciative of the inspiration you have shared.

Francis

Selections from the readings:
1.

Moses said to the people:
"Ask now of the days of old, before your time,
ever since God created man upon the earth;
ask from one end of the sky to the other:
Did anything so great ever happen before?
Was it ever heard of?
Did a people ever hear the voice of God
speaking from the midst of fire, as you did, and live?
Or did any god venture to go and take a nation for himself
from the midst of another nation,
by testings, by signs and wonders, by war,
with strong hand and outstretched arm, and by great terrors,
all of which the LORD, your God,
did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?
This is why you must now know,
and fix in your heart, that the LORD is God
in the heavens above and on earth below,
and that there is no other..."

2

Brothers and sisters:
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear,
but you received a Spirit of adoption,
through whom we cry, "Abba, Father!"
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit
that we are children of God...

Gospel

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..."

Have you stopped to marvel lately?

There's a lot about names and naming in the bible. From the first pages, where the Lord took some clay from the ground and fashioned it into the form of a man, and the 'man' is called ADAM, from ADAMA which means clay, and god breathed life into it so that it became clay-that-lives, clay-that-feels, clay-that-thinks. And then the Lord made the woman who is called EVE which means the mother of all the living.

A story midway through the first book tells of a struggle Jacob had one night with a mysterious visitor. It went on all night, and towards morning Jacob got the upper hand for a bit, but the other begged to be released, and in return gave Jacob a new name, Israel, which means the one who struggled with god. Jacob begged to know the name of his assailant, because in his name would be not so much his identity but his role, his mission, what he did, why he had come, and where his power came from. To know his name would give Jacob power over him. In the event, the other refused, for no-one can know the name of god.

Everyone's personal name declares their purpose.

So Jesus is a name that means saviour, and he will be called Emmanuel which means god-in-our-hands. He will be called Mighty-God, Prince-of-Peace, and other titles of awesome significance, like Christos.

We ought not to be afraid of the wealth of this mythology. Being poetic it is flexible, like soft clay or maybe rather more like Playdough, willing to be pushed and twisted and squashed into different shapes to suit our needs or our mood. It can be made into a limitless number of beautiful forms. It is plastic. As I write, in front of me there is a row of beautiful Wedgewoods, an array of old bottles coming from a time when craftsmen designed quaint and sometimes exquisite shapes for simple utility containers, a cluster of modern owls from the $2 shop - perfect in their detail and alive with curiosity, a 20" boy doll from a hundred years ago, a copy of a elegant Lladro lady reclining in front of an elaborately decorated china platter - among other ornaments and trinkets. In our younger days (we both enjoy cluttering every surface of our house with lovely things) we would have given each a name, but memory being what it is, now we just let them speak for themselves and we indulge our fantasies in silence, going where the mood might take us.

Can I do the same with the mythology of the bible? Why not? The first reading even tells us to go for it: go along that trail of wonder:

"Ask now of the days of old, before your time,
ever since God created man upon the earth;
ask from one end of the sky to the other:
Did anything so great ever happen before?
Was it ever heard of?
Did a people ever hear the voice of God..."

Don't stop when you get to the end of the author's list: that is but the beginning. Modern science tells us of wonders so mind-boggling... Did a people ever hear the voice of God coming from deep space, from when time began? ...coming from the tiny cosmos within the atom? ...coming from our own sub-conscious dreaming? ...coming from the ancient memory of people still in touch with humankind's earliest thoughts? ...coming from an empty tomb that symbolises that dying is dead and living is forever? ...coming from the wind and fire and water to enliven earth with breath of spirit? ...coming from the thoughts of you and me as we shape and form and direct the advance of evolving awareness?

But none of this is what today's Memorial is about. Today, this first day of another week, this anniversary day opening another year, this one day we have to enjoy today: the purpose of this day is to wonder at the Mystery we have heard from the spirit who teaches us, as Jesus taught us, to speak to god as "Abba", "Dad". Did a people ever...?

That's why we need to speak very softly when we use the Name that is the most personal name of god, the name that was revealed by Jesus, the name that gives access to the inner core of the Mystery. Take off your shoes. Tread softly for you tread upon my dreams. Speak softly, as you speak to the one you love when you are in deepest communion and you call him or her by their dearest name. The name that we as children are allowed to use for god: father, son, spirit.