Spiritual Marriage

Bruce, this is brilliant. I haven't read all the background discussion on this, although I have poked through bits of it on your IPS pod …. but here when you write, “How many people would choose to marry Jesus, spiritually …. if the church took away the absolutized language and metaphysical assurances … and instead offered only a challenging, difficult, generative relationship? One in which profound 'spiritual transformation' was still a potential, but one in which the 'end' was also, in some sense, 'open-ended,' still-to-be-enacted?” – I feel like you are pretty well describing the path that I – and many of my Christian contemplative friends – have (somewhat unwittingly) found ourselves on. (It would also describe, to a good extent, the Christian path as seen through the lens of the spiritual direction training program I participated in last year).

My return to Christianity was, as you know, a free choice for me. I did not come back out of fear of eternal damnation, or because of the assurance of a heavenly afterlife – because I had long ago rejected belief in such things. I had come to see that Christianity was not the “only way” – that is, I no longer accepted doctrines or dogmas that insisted that Jesus Christ was the SOLE “salvific” or transformative “way” for all. And in fact, I felt attracted to other paths as well (still do!) … but simply found myself most powerfully drawn to the wisdom tradition that I'd been raised in. I gave in to that attraction, and made a choice. I certainly could have made a choice for another path (or non-path). Or I might have stayed “on the margins” of two or more paths, incorporating elements of various traditions into a transformative journey. (And who knows what things may come? ) But I decided, at least for now, to trust the wisdom of a still-evolving tradition and root myself in it (even while rejecting a good amount of its institutional formulations) – allowing several of its practices and devotions and sacraments to wash through me and take me where I could not have gone otherwise ….

More later,

Mary

Yes, Mary and Bruce, I very much resonate with this approach. Brilliant.

Mary, you should come join us in the IPS discussion, the water is fine :)

Hugs

Brilliant is right, Bruce!  I love it.  In fact, I love it so much, I wanna marry it.  ;-)

This metaphor works, doesn't it?  I've heard it somewhere else before…. In any case, what it does is capture the relational and personal nature of truth here — truth is “for me,” to the point where it almost becomes an intentional truth, “intentional” in the sense that it involves a mental/affective component that is determinative for the truth and that sets it off from objectifying conceptions of absolute truth. To say, in other words, that I believe that the sky is purple is different from saying the sky is purple; the truth functions are different. The first is true iff I actually believe the sky is purple; the second is true iff the sky is purple. And yet it is more complicated than that since, for me the sky is purple if I have inculcated and enacted that truth.

To get back to the earlier point, we are in relation to truths of the tradition to which we adhere, and this is so in a sense that is analogous to my relation to my partner or spouse. That relation is exclusive… And why would anyone expect otherwise?  I do not expect someone else to have an exclusive relationship within my relationship with my partner or spouse, though they can have one like it, and I can acknowledge that it exists, as such. As I said previously, would not a true pluralist be willing to acknowledge the exclusivity of such a relation? If I say “my woman is the most beautiful and sexy woman in the world” and my buddy says, “my wife is the most beautiful and sexy woman in the world,” is there a need to come to blows over our statements? Of course not. We can both say it. And in some sense, we're right to say it.

So “pluralist” here does not necessarily mean being open to all manner of “truths” — in the sense of objective truths. That would be merely the mushy form of relativism where all truths are true, or to extend the metaphor where everyone is everyone else's partner (yuck). “Pluralist” here, at least in my sense, will be a matter of being open to the possibility that their truth will be true for them as it is true for me, even though the truths are not the same. This is not quite the same as the older “different true paths to the one truth,” which would be inclusivist in the perennialist's sense, since there is no “one truth” here, only one true relation, if we can say there is a single truth here at all. Nor is it, as I say, the same as the “everyone is right” or “all truths are true.”

For me, the pluralist stance in this domain (spirituality or religion) entails a kind of Gelassenheit, or “letting be” of the other.

Dear Bruce…

There is a huge difference in what constituted becoming a Christian in the first century, and what qualifies one as a Christian today.  Just about anything goes now, but then that was not the case, and within many churches, it remains so.  While this might appeal to New Age Integral Christians, having myself come from a very strict Christian tradition, my honest opinion is that this will not fly…I could be mistaken, but I offer the following for consideration…

To become a Christian required some distinct action, and for many traditions today it still does.  First one had to ‘hear’ the word of God.  Then one had to receive it into their hearts, believing the word and making a confession that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God, that he died and rose from the dead on the third day.  Then their was the outward act of baptism, buried in the likeness of his death, in the watery grave, one rises a new creature in Christ.  Baptism symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  According to the scriptures, the only way to ‘put on Christ’ is through the ‘physical’ act of baptism.  Baptism was also considered necessary to be ‘added’ to the Church, these were the outward proofs of an inward conversion.  It is difficult for anyone raised with these beliefs in any traditional sense, to renounce them, and just as you say, be spiritually married to Christ…for to be spiritually betrothed to Christ is to follow the new testament scriptures…the teachings themselves are ingrained, and will not be dismissed so easily for so many, nor will the actual scriptures themselves and the meanings attached to them.  Is it the intention of integral to reject those that believe in this way?  I would caution all to re-think that.  That would be a reversal of what you seem to be accusing Christians of.

The early church was pretty much in disarray for many years.  There were still the old traditions of men that threatened it’s survival as well as it’s organization.  There were many struggles between what was then considered Gnostic Christians, and what became Orthodox views.  Women were eventually excluded from the actual ‘church’ work, but this was not the case early on.  By the time the written ‘word’ began to appear, it was drastically changed.  Gnostic beliefs were considered heretical, and Orthodox views were those that were accepted and adopted as the ‘traditional’ Christian religion, and for many years there was still contention among some of those beliefs.  Today it is no different, even though some traditional views have opened up.

Bruce, while I understand the ‘spirit’ in which this was written, the very foundation of Christianity is based on believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  That he lived in the flesh, was crucified on the cross, died and was buried, and rose on the third day.  This is the core of the traditional Orthodox Christian faith.  There is no getting around these truths of Christianity.  It would be kind of like wanting to be a Buddhist without taking vows.  While anyone can claim to be a Christian or Buddhist or anything else, it does not make it so.  

I am not sure anyone claiming to be Christian, except maybe those with Integral KW overtones,  could with a clear conscious, accept this definition of Christianity.  It would mean turning their backs on the scriptures in the Bible, which is considered by Christians to be the Word of God, whether they follow it or not, understand it or not, what they could not do in faith would be sin.  More devastating than that, would be to turn their backs on their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ himself, the very foundation of their faith.  It would be the equivalent of asking you to renounce your Buddhist beliefs, ignore all that jazz about Buddha, and ask you instead to spiritually marry yourself to compassion.  While this might very well be the outcome of the traditions, it is not the path…

I think a transformation or transcending of the scriptures and Christianity itself will only come from within the teachings that are already documented.  The transformation happens within the awareness of the being anyways, so for one to accept anything new, one would have to realize the understanding for themselves.  Those teachings must be opened up within themselves to deeper meanings.  This ‘New Creature’ idea of Cameron’s is a good one.  I have also read some of his blogs concerning the Kingdom and the parables of Jesus.  It is a new take on old scriptures that I believe will be important for Integral Christianity, and who knows, it might even trickle down to the Bible Belt…lol.  But the idea again is, that the traditional teachings need to be opened up from within themselves…

While I may not understand why you choose to be Buddhist, and follow that dude, while I might believe that you should discard that ‘vehicle’ and wear another, such as marrying yourself to compassion instead of those buddhist beliefs with the 8 hells, and I am generalizing here,  it is really none of my business.  Just as it is none of my business what another chooses as there faith…while most of us are ‘born’ into a culture and it’s religion, I find that all traditions are a journey to freedom…Christianity played a big part in my finding mine, so I hesitate to interfere with another’s path these days…and I certainly do not feel that I am qualified to ‘change’ an entire religious system of beliefs, unless of course that change is within my own awareness…while I might participate in dialogues that may be instrumental in opening perspectives, that is probably the most any of us can really expect to do in as far as changing another’s beliefs.  Even in that, I must be careful to not impose my beliefs upon another, and allow them to come to their own conclusions…in their own time…

I hesitated in posting this, b/c I know your intentions are well meaning but I was unable to sleep after reading your post, and then your further pointing me to this thread, I did not wish for you to think I was ignoring you, but I find myself in a very precarious position…so I suppose I am just putting this out there and whatever happens happens…lol…but I have learned by experience that we are all on our own journey, and even if I might think there is a better way for you to go, a better path for you to take, etc., a more integral journey, it is not really up to me to choose a path or create a path for you or anyone else…I must blaze my own path, and allow you and everyone else to do the same, and if coming up with an alternative integral method of the Christian faith is your path…blaze it!  

Always, star…

Hi Starlight –

(I know what you wrote in your post above was directed to Bruce, but I hope you don't mind my interjecting –)


You are right. This approach to Christianity would “not fly” for many of today's Christians – whether mainstream or more traditionally oriented. But it seems to me the issue being discussed here is: can there be such a thing as a non-metaphysical, post/postmodern Christianity?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be reading what Bruce wrote here as prescriptive, as in: “this is the way Christianity should be.” I don't think that what he's suggesting. What I see here is more a kind of exploration and speculation, a feeling-out of possibilities, and – in my opinion at least – a pretty good description of the way at least some Christians hold their faith in a still-evolving tradition … even if it is a minority opinion.

Nobody is being asked to renounce their beliefs. An integral approach to religion never requires people to be other than what they are. But it does allow for multiple perspectives on a faith tradition – while also acknowledging that some of these perspectives will not be acceptable to ALL the practitioners in that tradition.

And – I know you already know this – even mainstream, non-integral Christians have significant differences of opinion on what it is to be a Christian. Though it may be true that the foundation of Christianity is the belief that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God” – there is such a wide variety of ways that Christians interpret and embody that statement! This is why there are so many denominations and sects within Christianity – and good Lord, even within one church congregation you will see people living out the belief that “Jesus is the Son of God” in different ways. What's othordox to one Christian might be apostasy to another, and not all Christians hold the same interpretations of Scripture (heck: some don't even read the Bible that much ….) There are Christians who consider themselves theists, others who say they are non-theist, and still others who are panentheists …. And on it on it goes, where it stops, nobody knows! 

We Christians. I tell ya. We're a mess. Pray for us!  :-)

And by the way, Starlight: Hello! I think this is the first time we've met in these cyberrealms – although I have seen you around, on blogs and in other Gaia-spaces. I've heard your beautiful soulful singing too. Pleased to meet you.

Mary

Wow Bruce, this blows me away…

“Jesus is God means: We see in Jesus a vision of our own fullness and freedom en-fleshed.  Being a Christian means: Passionately choosing and committing to the promise and challenge of this love relationship.”

What a beautiful expression of faith! 

Your words challenge me.  I'm quite content with seeing Christ as Avatar / “Immanent God,” but I've never really taken to heart the whole “personal relationship wth Jesus” theology, even though its the core of many if not most written Christian contemplative meditations. 

I guess my own relationship with Christ has been a more love-as-obedience-out-of-gratitude oriented relationship, perhaps more akin to a parent-child relationship.  But your reflection more accurately represents the picture Christian Scripture presents - Jesus as sibling, brother, husband, intimate partner rather than admonishing parent. 

The body of Christ participates in Christ, indeed is Christ, in a nondualistic sense, each member being both individual in gifts and part of the whole.  But the Pauline “members of the body” metaphore doesn't do justice to the personal relationship aspect you bring up.  A foot can't necessarily have a personal relationship with the head, but a person with willing feet can have an intimate relationsip with Christ. 

Now that I've rambled this far, I realize that it still comes down to the question of Christ as “Self” and Christ as “Other.”  You're coming very close to expressing the mystery in a way that says “both.”  The person with willing feet is not necessarily the same as the person with the boundless heart, but as you say, the vison of fullness includes both the willing feet and the boundless heart, and in this vision and in intimate communion with this vision, the fullness is revealed. 

Dave

Hello Mary, nice to meet you too, thank you for your kind words…
No, I was not reading anything into what Bruce said or his reasons for saying it, I am certain his intentions were right on, and as I stated, I know in what generous and humble spirit it was given…it pained me in a way to disagree b/c I love when Bruce speaks from his creative heart-voice… 

I was just honestly addressing what had been supposed in theory.  I don’t think it will work b/c of it’s direct opposition to what the actual scriptures teach concerning the ‘Spiritual Marriage’, but as I stated in my original post, I might be mistaken…

All the best, always, star…

I confess - I used to be a fundamentalist Christian in my young years, preaching the gospel to thousands, living accordingly, taking the New Testament as Gods Word and literal guidance for day to day conduct, a disciple in the sense of Luke 14,33: ”Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.” (Modern: ”any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple”)
We laid hands on people, healing them in His Name, and there was prophesy and talking in tongues - and being a 'colony shepherd' myself I've had a few prophesies, very precise ones, come through me; they all turned out true. Also the dozen times or so I felt compelled by Spirit to heal, it worked. So all those “signs” where there. I had a few visions of deep Christian content and often felt the Holy Spirit touching the crown of my head…

And then after 3 years of this somebody gave me a book with an American Indian fable and in that fable was the line: ”Wer selbstvergessen in der Liebe geht, der bietet keiner Kralle Halt!” (Who, oblivious of himself, walks in love cannot be halted by any claw; [sorry, very difficult to translate])
Now this summed up the very foundation of my faith as it was then.
So I walked up a mountain and wrestled with this for quite some time, only to return and step down as colony shepherd, and leave Christianity behind to explore other paths. This was 35 years ago.

When I read your blog, Bruce, much of the feeling of this deep personal relationship to the Son of God resonated in me again. Ah! The wonderful certainty of being His! (And the signs only added to that; mind you, to a young man in his late teens early twenties this was very important and most significant!)

The Divorce, and following your metaphor such it was - and all the feelings that come with a divorce were there as well; the divorce being the result of seeing my Spouse in quite a new light. Where before I lived and breathed in the very fact that He was the Only One to be in true love with, a faith and I would say knowledge, nay reality, that was supported by my congregation, the Holy Bible, and the signs… one small sentence shattered this reality, capturing the essence of an Indian tale and the very gist of my relationship with Christ. Except, of course, this couldn't be so. It could not be true for Quetzalcoatl and Christ. Gods Word does not allow for that and neither did my fundamentalist brethren, who had been the original match-makers with my Beloved. They told me that now I had turned away from God and He would turn away from me…

In a post-modern society the Divine Marriage is a metaphor and as such it's probably not really dangerous - and therefor I would say much more mythic than mystic. But if it becomes anywhere near how I used to experience it its way beyond contemplation - it's real…
The Marriage in that case will fill you to the very brim of your existence. The powers that can be bestowed upon you are very real - there is no shadow of a doubt about that. The visions and sometimes the deep communion in prayer are consummations of this relationship that make you understand why the Gospel always mentions that the first thing angels say when they meet humans is, “Fear not!”

I would say from my present perspective that a Divine Marriage, if taken for and lived as real, cannot be an “Integral” affair - it's an all consuming one. There is nothing pluralistic about it - or so I would think.
But, who knows, now that this has come up 5 Saturn Cycles after my Divorce I might call upon my Old Beloved again and see what kind of relationship we can have now…

Thanks, Bruce, for bringing this up.