The man, the myth, the legend

There is no confirming video or photographic evidence that Babe Ruth ever pointed his bat towards the outfield bleachers mere moments before depositing a homerun in the same location.  Truth of the matter is; there doesn’t need to be.  In his time, Babe Ruth was larger than life and was constantly followed around by photographers and reporters.  He didn’t tie his shoes without it getting written down in some article or another.  All America needed was to think that he did this and the story spreads like a wild fire.  People begin to tell it as if they were there, they swear by it, even embellish it, and all of a sudden, Babe Ruth becomes a god.  This is what we are dealing with when we talk about Jesus, the legend.  The guy walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, turned water into wine, and the list goes on.  If you start spreading stories like that for a few generations, it’s no wonder we created a religion around the man. 

                The man, Jesus of Nazareth, walked this earth some 2000 years ago.  That is historical, scientifically proven fact.  Bible scholars from all walks of life agree to this point.  We also have some proof that he was baptized in the Jordan River, and among other facts of his life, he was crucified on a cross (or some variation of a cross).  There is not however, much of his story that we can say to be factual.  The rest of what we have come to believe about Jesus is mostly myth.   Let’s take a closer look at what this might mean.

                The story of Jesus’ birth is commonly referred to as the nativity story, and the real origin of our Christmas story.  We believe, although we can say with much certainty that Jesus was not born on December 25, there was no room for Mary and Joseph at the inn and they were forced to give birth to their baby in a manger.  We believe the three wise men came for great distances following a star in the sky to bring gifts, and so on and so forth. I wonder how our beliefs about Christmas would change if this story wasn’t true?  Do we, as a Christian culture, believe that the story is true in the first place?  I am not completely sure about the latter, but I have a strong belief that regardless of the factual evidence of the story, our society believes so strongly in Christmas and it has evolved into such a self-sustaining entity, that the facts don’t matter. 

                I must digress back to my original point, and that is not of Christian holidays, but that of the savior Jesus.  We know he existed.  Much of our beliefs from there are circumstantial.  What I find so fascinating now is how we got to this point.  Is it possible that we have turned a man into a god simply by our words?  Is it blasphemous for me to suggest that this person, of whom we describe as one-third of the Trinity itself, is there not because he was god in the flesh, but because we made him that way?  Or is it this Christ presence that we have yet to discuss that gave him an insider’s edge to God?

The Christ in Jesus fully expressed into manifestation in the real world, that of the Absolute.  The Christ, the fully realized potential in man that you and I possess and strive to express in our own lives, was embraced by Jesus and, as an example of god’s perfect expression, breathed into existence so that we may see and experience what it is like to live that true expression.              

This is where I throw my hands up and say it truly doesn’t matter about the validity of the stories.  I know that because I see Jesus as an example of the living, indwelling Christ within me and everyone I come in contact with.  No matter how you view it one thing is constant throughout the ages and remains true today: we, as humans are powerful beings.  Whether we have created this story and perpetuated it for thousands of years or whether one man fully expressed the potential that every man or woman has within each of them, we are more powerful than we could ever imagine.  

Who's on first?

So here is our blog question for this week: 

BLOG QUESTION: Should we pray to Gods presence and power in the cosmos, opening ourselves to the infilling of spirit?  Or should we center on the spirit within, allowing it to emerge?

                How should we pray?  It has been said that “There are as many ways to pray as there are people who pray.”  This statement implies that every single person prays differently and that there are no “right” or “wrong” ways to pray.  It also doesn't make clear the possibility that each person might pray differently from time to time as well, and in fact, sometimes pray differently in the same prayer.  It also doesn't account the people who are supposed to pray the same prayer and in the same position and face the same direction every time they pray.  I think someone could argue that those prayers actually are the same. 

                Before getting into the one-way-or-the-other discussion, I’d like to point out the swing point in this question.  The word “should” is a terribly confusing word, especially used in this context.  Using the word “should” carries a lot of power and authority with it, it implies that I know what is best for you and the outcome will benefit you the most if you do as I tell you to.  I also believe that “should-ing” on someone, as I like to call it, eliminates many variables including, but not limited to, situations, experience, history and people involved. 

                So, with all of that said, who are you to decide for someone else what is the best way to pray?  And isn't it possible that you pray a certain way because it works best for you but that may not be the best way that works for me? 

                I can see many benefits to these potential methods of prayer and I believe that which works best for you would completely depend on the evolution of your consciousness.  Praying to Gods presence and power in the cosmos, and opening ourselves to the infilling of spirit is an activity of surrendering to a power greater than yourself.  It is an understanding that when nothing seems to be going right, all you have to do is believe in that power and presence in your life that keeps the universe from spinning out of order and believe that your life, although occasionally seems that way, will always be in His(objectively used) order.  There is a lot of power in this method of praying and if ever there were a time when I felt helpless or powerless, I imagine that recognizing the greatness and allness of the power of God would really help to align me with the one presence, but only when I am out of balance.

                The other avenue or method in question is the process of centering on the spirit within you and allowing it to emerge.  This to me seems like a more daily, ritualistic prayer routine.  The benefits are that continuous reconnecting and aligning with the spirit within you is empowering and brings more accountability into your reality.  If this power within you really is the same as the great power that created the cosmos, then the situation you’re in, whether it be crisis or euphoria, is present because of your manifestations.  As exciting, and mortifying as that can sound, I believe it is more than just creating your reality.  It is about being conscious at all times of your spirit.  It is when we lose awareness of that spirit when we seem disconnected or distant from God. 

                So I think prayer is like a baseball pitching staff; everyday pitchers, and situational pitchers are meant for different things, but are all on the same team, attempting to accomplish the same thing.   These are just two pitchers, or methods of prayer, in a bullpen of choices.  Use what works for you, or let the situation decide what is needed.  Regardless of the method or the situation, know that spirit is spirit, no matter where you see it or how you use it.   And in the words of the great Yogi Berra (Hall of Fame Catcher for the New York Yankees)  "If you don’t know where you’re going , you might wind up someplace else." 

Where are you putting your focus?

                I had a remarkable experience this weekend while I was attending a Youth of Unity (Y.O.U.) Leadership Rally in Dallas, TX and I firmly believe that it has straightened me out on my ministry path.  One might believe that it was the energy of the 30+ teenagers that lifted my spirits or the beauty of how easily and graciously they accept one another that humbled me.  But the truth is, I was touched at my core by a group of adults that helped me right the ship and see the course with a clear vision.

                The Youth of Unity is the high school age group at our Unity churches and it is a group that I was heavily involved in as a teenager and have given much of my time to in service since then.  When asked to help with this event, I immediately jumped at the chance to be of service to the group that had helped me define who I am over a decade ago.  I didn’t expect, however, that most of my time would be spent away from the teenagers, themselves.  I was blessed with the task of leading a group of adults most of whom had never been a part of a Y.O.U. rally and some hadn’t been a part of their own youth program for very long. 

                During our group discussion, a few questions came up about how to attract people to unity, how to retain people and how to build a sustainable church.  *Disclaimer:  As the leader of the group I have to admit that I had my school and more importantly, this blog in mind when I brought up the question.  I was not surprised to hear that the resounding answer among this group was that a church has to be built on and around its children’s church and that there should be an out pouring of love and support from the ministry to its children, and presumably, its future.  This is where the metaphysical theologian in me came out to play.  I mentioned a few things like the inconsistencies and contradictions in unity churches and we talked a lot about the beliefs and the intentions of the founders. 

                Ultimately, what gave me a sense of faith and hope for our movement and our children is to shift the focus ever so slightly from the children’s education to that of the adults who are teaching our children.  You see, I was raised in the children’s church and when I entered the “real world” I thought I knew it all about Unity and my beliefs and in an effort to save time and space, let’s just say that I quickly discovered that what was being taught to me for my entire childhood, while not a “bad” unity message, was incredibly watered down. 

I came to realize that in most of the churches I had been a part of over the years thought it was enough to have people volunteer to work with the kids and didn't pay much attention to the messages they were giving to the kids.  “They are a member and they have a background check so they will be fine” seemed to be the general school of thought.   We can probably all agree that our kids were being taught good moral values and to make conscious choices and I would not even argue that these are important things to go over in Sunday school, but when it came to a foundational understanding of Unity and Metaphysics, there was a major disconnect. 

So in meeting this amazing group of people I was able to realize that it is not enough to just desire a youth department with willing, committed volunteers.  I would like to shift the perspective and affirm that we are educating our teachers and giving them the proper tools to share with the children that will one day grow up and take this movement onward and upward. 

Thank you to the Emerson Ripple Effect group for showing me the passion and love you all have for your youth departments and thank you for helping in the unfolding of my dreams.  

How do you know?

I feel like every blog of mine so far has dealt with some cliché or concern I have with Unity-ism’s and while I don’t want to come off persnickety, I have a really good one this week!  Ladies and gentlemen, the cliché of the week to be debunked is: “I know that I know.This week in Metaphysical Theology, I learned a new word, Epistemology.  Don’t know what that means, join the club.  I'm still trying to understand it completely.  But here is what I have gathered so far; Epistemology means the study of how we know what we know.   

”  Unlike last week, I would like to defend, somewhat, this idea and understand why people use a phrase that they often do not understand. 

"I know that I know."  Up until about a week ago, I would have debated with anyone that this phrase, possibly my least favorite of the group of Unity clichés that I have such a hard time with, made no sense and was nothing more than redundancy to sound profound.  I always resorted to the argument that centered on some plain-and-simple fact, usually involving mathematics, saying, “I know that 2 + 2 = 4.  Why, then, would I say that ‘I know that I know’ it?  How would that make a difference?” 

The difference that I feel now, after an inspiring week of class is that it should not be enough to just say that I know something, theologically. For me and my spiritual growth, I want to know how and why I know that.  So I start by asking myself some questions about my basic beliefs: How can I be certain that what I believe is really Truth?  Is it because the people who originally stated these Truths are enlightened?   Do I believe that these people have authority?  If it is an original thought, does that mean then that I am enlightened or that I have the authority of a Charles Fillmore?  *Disclaimer: In the Absolute Realm I know the Truth is that I am enlightened and do have the authority which Charles and many other ground-breaking thinkers had/have, but that is not enough for me anymore. 

I’m not sure that I REALLY know that I know anything.  At this moment, I am okay with that.  It is in the unknowing where I can really test my beliefs and be awake and aware enough to fine tune them at will.  Maybe one day I’ll know that I know something, but right now I guess I don’t know that I know… or maybe I know that I don’t know… or I just don’t know that I know that I know…  And the mind-numbing spiral continues!