Tag Archives: love

The healing light (Chp 1-3): the science of faith healing

This is my first actual p51oDtrUSsML._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_ost in a series of blogging through Agnes Sanfords book ‘the healing light’ (1947), subtitled ‘the art and the method of spiritual healing’ which can be read in PDF here. The introductory post can be found here and I will try to cover the whole book in parts throughout the next months, with some spin-off posts addressing certain topics that need to be looked at some more and from different angles. In this post we’ll cover the first 3 chapters.

It’s probably clear already that, while I did learn some things from it, this is not a book that I agree with completely. I can even say that it sometimes takes an approach that sounds quite alien to me, but it was very interesting to read through nonetheless. As the foreword (written by someone named Glenn Clark) says:

Agnes Sanford was born in China as the daughter of a Presbyterian missionary, she has lived for years in New Jersey as the wife of an Episcopalian rector, and she has studied and tried every form of healing that has ever been known. Never have I met one who combined the metaphysical and the sacramental approach as she does. I have never met anyone more Christ-centered nor anyone more church-centered and yet more utterly unconcerned about the creed or lack of creed of those that she administers to.

Before we start with the content of the first three chapters let’s make some more general remarks about the book;  Agnes’ writing style is easy to read. She regularly jumps from more theoretical and instructional parts to a lot of anecdotes, and stories of healing and other own experiences. Her way of writing indicated that she isn’t merely trying to teach some kind of theory that she made up, but that she has a lot of experience with Divine healing and prayer, and afterwards has distilled theory and methods out of that that she wants to share.
The implication of this for me is that I do trust her heart, and her connection to God, but not all of her conclusions and theories. There seems to be a bit of new thought influence and a quite mechanical ‘scientific’ worldview for example that I can’t completely follow.

So, for the actual content of the first 3 chapters then. She lays the basis for faith healing, a scientific explanation of how it works according to her, and a first articulation of her method. It’s probably interesting to start with her theology of healing and the role of God in that:

God is both within us and without us. He is the Source of all life; the Creator of universe behind universe; and of unimaginable depths of inter-stellar space and of light-years without end. But He is also the indwelling life of our own little selves. And just as a whole world full of electricity will not light a house unless the house itself is prepared to receive that electricity, so the infinite and eternal life of God cannot help us unless we are prepared to receive that life within ourselves. Only the amount of God that we can get in us will work for us.

She then begins with developing a ‘scientific’ method for faith healing, in full confidence that it’s possible to use this ‘law of nature’. Like I mentioned before she seems to think that the universe is fully answering to natural laws that God has put into His Creation. Miracles for her are not breaking the laws of nature but following laws of nature that we don’t know yet, and if we as humans will grow to understand them more we will be able to use them just as easily as we use the laws of gravity and electricity now in our technique.

Few of us in the north would ask God to produce a full-blown rose out of doors in January. Yet He can do this very thing, if we adapt our greenhouses to His laws of heat and light, so as to provide the necessities of the rose. And He can produce a full-blown answer to prayer if we adapt our earthly tabernacles to His laws of love and faith so as to provide the necessities of answered prayer.
Some day the world will come to understand this fact, as it now understands the miracle of sound waves, for one generation’s miracles are the commonplaces of another generation.
Some day we will understand the scientific principles that underlie the miracle-working powers of God, and we will accept His intervention as simply and naturally as we do the radio.

And this is already something where I might not really agree. Even if she is right about miracles following for us unknown laws of nature, -which is very plausible to me- then still I highly doubt that we are able to hack those laws and use them as easily as we do with the laws of gravity and electricity in our machines… This is a bit too much modernist thriumph of technique talk for me…
But that there is a ‘natural law’ behind how miracles operate and that we might be more effective in praying according to this law is not something I have a problem with.

The method that she has worked out then, and that she returns to several times in the book has 4 steps:

1. The first step is getting in contact with God. This is worded a bit strangely because she writes for Christians and non-Christians alike, but she’s not compromising here. Maybe having a bit too much optimism about how easily non-Christians can ‘tune in’ to God though.
Later in the book she recommends meditation as a help at this first step, based on the psalms verse of ‘be still and know that I am God.’. Her point is here to actually get in contact with God, something which she seems to do very naturally herself.

2. The second step is ‘turning on the energy’, which she recommends to do with a prayer like “Heavenly Father, please increase in me at this time Your lifegiving power.”

3. The third step is to believe that this power is coming into use and to accept it by faith. This is the next thing that can be easily written about, but isn’t easily as easily done and turned into a method as it might sound to her.
“No matter how much we ask for something it becomes ours only as we accept it and give thanks for it. “Thank You,” we can say, “that Your life is now coming into me and increasing life in my spirit and in my mind and in my body.””

4. The fourth step is observing the power at work. This needs an actual goal to accomplish so we can see it it has worked, so this is where the actual healing takes place.

She adds that if it it doesn’t work that it doesn’t mean that healing doesn’t work, but that we do it wrong and need to find a right way for it to work, and that we better learn to know how to pray effectively.

How strange it is that people who fear to do this do not hesitate to pray for the most difficult objectives of all, such as the peace of the world or the salvation of their souls! If they have so little confidence in prayer that they do not dare to test their powers of contacting God by praying for an easy thing, it is probable that their cosmic intercessions are of little force. If everyone who prayed for the peace of the world had enough prayer power to accomplish the healing of a head cold, this would be a different world within twenty-four hours.

She does speak about prayer power to accomplish things, but that doesn’t mean that she reduces prayer to a magical power by which Divine power gives us everything we want if we just know how to ask it. There is one small detail that isn’t small after all, and that is that we need to pray according to Gods will:

There is no great mystery concerning the will of God, in so far as it applies to our small selves. God’s will is written into His nature,and the nature of God is love. Therefore, when we pray in accordance with the law of love, we are praying in accordance with the will of God.

It might sound simple, but it isn’t that simple. Elsewhere she really implies in certain places that only living in accordance with ‘the law of love’ keeps us connected to God. Which is not exactly the fluffy new age stuff that some might think she is saying at first glance… Love is foundational to everything she writes and seems to be a reality she’s expecting to manifest in everybodies life. She seems to have had such a lifestyle in which she naturally tried to love all people and God (and even the rest of creation). But that will come back in a later chapter.

So, while it sounds easy to have a method of faith healing based on a ‘scientific’ method and an to us unknown law of nature that can be used if we just know how, it seems that she at least requires 3 things that are easier said than done:

A) connecting the Creator
B) have real and specific faith in healing
C) naturally living a lifestyle based on loving God and our fellow humans…

If you master those things, faith healing is as simple as turning on a radio apparently…

I must say that, even though I have a tiny bit of experience with prayer healing very similar to what she describes, I cannot say how good her method works. I feel not that good at step #1/A, I am more a person who prays ‘if it be your will’ than who has faith for healing to really happen when it comes to #3/B, and while I try, I don’t know if I really can say anything about really living a life of love in C… Maybe a better (wo)man than me could try it for me though.

So what do you people think? A lot of this is very controversial ground, so I’m open to input from all angles except for those who are mocking or engaging in anti-supernatural gaslighting…


Notes: Some of these quotes might sound like God being an impersonal energy, but in other places she does affirm the personality and will of God. She is not at all pantheist, but she does like the Eastern Orthodox believe in a distinction between the transcendent essence of God and the immanent energies of God, that sustain all of creation.
Her Christianity also shows in the importance she places on the person of Jesus. One of the most quoted parts of the bible in the book is the sermon on the mount, which seems very foundational to her faith -something I do agree with-. She doesn’t mention the cross yet, but later on in a later chapter she’ll develop a theory of atonement in which the cross and resurrection are very important.

the danger of anger and the law of love (Agnes Sanford)

The next text is taken from DSCF0083Agnes Sanfords ‘the healing light’ (1947), a book that I am wresting with and that I might blog about later. I’m not sure I agree with the way she frames some things and some of her conclusions at all, but from everything I know she is a woman of God with spiritual insight who lived what she taught.

Danger lurks in every form of energy. The flow of energy that we call the law of love is the rhythm for which our beings were created, the thought-vibration in which we live and move and have our being. Every thought of anger, therefore, throws a contrary and destructive counter-vibration into the body, and places us in danger. “Whosoever is angry with his brother—shall be in danger of the judgment.”

This judgment begins immediately. One of its first evidences is the failure of the prayer-power of the angry one. He will find that he cannot pray, no matter how hard he tries. He will also notice in his body the immediate results of anger. A fit of wrath destroys the appetite, upsets the digestion, weakens the muscles and confuses the mind. And the anger that solidifies into hate, resentment or hurt feelings deposits a continual sediment or poison in nerves, arteries, bones and mind, and prepares the body for death. Doctors tell us that anger tends to destroy the body. Jesus said that it also tends to destroy the soul. “But whosoever shall say ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire.”

The words sound harsh, but they are true. For the forces of spirit, mind and body are synchronized and ordered by the same inner control center, and that which affects one affects the others. As long as the thinking of the conscious mind is in harmony with God the sub-conscious mind directs the functioning of the body in a marvelous way. But as soon as we turn the dial of our thoughts to hate, bitterness, hurt feelings, resentment and irritations we send a contrary order down to the engine room of the subconscious which responds with the general order, “Hurt! Destroy!” The protective and life-giving forces of the body are weakened so that one falls prey to germs and infections, to pain and weakness, to nervousness and ill temper, and to the spiritual dullness that results from the dimming of the life force. If one looks with an open mind upon the history of war and epidemics he will perceive this fact.

The One Who Knew, therefore, was neither harsh nor fantastic. He was only realistic as He stated, in His own blunt, straight-from-the-shoulder way, a fact that cannot e evaded; the one who is angry with his brother is in danger. Christians have tried so hard to avoid this unavoidable law! Their excuses for anger range from the “righteous indignation” that slew the unbeliever to the “righteous indignation” that thunders against modernist or fundamentalist or Catholic or Jew. But there is no way of side-stepping the law of God, because it is written in our own subconscious minds. And the subconscious mind cannot figure out the difference between “righteous” and “unrighteous” indignation. Its working is inexorable and absolute, founded on laws set in motion before the foundation of the world, and no puny excuse of man-made mind can change it from its course. A man might drink poison in ignorance, mistaking it for water. In so doing, he would be acting righteously. No blame could possibly be attached to him. But that would not prevent the poison from destroying him. Therefore the Teacher, who was a most profound psychologist, told us that the poison of hate is dangerous, no matter what the cause of the hate may be.


We would be wise to direct our lives as much as possible toward paths of peace. We would be wise to plan our food, rest, work and recreation in as healthful a way as possible in order to soothe and harmonize our beings. For much of our bad temper springs from no other cause than weariness and over-strain.
We would also be wise to take the wrath-provoking words and acts of other people as assignments from God, as spiritual exercises, or as helpful hint along the way of life rather than as excuses for anger.


Not all spiritual adventures, however, are without pain. There are those who would strike one upon the cheek or steal his coat or compel him to go a mile with him as a burden-bearer, as the Romans did to the Jews. There are those, in other words, who would insult, defraud or bully one. The human answer to this problem is self-defense. What did the Way-Shower have to say of that?

Alas! He showed a way that very few have learned. He instructed those who would follow him into that happy and powerful life, the Kingdom of Heaven, to practice forgiveness rather than revenge. They were not only to love those who deserved to be loved—their friends. That was easy. Even the heathen did that. They were also to practice love toward their enemies. He suggested that when struck upon one cheek, they turn the other cheek toward the angry one; that when defrauded, they give to the defrauder; that when bullied, they perform an extra service for the bully. Those who have taken these suggestions literally and tried them out have found them to be the most perfect methods of self-defense.
And we become perfected in love by trying to do it. The method is so simple that any child can learn it. It is merely to connect in spirit with the love of God, send that love to the other person, and see him re-created in goodness and joy and peace.

What do you think?



A Christian reaction to porn that doesn’t dehumanise the objectified further?

It’s quiet here, so let’s go back to controversy and write about some kind of weird subject like the pornification of images (moving or not) of human beings made in the Divine Image… (generally called ‘porn’ by most people) And let’s give it a long title full of complicated words so I won’t attract too many Beavis and Butthead-type of readers…

Yeah,  it’s been a while since I wrote a post about things related to sex and love and so (the last and only one since July or so being my little effort to raise some awareness of asexuals as the most ignored sexual minority) so why not….

So where to start? A while ago I read this article called 3 lies that kept me trapped by porn from a guest-blogger on Micah Murray’s redemption pictures. To clarify where I stand on these things I must probably start here with saying that, while it’s an understatement to say that I’m not a fan of porn at all, I’m generally not a big fan of most Christian anti-porn propaganda either… so I didn’t expect that much from the article, since most articles with a title like that are just more of the ‘every man’s battle’ stuff, an affirmation that it’s more or less expected for a man to be addicted to porn on one hand and a lot of guilt-creation that partly misses the point on important details on the other hand. I tend to not find that especially healthy. But, to my big surprise, this article turned out to be a completely different cup of tea that needs to be shared more. (if you still get my mixed metaphors here) .

The post was written David E. Martin, who has a Christian website for people who do have problems with porn called ‘My chains are gone’. His website and ministry have an approach to the problem of porn and its solution that is worth looking at, so I recommend you all to not just read his guestpost on redemption pictures but also his site if the subject is of any interest to you.  I might not agree with every line they write, but overall they have a lot of interesting things to say that I hadn’t heard before. It’s quite quite different from the standard stuff most Christian repeat all the time, as the 3 lies in the title already show:

1. The unclothed human body is primarily sexual in nature.
 Therefore, to see another body unclothed is a sexual event.

2. The automatic and natural response to the sight of an unclothed body is sexual arousal. Therefore, the best strategy against lust is to limit the opportunity to view the unclothed body.

3. To be drawn to the sight of nudity (beyond your spouse’s) is a perversion.
Therefore, we must make every effort to eradicate this “perversion” from our hearts.

He exposes these ideas as lies that hinder those trapped in an addiction pornography in breaking with those habits. Maybe a bit counter-intuitive but I do agree with him, and I would say that the de-pornification of the human body might be the most important thing in learning to look at human beings as made in Gods image and loving our fellow human who happens to be of the sex we’re sexually attracted to. His approach is connected to ideas I have been alluding to in some of my blogpostVenus of Willendorfs (See for example posts with titles as On sexy poorn models and human dignity; meditating on sexy models; on nudity in game of thrones and some American bloke again…; Some thoughts on the myth that ‘men are visual’; On similar misandry in Christian fundamentalism and comsumer capitalism) But it’s not at all something I’ve seen discussed that much by most of my co-religionists even though some of them like to talk about porn a lot…

It’s an easy subject to start discussions of sin and holiness and whatever, but I often feel like important things are missed.  Although I naturally completely agree with Jesus who says in the sermon on the mount that looking lustfully at a woman is to commit adultery in your head, there are some points in the standard blablah that I don’t find very helpful.

Some of these things have to do with what David writes about on his site. the standard approach is not helping in what I earlier called the depornification of the human body, and moreover  ‘Looking lustfully’ is not synonymous with looking at a nude. Also we do easily forget that porn as we know it in our current culture is not a universal thing but in the current incarnation something unique in world history and very specific to our culture. The way bodies are depicted in our porn would not be very sexy to a lot of people from other times and cultures….

Well it actually isn’t even to me. And I’m a 21st century Western male…

So let’s get to some more points that are often overlooked:

1.) Assuming porn addiction is just how men are wired: Normalizing problems of a certain part of the Western population in a very peculiar time and culture as ‘this is how men are wired. Get used to it.’ is not the way to go. Men are not wired into being addicted to what is called ‘porn’ in our time and culture and in the very myopic way a certain subculture frames our human sexuality in a very narrow and unhealthy way. Porn addiction means that persons (male or female) are conditioned to like it and neuroplastically deformed into it.

2.) Missing the core of the problem gives us some pretty bad solutions: The problem is not in the first place what we see, but it is what is in our hearts when we see it. Porn is very often in the eye of the beholder. If we really learn to love watching porn is impossible, since seeing someone as a human being is incompatible with pornificating them.  The deepest problem is not what we see, but how we watch it and why we’re watching it.

3.) Furthering dehumanization is part of what we should eliminate: Pornification is always a dehumanization of the depicted humans into mere sex objects. If we want to get beyond it we should not follow that line of thinking but reject it. Accepting that women are nothing but sexy temptation and then avoid them is equally dehumanising. The ‘rape culture victim-blaming’ stuff that when a man has sinful thoughts when he sees a woman it’s her fault is only perpetuating the deeper sin of dehumanization, and actually not solving even a molecule of the problem.

4. We should also never forget the  formative danger in porn: We seem to ignore as a culture how porn shapes and deforms our view of the human body. It creates a new and perverted reality, in which sex is not that healthy at all and in which humans are less human than how God created them to be.  It is a fake ideal world that fills peoples head but that no living person will ever live up to. We might think that porn is just showing us how sex is and how sexy people look, but it’s actually completely fake on one hand, and transforming human sexuality to its own image and likeness on the other hand.

Yes, one of the exact dangers of porn is how it is making up it’s own very depraved standard of sexiness that isn’t real at all and then it tries to conform the real world to it. Which is especially dangerous for young people who don’t have their view of sexuality fully formed, like teenagers in puberty. Peoples brains are actually altered by watch porn by the way.  This brain-altering already happens with adults watching porn, but it’s extremely dangerous with young people whose view of porn isn’t even formed yet like I said.

5. Porn is not just ‘showing sex’ but  lying: The things depicted in our modern porn are not default human sexuality at all, let alone human sexuality as God meant it. It’s a very peculiar way of framing sex, a language that seems universal to many people.It’s actually a very artificial and unnatural mutation of human sex, not just a way of visually describing how humans have sex. The bodies are fake, the angles are very artificial and unrealistic.  Our modern ‘porn’ goes way beyond nudity in what it gives to stimulate our sexuality so a very big and abusive industry can make a lot of money.

Yup, the end goal of most porn is probably money for some shady types somewhere.

6. Watching modern porn is learned behaviour:
Looking at the beauty and sexiness of the sex one is attracted to is very natural, but modern porn goes a lot further than this and is much more niche… Consuming modern porn is learned behavior, like drinking wine or listening jazz.

It’s something I didn’t learn though. Except for simple nude pictures most porn when I accidentally see it doesn’t work for me, probably because it’s too far away from my own sexual experience (and lack thereof in my younger years).  Most times when I do see real ‘porn’ beyond playboy-level I’m actually repulsed, not aroused.

(Clarification: I do like female nude art a lot btw, maybe too much. But one of the things I like most about female nudes is some untouchable sacred innocence which is so real that any ‘wrong’ thought is misplaced.  Which is completely incompatible with porn and probably impossible to describe to people who don’t know what I mean. Think about Ransom and the green woman of Venus… It is because I love female nudity so much that I hate porn.)

I do think not getting it and being repulsed by what goes for porn nowadays is not a very abnormal reaction for a uninitiated person actually. Look at this description from a (female) guest-blogger at irrestistible Fish (and read the post too later after you’ve finished mine and see also her part II) about her surprise when she started to watch porn:

Porn was not exactly what I had expected.
I knew it would be graphic, but this, this was beyond graphic.
This was not like the sex scenes in a movie.
This sex wasn’t just sex.
Porn sex was different.
The bodies were ‘perfect’, the positions, acrobatic.
No one had a single hair follicle visible anywhere on their perfect bodies. And visible their bodies were. Microscopically so.
Everything was up close and zoomed in. Nothing left to the imagination.

There was no kissing, no intimacy, no love, just animalistic, self-gratifying acts of sex.

Only reading this paragraph makes me feel dirty and uninterested… Call me a romantic but I don’t even want to be able to fantasize sex without kissing, let alone intimacy or love.

What would even be the fun of that? Yuck….

This way of picturing the human body and sexuality is blasphemy against the Imago dei itself. Blasphemy against love.

(I’m actually very lucky to have formed my view of how female  bodies are not from porn but from biology books, more regular nude scenes, and more classical nude art or nude photography, and that the default for a female body in my head is mostly just my wife, not a forced ideal that doesn’t exist. )

So what is the most important thing here? I would say that what we should never forget is that porn is in the eye of the beholder. It’s not what comes in through our eyes that makes us unclean, but our own heart and how we process those things. Sexually perverted people will look at every woman with lust and predatory thoughts, no matter how they are dressed. Being a woman is enough to be subject to pornification for some.

But one of the most important commandments for Christians is to love our fellow humans as ourselves, which very certainly does not include dehumanising them as sex objects.  Even the label ‘humanist’ to me would imply a higher standard than dehumanising other people in to sex object. And not unimportantly  here is that it doesn’t matter that much if we consume them with our eyes as porn or turn our eyes away… The second one might keep us from certain sins like the ‘looking lustfully’, it still makes us regard the person in question as less than human.

How can we ever learn to love fellow humans that we cannot look at because they are only sex objects for us? This approach will never make us love more even if it can help us by means of mere sin management. But in the end we need to learn to love the other. This is why I do think that for example Dan Brennans work on cross-gender friendship is very important (check out his groundbreaking book ‘sacred unions, sacred passions‘ on the subject) Pornification of the human body is completely incompatible with love and loving the other as ourselves., and we need to let go of it…

But this might requite a letting go of cultural conditioning and might  need some help from the Holy Spirit…

So what do you think?



I Corinthians 13 (V)

reLOVEutionIn this post we proceed our meditative explorations on 1 Corinthians 13, Paul’s well-known ‘love chapter’.  This is always the first thing I think about when people say ‘Paul isn’t important’ for whatever kind of reason. I can’t believe that anyone would want a bible without 1 Corinthians 13, and Gods message to mankind that was brought by Jesus is not complete without an understanding of what Paul is saying here.

Let’s just read the next part slowly:

Love never ends.
But if there are prophecies,
they will be set aside;
if there are tongues,
they will cease;
if there is knowledge,
it will be set aside.
For we know in part,
and we prophesy in part,
but when what is perfect comes,
the partial will be set aside.

This is a well-known piece of the bible, not only used for meditation but also for fierce theological discussions.
Some have used this piece for the defence of cessationism, which is the idea that the supernatural works of the Spirit have ceased after the time of the apostles. I don’t see how one could make that exegesis without having to conclude that not only speaking in tongues and prophecies, but knowledge itself would have ceased. And knowledge is quite important to most cessationists I’ve met. Also in this interpretation it seems that one has to conclude that the ‘perfect’ that will come is the canon of the bible. I really can’t see that work at all…

No, the piece is just noting the fallibleness of everything in this fallen world, in contrast with the love this chapter is speaking about. You don’t have to be postmodern to have  a very humble epistemology! Just reading 1 Corinthians 1′ may suffice…
Prophecies, tongues and knowledge are incomplete in this age, but they will be perfected in the next age, when the Kingdom of God comes. So the last verse here really is eschatological.

Read the piece again. Let every detail sink in.

Everything is incomplete in this world. Our religious things as well as the non-religious, and we are just fallible humans.

One day there will be a perfection of Creation, but we won’t see it in this lifetime… And then the partial, the incomplete will be set aside.

Love will be completed then… We can not even start to understand what that might mean, but it surely will be good!



1 Corinthians 13 (IV)

reLOVEutionAfter my explorations in the realms of magic, (false) scepticism and the defence of the middle ages it might be time to go back to writing about the Christian faith, and so I continue my meditations on 1 Corinthian 13. In this post I continue with the second part of the chapter, in its entirety. We could pause at every single line too (and you can do that on your own if you want), but I’m just going to let this part speak:

Let’s read this, and try to understand what Paul means here:

Love is patient,
love is kind,
it is not envious.
Love does not brag,
it is not puffed up.
It is not rude,
it is not self-serving,
it is not easily angered
or resentful.
It is not glad about injustice,
but rejoices in the truth.
It bears all things,
believes all things,
hopes all things,
endures all things.

Take time to read every line slowly and to let it sink in…

But what does it mean? We don’t see this kind of love in our lives. Sure, it means that we must strive to love this way (helped by the Holy Spirit), even if this kind of love will not be perfect in our lifetime. It is meant to grow into perfection, since the only way to be in ‘heaven’ in eternity is to actually be able to ‘love our neigbor as ourselves and God with all of our mind, soul and strength’.

So there’s more to it than a description of ‘ideal love’ that only exist in some kind of Platonic ‘world of ideas’ of which we only see a dim shadow here and now.  There is also more than our human love in the most ideal circumstance.

Darin Hufford in his book the misunderstood God says that those are the characteristics of God, since 1 John says that God is love. This view might be challenging to some, but it is not too big a stretch to make: Why would the Love of God be less than what the apostle writes here about love? It would be utter nonsense to assume that God, who is said to be Love, would ask us to love more than He does himself.

So the love God has must go beyond the ‘love your enemies, bless those who hate you’ of the sermon on the mount.

So let’s read the verses again, and now focus on these characteristics being the characteristics of Gods love for us. For me, you and everybody… What does this mean? What are the consequences?

Radical, isn’t it?

PS: Please don’t start discussions here about Gods love and Gods judgement as if those were 2 different things. If God loves His Creation and His Children, God will probably need to get very angry when the things He loves get destroyed… And things need to be set right. Sin is a very destructive power that needs to be dealt with… But all judgement is rooted in love. If anyone does harm to your children and creation you would get quite angry too..

We’re one, but we’re not the same… (or how different identity doesn’t have to mean violence!)

I regularly see this quote together with this picture on facebook, sometimes in certain groups, sometimes posted by people on their wall. It’s from the Indian Spiritual teacher Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986), the guy on the picture, and it interesting to ponder about for a moment, so I’ll give it here:

When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”

Did you read it and take your time to think about it?

Interesting quote, and good one to investigate the complications of this line of thinking. I can already say that completely disagree with it, and I do think there is something very dangerous in this line of thought.

It is true that people regularly do use their identity to separate themselves from the rest of mankind, and that can easily lead to violence. I completely agree that this is a problem.

Where I completely disagree is with his solution and conclusions. Krishamurti seemingly wants to erase all identity because the violence lies in accepting that we are different. This will never work, since we ARE different already, and we can never be the same. That would need denial of both our indentity and that of the other, and does only erase ourselves.

People in Belgium have a different culture from people in India. We don’t have to hide that. Christians and muslims and hindus believe different things about God. We should not ignore that. We all look different, have different styles of clothes and hair and music and so on.

We should not ignore our differences. I’m not even sure it would lead to less violence. And besides, we do not have to be all the same. We have to understand and celebrate our differences. The problem is not that we are different, the problem is that we are stupid enough to think that differences have to lead to violence. Difference is actually not something that we need to overcome to find harmony, but it is essential. To quote Dolores Nurss one of my facebook-friends who is a lot wiser than me:

“The problem does not lie in there being Self and Other. The problem lies in assuming that Self and Other must conflict. Separation is indeed an illusion, but another name for Illusion is Art. The story of separation opens up a space for love.”

Surely we should be ‘concerned with the total understanding of mankind’, but we do have an identity, and everybody is different. There is no neutral, and every view is from a certain point of view. We cannot have a total view, and will never be unbiased. (No matter how much we tell ourselves and other that we are!) Our identity will always influence our way of interpreting the world and react towards it.

The total understanding of mankind will be an understanding of all men together or it will just understand nothing and project some pseudoplatonic ideal unto ‘man’ that is just made in the image and liking of whoever came up with it. We cannot understand mankind apart from all our differences…

Erasing differences, especially if we want to replace them all by some superior neutral position we think we have becomes only one more exercise in violently trying to take away the identity of the other and put our own in its place. But if you’re convinced of your own ‘neutrality’ as most moderns are you aren’t even able to see that.

Take for example the modern approach to religion that way too often just ends u up in saying ‘all religions are essentially the same, and they ultimately have the purpose to teach this one thing, which almost always is the thing the speaker himself does believe… How can this not be self-deceit. The religions are not the same, cannot be the same, and just saying they are all the same does not take them serious at all.

Differences do not have to lead to separation, they are just needed to be able to be together as a whole.

Every ecosystem on earth consists of a lot of very different species. All of them are different, all of them are needed. And then there are different ecosystems too. All kinds of differences. And yes, nature is more violent than rational beings created in the Imago Dei are supposed to be, but even in the violence of nature there is harmony, and the differences are needed. (Think also about what Paul of Tarsus says in the Christian scriptures about the church being a body, and every bodypart being needed. A body cannot be only eye or only nosehair…)

The story of separation opens up a space for love.”

That’s also why the trinity is such an interesting Christian doctrine: 3 persons in one Supreme being, being one and three at the same time, completely relational and loving towards each other in perichoresis.

And this caleidoscope of diversity is part of the Christian vision. All of it is to become part of the Divine Vision. In the last book of the New Testament, John the revelator describes a very diverse crowd:

9 After this, I saw a large crowd with more people than could be counted. They were from every race, tribe, nation, and language, and they stood before the throne and before the Lamb. They wore white robes and held palm branches in their hands, 10 as they shouted,

“Our God, who sits
upon the throne,
has the power
to save his people,
and so does the Lamb.”
So all races, tribes, nations and languages are welcome, as they are before Gods throne. They don’t have to become something they are not. God does not want everyone to become like Westerners or American or moderns or medievals… God loves the diversity.
God loves the unfolding diversity of creation, and of humanity. We don’t have to be the same, don’t have to become the same. We don’t have to be molded to some ‘neutral’ standard that is illusory anyway.And we definitely do not need to let our differences lead to violence and separation.
That is an insult to creation…
What do you people think?

1 Corinthians 13 (III)

reLOVEutionWe continue with my meditations on 1 Cor 13, Pauls love chapter. See also part I and II.

The next verse is the last of the first part of this chapter, and goes on in the same way as verse 1 and 2 which we’ve already read:

If I give away everything I own,
and if I give over my body
in order to boast,
but do not have love,
I receive no benefit.

(I recommend you to read this several times and think about it in all its implications and everything else that comes up when you read this. Asking the Holy Spirit for guidance before you do this is not a bad idea either.)

Paul still talks about all we can have and do without having love. This time he says we can sacrifice all we have including our own body, but without love we will not benefit from it.

The interesting thing is that when we compare the 3 first verses, the first verse says that without love we will just be meaningless, the second verse says that we are nothing, and the third verse says we won’t get any benefit. We can’t bypass love as a Christian. Not with knowledge, nor with strong faith, nor with any sacrifice we could make.

In medieval times we did have places called ‘godshuizen’ (god-houses) in this part of Europe, in which poor people were given housing and food. Sounds very good, but in fact the whole idea was that the (rich) people who founded such things just did it because they wanted to be sure they would go to heaven after they died. If this was indeed the reason why they built those houses and took care of the poor without really caring for them, we can doubt that it did really work. Paul here seems to assume otherwise…

Without love we are nothing!

There is some ambiguity in the original meaning of the second part, so some translations speak about giving over the body in order to boast, while others speaking in giving over the body to be burned, but the principle stays the same. Modern people don’t bother much with giving up their body anyway, so I don’t know if this particular sentence is that relevant for us. We do seem to revere our body more than that we are willing to sacrifice it.

But what Paul says here is very important. We can give and sacrifice everything we have and more, if it isn’t out of love (or at least creates love in us in the process), it will not do any good to us.

I must think of one more thing here: Jesus quoting the prophet Hosea to the pharisees in saying “Go and learn what this saying means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice.’” (Matthew 9:13). Let that sink in, here is the Living bible version:

‘It isn’t your sacrifices and your gifts I want—I want you to be merciful.’

We need to be merciful. We need to be loving. Sacrifices of any kind are meaningless without love…

Without love nothing can ever mean anything at all…

So what is love? What characteristics does it have? That’s something for next time. (you can cheat by opening your bible though…)