bw blog

2012-01-18T10:54:00.001-05:00

omaka in africa and the gathering place for navajo teens. there is something great and worth seeing in to to heal and gather opinion. it is not in the top (politics, macro) but in the ones closer to the earth.

Choice in 2012

2011-12-29T11:41:00.000-05:00

Market Day, Fish Town, Liberia

In remembrance of Fish Town, where food is scarce and conditions are harsh. This year I have a lot to work on. BW

Merry Christmas

2011-12-21T15:32:00.003-05:00

'This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.'

1 John 1.5

2011-12-12T17:25:00.008-05:00

‘Any conceivable sort of boundary is a mere abstraction from the seamless coat of the universe, and hence all boundaries are pure illusions in the sense that they create separation (and ultimately conflict) where there is none. The boundaries between opposites, as well as the boundaries between things and events, remain at last deception in depth.’

Ken Wilber, No Boundary

In my Gospel of John and the Book of Genesis blog, a central point of contention is reviewed that exists between Jews, Muslims and Christians in the sacrifice of Abraham’s ‘son, only son’. In the Jewish and Christian tradition, it is Isaac that is sacrificed by Abraham. In the Muslim tradition, the son sacrificed is Ishmael. (The Muslim story also includes Abraham and Ishmael building the Kaba, or holy center)

Is it possible to read into the story that the son sacrificed was Isaac AND Ishmael? In a creative reading, this could be possible.

Linear thread of Abraham-Isaac as understood by Jews and Christians:
‘On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off. Then Abraham said to his young men, ‘Stay here with the ass; I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.’ (Consider break: 'lad' as Ishmael (RSV), to build Kaba and then return)
And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they (Ishmael and Isaac) went both of them together. And Isaac said to his father Abraham, ‘My father!’ And he said, ‘Here am I, my son.’ He said, ‘Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?’ Abraham said, ‘God will provide himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.’
So they went both of them together. (Isaac and Ishmael)
When they came to the place of which God had told them, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound up Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. (Shift) Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son (also Ishmael as 'son', see 'Abraham and Ishmael his son were circumcised on that very same day' in Genesis previous).
But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, ‘Abraham!, Abraham!’ (2) And he said, ‘Here am I.’ He said, ‘Do not lay your hand upon the 'lad' or do anything to him (Ishmael); for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son from me (2: the argument that 'son' is Ishmael, 'only son' Isaac). And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.’ (22.4-13)

Interesting in Genesis: 'The matter was very distressing to Abraham because of his son' in earlier Genesis. (Isaac or Ishmael?)

Muslim tradition speaks of Ishmael as sacrifice but read in an interesting way. More complementary:
surah 37:
99. He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!
100. "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"
101. So We gave him the good news of a forbearing son.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I have seen in a vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills, one of the steadfast!"
103. So when they had both submitted (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104. We called out to him "O Abraham! ...
105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
106. For this was a clear trial-
107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
111. For he was one of Our believing Servants.
112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet- one of the Righteous.
113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to themselves.

‘It is an undeniable fact that Ishmael was the first son of Abraham (peace be on them). He was the one who was put to the test of sacrifice. The event is celebrated yearly by Muslims all over the world and serves as the biggest holiday of the year. The festive event is called Eidul-Adha. Millions of Muslims go for Hajj (pilgrimage) to Makkah.’ Several hundred thousand goats, lambs and cows are sacrificed to commemorate the trial of Abraham and Ishmael. Part of the meat is shared with relatives, friends and the poor.’ http://www.islam101.com/.

Abraham and Ishmael re-building the Ka’aba:
[Quran; 2:125] We have rendered the shrine (the Ka`aba) a focal point for the people, and a safe sanctuary. You may use Abraham's shrine as a prayer house. We commissioned Abraham and Ismail: "You shall purify My house for those who visit, those who live there, and those who bow and prostrate."
[Quran; 2:127] As Abraham raised the foundations of the shrine, together with Ismail (they prayed): "Our Lord, accept this from us. You are the Hearer, the Omniscient.’

‘Kaaba, also known as, Ka'bah, Kabah and Caaba is the center of the holiest place of worship in Islam (Submission in English), i.e. the Sacred Mosque of Mecca, Al Masjid Al-Haram. Its name is an Arabic word that means a home or a room that looks like a cube.. It is a cube shaped stone structure built in the middle of the Sacred Mosque. The Kaaba was built by prophet Abraham as a landmark for the House of God, for the sole purpose of worshipping of God alone.’ http://www.submission.org/hajj/kaaba.html

From Revised Standard Version in Genesis:
Isaac: 'son', 'only son'
Ishmael: 'son', 'lad'
Two could be part of 'young men'

From Liberia blog:

I only can imagine eternal life and Christ presiding over all : if time goes back the light in the space, like spinning and building new configurations. The black of strokes and type that separate I, me and you and built networks of 'we' favored or not : identification.

the strokes take on adjusted configuration, the springs of water gush in word in new connections. Some words drop like rotten fruit from a tree while others rise, hills made low and the one 'dead' word rises: a celebratory 'Yes': Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and those he left, Hagar and Sarah, Isaac and Ishmael, Esau and Jacob, (like Joseph and his brothers): Pharaoh and the Jews and soldiers in golden chariots, Jesus and the Pharisees, the prodigal and elder son (you can think of others)

Eternal justice is not just our sin and forgiveness in Christ or that we are united with Uncle Jack or Elisabeth?....

2011-12-05T15:43:00.003-05:00

2011-12-01T17:53:00.012-05:00

This post has a drawing of a blue Jesus I etched (in complement to Gaugin's Yellow Jesus in parody, Jesus wanting to escape into a painting) and a photo I came across in a family album of an apparent unknown boy from the black and white days. Now add to the mix a Kierkegaard quote, (a chap who never worked, lived on a pension-inheritance, wandered the streets, wrote voraciously) and you have an interesting ensemble. They do not connect yet offer something unexplainable in relationship. Call my first sense a fierce individuality. We have got to fight for a fierce individuality! (SK: 'Experiments of thought!')

Kierkegaard, from His Philosophical Fragments, (1844). I call it 'Christianity defined by a Christian criticizing Christianity':

'...But the servant form was no mere outer garment, and therefore God must suffer all things, endure all things, make experience of all things. He must suffer hunger in the desert, he must thirst in the time of his agony, he must be forsaken in death, absolutely like the humblest - behold the man! His suffering is not that of his death, but his entire life is a story of suffering; and it is love that suffers, the love which gives all is itself in want. What wonderful self-denial! for though the learner be one of the lowliest, he nevertheless asks him anxiously: Do you now really love me? For he knows where the danger threatens, and yet he also knows that every easier way would involve a deception, even though the learner might not understand it.

Every other form of revelation would be a deception in the eyes of love; for either the learner would first have to be changed, and the fact concealed from him that this was necessary (but love does not alter the beloved, it alters itself); or there would be permitted to prevail a frivolous ignorance of the fact that the entire relationship was a delusion. (This was the error of paganism.) Every other form of revelation would be a deception from the standpoint of the divine love.

And if my eyes were filled with more tears than those of a repentant woman, and if each tear were more precious than a pardoned (person's) many tears; if I could find a place more humble than the place at his feet, and if I could sit there more humble than a (person) whose heart's sole choice was this one thing needful; if I loved him more sincerely than the most loyal of his servants, eager to shed the last drop of his life-blood in his service: if I had found greater favor in his eyes than the purest among (people)--nevertheless, if I asked him to alter his purpose, to reveal himself differently, to be more lenient with himself, he would doubtless look at me and say: Man, what have I to do with thee? Get thee hence, for thou art Satan, though thou knowest it not! Or if he once or twice stretched forth his hand in command, and it happened, and I then meant to understand him better or love him more, I would doubtless see him weep also over me, and hear him say: To think that you could prove so faithless, and so wound my love! Is it then only the omni-potent wonder worker that you love, and not him who humbled himself to become your equal...?

Never underestimate what lies behind and amongst. BW

2011-11-16T16:31:00.003-05:00

“The effect of life in society is to complicate and confuse our existence, making us forget who we really are, by causing us to become obsessed with what we are not.”
Thomas Merton, The way of Chuang Tzu

“To reach satisfaction in all
desire satisfaction in nothing.
To come to possess all
desire possession of nothing.
To arrive at being all
desire to be nothing.
To come to the knowledge of all
desire knowledge of nothing.
To come to what you have not
you must go by a way in which you enjoy not.
To come to the knowledge you have not
you must go by a way in which you know not.
To come to be what you are not
you must go by a way in which you are not.”
St John on the Cross, The Ascent of Mount Carmel

2011-10-27T17:07:00.000-04:00

2011-10-23T15:19:00.003-04:00

2011-10-11T11:14:00.003-04:00

'Driven by the forces of love, the fragments of the world seek each other so that the world may come into being.' 265-66

'To be fully ourselves it is in the opposite direction, in the direction of convergence with all the rest, that we must advance- towards the 'other'.' 263

'Also false and against nature is the racial ideal of one branch draining off for itself alone all the sap of the tree and rising over the death of the other branches.' 244

'Man is not the centre of the universe as once we thought in our simplicity, but something much more wonderful-the arrow pointing the way to the final unification of the world in terms of life.' 224

'it centres itself further on itself by penetration into a new space, and at the same time it centres the rest of the world around itself by the establishment of an ever more coherent and better organized perspective in the realities which surround it.' 172

'the evidence that science, in its present-day reconstructions of the world, neglects an essential factor, or rather, an entire dimension of the universe.' 163

Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of Man, 1955

Sad to me that the hopeful constructions and intentions of those in the past have fallen to the side, just a glimmer of hope...Chardin makes a good presentation of an evolution of the Spirit which mirrors creation. But is man something different from the other aspects of creation? The Omega Point, are we rising to something higher? It would be helpful to better understand the layering of expression to this higher.

2011-08-12T10:12:00.003-04:00

good summer. bw

2011-05-25T10:29:00.009-04:00

I cannot help but find the content of Genesis interesting on another level. Much of this work is found in 'my profile' under the blog 'Gospel of John and the book of Genesis'.

I will simply share fragments of Genesis chapter 43, RSV: The feast

'So they went up to the steward of Joseph's house (Joseph as God, see 50.19), and spoke with him at the door of the house, and said, 'Oh, my lord (to steward of house)...'

'He (the steward replied): '...do not be afraid...the man (steward) brought the men into Joseph's house (tribe of Israel into God's house), and gave them water and they had washed their feet...

Joseph (as God) enters, 'they bow down to him on the ground...(Joseph inquires into whether Jacob-Israel is alive)...and they (the tribes of Israel) bowed their heads and made obeisance.

And he lifted up his eyes (Joseph), and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother's son, and said, 'Is this your youngest brother, of whom you spoke to me?' (Benjamin is 'son of sorrow' or 'son of the right hand') 'God be gracious to you, my son!'

'Then Joseph made haste, for his heart yearned for his brother, and he sought a place to weep...'

'Then he came out; and controlling himself he said, 'Let the food be served.'

'They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves...and they sat before him, the first-born according to his birthright and the youngest according to his youth; and the men looked at each other in amazement.' (A feast of firstborn and second; Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob-Israel and 'other' (Esau))

2011-05-18T18:10:00.004-04:00

2011-05-09T17:15:00.002-04:00

Nephew Sir Luke and niece Jesse.

2011-04-28T10:28:00.008-04:00

This picture was taken in the Arches National Park outside Moab, Utah. There are some images etched into the rock which cause a wonder at their date and those who did the etchings.

I have been reading a book by Carl Rogers, A Way of Being, and what he has to say finds resonance in me. He wrote the words over thirty years ago. He is an idealist, psychologist who gives attention to Buber, Kierkegaard and Lao Tze. He writes of what we are finding in experience and in science, a new way of looking at things that embraces the particular while embracing the complex. His view celebrates the individual that guards against collective thought forms that divide. I wanted to share part of what he wrote here:

'It appears to me that the way of the future must be to base our lives and our education on the assumption that there are as many realities as there are persons, and that our highest priority is to accept that hypothesis and proceed from there? Procede where? Proceed, each of us, to explore openmindedly the many, many perceptions of reality that exist. We would, I believe, enrich our own lives in the process. We would also become more able to cope with the reality in which each of us exists, because we would be aware of many more options. This might well be a life full of perplexity and difficult choices, demanding greater xxxxxx, but it would be an exciting and adventurous life...

Suppose that instead of shutting out the realities of others as absurd or dangerous or heretical or stupid, I was willing to explore and learn about those realities? Suppose you were willing to do the same. What would be the social result? I think that our society would be based not on a blind commitment to a cause or creed or view of reality, but on a common commitment to each other as rightfully separate realities. The natural human tendency to care for another would no longer be 'I care for you because you are the same as I', but instead, 'I prize and treasure you because you are different from me.'

'My country, right or wrong' is no longer a belief to live by. Nationalistic wars are out of date and out of favor, and even though they continue, world opinion is deeply opposed. I think that men and women, individually and collectively, are inwardly and organismically rejecting the view of one single, culture-approved reality. I believe they are moving inevitably toward the acceptance of millions of separate, challenging, exciting, informative, individual perceptions of reality. I regard it as possible that this view-like the sudden and separate discovery of the principles of quantum mechanics by scientists-may begin to come into effective existence in many parts of the world at once. If so, we will be living in a totally new universe, different from any in history. Is it conceivable that such a change can come about?'

'I conclude that if nations follow their past ways, then, because of the speed of communication of separate views, each society will have to exert more and more coercion to bring about a forced agreement as to what constitutes the real world and its values. Those coerced agreements will differ from nation to nation, from culture to culture. The coercion will destroy individual freedom. We will bring about our own destruction through the clashes caused by differing world views.'

There is much to ponder here. A question comes to mind as to the clash between the 'fundamentalists' and the mystics- or those seeking a freeing mindset or belief system that does not set up me against you. How can there be a layering of beliefs?

I have deleted something here. I realize that philosophy runs against what is and what is is okay, I leave it for a while. Peace

2011-02-17T19:22:00.009-05:00

Most of my writings can be found through 'My Profile' button to the right.

Of principal interest:
1. Gospel of John and Book of Genesis
2. Other
3. Navajo and Samoa
4. bw credo
5. global praxis
6. kenya journals

Comments on ideas are appreciated. All the best.

Love, Blair

2011-01-26T10:25:00.006-05:00

Two books of beginning that hint at the ending

Book of Genesis
'And they sat before him (Joseph as God), the firstborn according to his birthright (Ishmael, Esau) and the youngest (Isaac, Jacob) according to his youth. And the men looked at one another in amazement.'

Gospel of John:
'When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished...'It is finished' 19.28

2011-01-12T10:34:00.004-05:00

Piecing together from Tillich:

'Paradox points to the fact that in God's acting finite reason is superseded but not annihilated; it expresses this fact in terms which are not logically contradictory but which are supposed to point beyond the realm in which finite reason is applicable.'

'conquers existence under the conditions of existence...'

'breaks into our experience from above it...'

'systematic theology is a constructive task...it tries to give us an interpretation of the Christian message which is relevant to the present situation...'

'estatic reason is reason grasped by an ultimate concern. Reason is overpowered.'

'the result... not a new production but a transformation.'

Tillich writes of the 'primitive believer'.

Consider Genesis 12.1: 'In (Abra(ha)m), all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.'

Tillich advocates an 'encounter with non-Christian religions.' He criticizes the 'Reformation sects and evangelical biblicism' that 'denies that experience can become a source of systematic theology at all.'

This is all a bit serious. I like the importance of 'transformation' over 'new production'. I got bogged down in Tillich's Systematic Theology, Volume One after the introduction. Always drawn to the theme of Jesus sacrificed between two 'thieves' to a higher resolution and his 'before Abraham was, I am', Bethel (formerly Luz), return to original covenant and integrating first born, Hagar covenant, a constructive integrative reading of texts. Don't worry, I am not in the bitter Steppenwolf stage but in the pleasant.

2011-01-10T16:51:00.003-05:00

From Merton's last journal quoting Novalis through Hesse:

'Most men will not swim before they are able to.'

The picture is from a walk along the sea in California near a place called Point Arena.

2011-01-05T10:36:00.006-05:00

Albert Schweitzer on Bruno's description of John's Good Shepherd (see John 10):
'neither simple, nor naive, nor a parable, but a simile, which as such is far too elaborate, is not clearly conceived, and finally, in places shows very clearly the skeleton of reflection over which it is stretched.'
Search for the Historical Jesus

There is a sense that there is both a particular and universal contained in John's gospel: consider the good shepherd, the one shepherd, the gatekeeper (the keeper of the door), the 'I am' as Jesus' 'before Abraham was, I am'...Part of the idea of a kind of layered reading of texts (considering Abraham's 'Oh, that Ishmael in your sight', Jesus' both particularity yet universality).

'We must dig deeper-into the ground of our historical life to the ultimate depth of history, to the depth of the supporting creative powers. This depth Tillich calls 'the infinite and inexhaustable ground of being.' It is the depth that is the ground of hope. It is the dynamic source of all creative decision.'
From J. Luther Adam's Paul Tillich's Philosophy of Culture, Science and Religion
'Tillich felt the demand for a transcendent meaning that would invade and break through the system of pure forms. He came to view the idealistic synthesis as a form of spatialization of the infinite, as an imprisonment of the infinite in the finiteness of a static, self-assured understanding that serves as a sanction for a crumbling social system. Such a spatialization, he decided, fails to recognize the depth of our being, the infinite and inexhaustable ground and abyss of meaning.......'

2010-12-20T17:57:00.007-05:00

'The deepest level of communication is not communication, but communion. It is wordless. It is beyond words, and it is beyond speech, and it is beyond concept. Not that we discover a new unity. We discover an older unity. My dear brothers and sisters, we are already one. But we imagine that we are not. And what we have to recover is our original unity. What we have to be is what we are.'Thomas Merton, From one of Merton's final talks on his journey to India/Thailand in 1968.
From The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

Remembering Salaji

2010-10-06T20:04:00.000-04:00

Cannot quite get these ones out of mind -- life is like a dream in looking back so enjoy the here and now.

Salaji wrote right to left and was my neighbor.

Soul Mate

2010-07-24T12:36:00.000-04:00

All was still along the
sand as the water rolled.
Bill said, 'I wonder if
Suzanne is thinking of Dave?'
as he kicked the driftwood
just past the line made by
the crab.
The water rolled back
and erased the indentations
assumed to be made by an
orange crustacean making the
surface appear as marble.
Turning her head toward
the sea, past the profile
of the man, a seagull
silouette like paper pulled
out the ear black, glistening
with subtle color, danced in
the wind; paper, to kite, to
seagull to vapor, 'I don't know
Bill. You could be right.'
They walked in silence back
to the car along a camel's
back, smooth brown surface,
as the sun set,
wild bushes with tints like
a rapper dancing at nightclub,
Dune, on either side.
There the car stood in the
semi-darkness, left in a state
of hot sun, alone, dust, a
trailbar wrapper whisked over
the top of Bill's shoes yet
he did not know it, 'You got the
keys, sweatheart?' He went
through his waist-pack taken
off the shoulder and set on
his right knee. He touched the
small book, the writing pad,
pulling back, the empty jam jar
with lingering granola and
raisin, some m&ms, a hunk of
cheese and bread wrapped in
bandana, now a remnant. He
hit metal, 'O here. I've got
it.' The man got in the car
noticing the paper blue permit
in view, looked straight ahead
toward the sea, only a flicker
to dark. He whispered something
to himself that only a bird
would hear: 'the sea is a
kind friend, thank you' and
so he went. The sun leaves.

**********

Veronika Panakova liked wearing her red parka with white fur made in China when she walked to the factory in Minsk. When it snowed at night and the headlights from cars passed on the boulevard, she liked to imagine she was a flame of fire. She would spin, see the trees quickly go black and imagine she shot up into the stars. She searched for her lost father for sixteen years and liked to draw pictures of birds. She met her father in 1992. After an awkward phone call, they met at the ice skating rink at Trebloka Center. He wore a red hat, looked like a bird, and worked with fire as a glassblower. He made her a green and red vase that looked like heaven. He left shortly thereafter to work in the big copper mine in Mongolia. He wrote her one letter: telling her of the fishing in wild rushing native rivers where the wolf and mountain sheep reigned and of berry harvest in late autumn. She heard in a phone call that he died in the summer of '95: hit by lightning evidently, burnt while hiking the rolling hills surrounding the copper mine. Veronica packed her red coat and bought a blue one with fur a wolf's color.

Prodigal Son and Van Gogh

2010-07-24T11:53:00.001-04:00

Continuing Paul's 'nothing (else) in all creation can separate...' Either we separate 'death, life, angels, principalities, things present, things to come (nothing on things past)' from God's love or not...you can say 'all works to God's glory.'
Morality, ethics. Much wiser men-women have pondered.
I attract to the outcast clearly.
The star over the manger--baby Jesus, I come to worship the outcast: look at the gleam in their eye - what fire! What an opportunity for turning?! (A turning in being seen!)

I liken this to the prodigal son in image in contrast to the kneeling Rembrandt one (a powerful image nonetheless) Imagine the prodigal son standing at another angle approaching Father-returning home, look! cornfields and storm, the prodigal son standing proud at distance, an imagined painting by Van Gogh)

The outsider in all their power and greatness; yet all is incumbent on submission-repentance at the feet of the Father (represented as Church). Submit your individuality! 'Lost and found', the prodigal son did not get lost but he found his way back! Let's celebrate! I like that the gospel author lifted up the outcast and not the insider in elder son. We have to see the eyes of the prodigal!

Van Gogh's fields and crows of black with featured prodigal facing strong is a dreamscape. (As in final coming home - but it must be in mutuality.) 'So he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into the fields to feed swine. And he would have gladly fed on the pods that the swine ate.' and 'no one gave him anything.'

'The Father saw him and had compassion.' (while 'he was at a distance') Not judgment, scorn but compassion. Dead...alive, lost...found. In 'seeing' the outcast is 'alive' and 'found' -- a compassionate seeing. What might they contribute? What might they have to say to correct the Father?

Does the story support? In a way. Story is bracketed by 'sinner who repents' and 'the good steward'. So from this lens, there is still the suggestion that the prodigal son repent from his sin and was a poor steward. The Bible returns one to complexity. (Later note: perhaps the 'sinner who repents' and 'the good steward' is in the elder son...)

Most follow the theme of Rembrandt's rendering: it falls down to repentance of sin at the foot of the Father-Church.

(Little John, 11, the 'Fish Town Preacher' is back at door: always at dinner. What will he say?)
'I went to church.'
'You work at hospital? God be with you.'
'God will bless you, you, mother, father, brothers, sisters....'

Contemplating Afa

2010-07-24T11:12:00.002-04:00

I keep letting the boy
back in,
He bangs with stick on front
door, he shakes the door,
he pees on my doorstep
with grin,
He places rocks through
the expanding mesh holes in
windows and doors.
He shovels pebbles under the
front door into the entry way
which blocks my passage,
that must be swept into
dusty corner and lifted in
trash box with the blade of
a bush knife.
'White man, I am fixing your
door,' he just proclaims:
I see his left leg and foot
propped: only banging.
The hot sun of noon on his
back and dust filtering,
spinning in the haze of sun
into shadow.
I see his profile: then he
shifts to laying on the
sandbag dressed in black
short: I arise
to catch his picture: he
disappears like the wind.
Noon passes and return
to house with Afa speaking
gibberish in the tall weed
under the dead tree.

An ethic opens to freedom,
morality is imposed or a rule
on which something is judged.
An ethic is not bound to
cultural form whereas morality
is a template or overlaying
paradigm that often is linked
to historical narrative-
lineage-tradition. Morality
should be understood as related
to the particular whereas
ethic is universal and of
essence. The end of religion
is in movement from
the moral to the ethical.
From there, 'Love is a direction,
and not a state of soul.' (Weil)
Boundedness places love
within the particular and to a
particular state. No boundary
expands this love in all
creation and boundless in its
particular manifestations: it
is accepting of all states as
contained in God.
I am not claiming
ethic (as circle) as something higher
than morality (square). I
am stringing words together.
When I approach Afa, 4,
the trickster boy who pisses
on my front stoop in grin,
and joys in placing rocks to
temporary 'lock' my front door
as he watches from under
papaya tree laughing when I come home
from work, I do not overlay
traditional rules of 'respecting
elders'...'don't piss there'...
You must be 'good', but treat
him with the highest 'ethic' I let it be,
I embrace his rascality, I
show mercy, I do not stand over
to correct, to place a template
for 'what a good boy should or
should not do.' (Although I am
sometimes firm with him). I
do not think, 'I should take
him to church', I commune with
Afa and in doing so there is
freedom and the 'problem' will
work its way out.
There is a point here -- a
'mentally ill' young man
who fought as child
soldier, alternates: he
walks up the hill towards the
setting sun with Jesus pendant,
raising his hands and
apparently praising. Sometimes
he is seen with a broken upper
part of a hospital crutch, using it
as an imaginary machine gun
firing it at ghosts. He
does not go to church but
the lady or man dressed up
in polished shoes, in Sunday 'best'
does: Now which is the 'good'
Christian? Morality may stand
on the side of the material,
the 'seen' churchgoers. An
ethic may seek to overturn
to include both: the young man
is also a Christian by understanding
his 'essence', his limitation,
his entirely different 'paradigm'-
breaking form. When we
'corral' a person and place
them in a community box or
family box (some) fail to see
the 'essence', dividing into 'good'
and 'bad', rather than lifting
up all, (some) do violence to the
person (Afa) in our
quick assumption and 'paradigm-
limited' vision.
What/how might this link to
Paul's 'nothing in creation can separate
the love of God in Jesus?'
Thereby, the love of God in
Jesus is in all creation:
thus Afa and the young man.
There is no separation in
this statement read one
way which contrasts against
Paul's (apparent) separation:
'anyone preaches a gospel contrary
let them be accursed!'

2010-07-23T12:43:00.000-04:00

Justice

2010-07-23T12:05:00.002-04:00

Justice.
All is wrapped around it.
You can get angry
demanding justice
and angry within the
call for forgiveness.
The world is a
steamroller,
how difficult it is
to control wind.
At a circus there is
clutter, lights and
characters watched,
a spectator sport,
victory and defeat
spinning around
the axis of a Nepali
lake reflecting sun
and moon.

It is hard to see such
in returning despair;
it bites sharp, its lines
cross the fog and geometric
shape of brow in colors
gray and opaque, not
expansive but like a
ball in the fist, turning,
red hands seen looking
down in pain, shaping
and moving it, alone,
shut out, all the world
contained in 45 d angle
down from eye to
hand in fragmented forms,
and shattered, concealed,
into deeper levels of
the unexplained:
'I do not get justice.'
'I do not understand
justice.'

Despair: its alone
and some say 'homely'
place
'it is not necessary.
It is only self-indulgent.'

When you surround yourself
with 'justice' on all sides,
the kids being beaten
at supermarket,
the 'corporation' masked, ...
and that's all.
It is not worth writing about
(despair): you enter into
it enough and you see
momentary yellow light,
strands, the string of the
'string' theory, fibrous;
the body kind of encloses,
kneading, like a dancer's
wave, twisting wrist over
the top and out into new
form touching the end of
the universe.

You might see it in a Buddhist
art piece or in the aum:

Justice is answered
and turned like a wood
post on a lathe: it is
in turning the standard
configuration into something
newly symmetric. (see
Gandhi's or Pope John
Paul's forgiveness
of assassin attempt)

Justice: I do not pretend
to know it. Despair is
a passing post: made
slimmer in fast traveling.

Justice is wholly creative
taking into consideration
the relative. An
objective law is bound
to be unjust.
I am on a subject I know
nothing about -- forgive me
in advance. Justice -
despair triggered.

I think Marx was right in seeing the wedge as private property although I know nothing of Marx. Morality and justice spin around so.

Now, one can sit in that
empty interval as
things happen around one,
you hear the explanations
and imagine the tilting
scale of justice leaning
to and fro as it regards
to 'truth' and watch others
enter imaginary places.

The pieces are strayed
across the landscape
in piles, there is accumulation,
there is the natural temptation
to exert force, there is the
often misunderstanding of
the one who stands in
the interval;
of the spinning strands,
strings, fibres of self-
weaving and distortion,
connections and
a chosen 'mis-image'
of self, steadied,
and despite the surfacing
black seep that enters
the head and eyes, as
the red gently melts into
the sinews and synapses
downward, one continues to
not call out,

Instead corrects,
reverses, lets the response,
the call to power, the
call to the single band
of ________ (the ......)
amidst the challenge of
transitory posturing and
untruth imposed on one..

gaze to a tree,
the sky, the face of a
child, and then look up
resolved to continue in
the fight in kindness and
'deeper' understanding;
a 'letting alone' faith,
a subtler and more effective change
agent, than the exertion
of forceful power,

'If another has something against you!'
Justice, anger, passivity,
aggression, power,
property, self-assertion,
Christianity is no warm
fuzzy; it is deeply
paradoxical -

in the equation of 'treat others
as self' is the kernel
of justice and after some
time 'Flipper' rises to the
surface (the T.V. dolphin:
entering humor) and the
surface of water breaks,
and emotions churn, you
simply want to lash out.
No one is there. You are
put on hold. The recording
tells you, you are valued
and one will be with you
to hear your concern,
the music plays, the one
on the other end is
tentacled to 1,000 concerns.

Flipper cackles to the red
haired boy on dock: 'Yes,
I will get help, Flipper.
Mrs. Johnson is in trouble.'
It is very much chaos,
and much humor, when all
the dust settles.
One can enter the vortex
of strands, strings and
fibres
but yet best is to smile
in the midst aware of
the single band, the
reality untouched.
(While not negating the
play of strands, strings
and fibres.)

Working with Circle and Square

2010-07-23T11:20:00.004-04:00

'Anima, animus integration: Jung's quaternio: the triad transcended to a fourth plane: wisdom, the 'Chtonic' mother. the 'wise old man', Dogen's 'grandmotherly wisdom'.

Metamorphisis, phoenix rising, the minotaur, the interval can be an ugly place marked by fear: the legion was placed in his right mind yet for how long a legion? The people told Jesus to go away. The legion was tied down: gnashing self with stones (yet at one point the people lost strength to subdue). Legion into a 'group': all men marveled (yet perhaps were not 'transformed').

As two forces merge it becomes 'center' or Taoist 'pivot', the matrices overlap; there is confusion, challenge, yet the only way out is through another; a new configuration. Jesus had to speak to the Samaritan woman: 'I who speak to you am he.' The particular and universal in 'spirit and truth'. The blind man made to see's simplified ethic: 'Worship God, do his will, God will listen'.

Similar is the Arabic right to left and the West's left to right: they are bound to meet in the overlapping kaleidacope, each carrying momentum, and a certain particularity: the colored translucent, opaque shapes and formations overlap: the circles 'wonder' at the new found, the squares scramble in defense to preserve a 'certain' pattern: for there is fear and especially effort in relinquishing some for a greater pattern.

The center, the circumference, the angles, the sub-matrices, the source may need to be reconsidered. 'Oh, much too difficult!' say the majority. 'We have the only God-given pattern, template in words and history.' 'Only we have God's revelation'. 'The canon is a closed selection of books', 'Being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin' is the only way.

But look at the kaleidascope and the new patterns made as new matrices collide! One may reply to their 'repent, the kingdom of God is at hand' and you may say 'I know I see it every day in the gathering of visual forms and people coming together.' Is it Jesus on the cross? Yes, when you see people serve, love others and carry their own crosses. Do you see it in the Buddha? Yes, when one walks deeply in 'practice' cultivating bodhichitta. Do you see it in Muslims? Yes, as they do their prayers and are devout to others, compassionate to the poor. Do you see it in Krishna? Why yes, as pilgrims to the Ganges light incense and joyfully engage in the universal. Do you see it in the Navajo? Oh, yes, a Navajo grandmother teaching their child the Navajo language, the Navajo hunting deer in the forest or at sweatlodge ceremony...the Jews learning the Mishnah, reuniting at center...and especially when one enters into a prayer or ritual of one different.

Understand the squares passion for order, constancy, tradition and for the circles: their creative sense, their necessary critique, their passion for integration and new patterns. Until we are willing to engage, to enter into the conditional factors that make people so, to focus effort on, our intellect-passion in integral efforts, we are bound.

The world is a great deal different than we imagine it so. And so it is also true in our minds and in our understanding of ourselves. Admittedly so, it is a life long experiment in truth with very deep layers of discovery that come mostly in our engagement with a wider 'other'. So throw off what you may (when necessary) and engage with others of difference and come out of the kaleidascope with new formations of wonder and appreciation.

Exiting out of the historical narrative ('religion' and our own historical narrative), selflessness (is not weak passivity) and complete freedom. A time to use the analysis and a time to be free. A time to re-write our story and heal.

2010-07-15T11:53:00.016-04:00

'No one thought Shantideva was learned or absorbing the teachings: he never spoke except in humor: finally, he floated in the air and gave his teachings on The Way of the Bodhisattva.
Fear - destroy the root of suffering which is analysis.
The valley opened and the snows melting sent a steady flow of vitality to its floor: it at first was trickling as it gained momentum into torrent and then steadied.
The floor turned to green with the sprouting of one hundred forms some called 'wild' flowers.
They in no way appeared 'wild' as in 'legion' but were rooted, their buds shooting forth a color not of soil brown or the green of stem and grass but of purple, yellow, red, pink, white and orange.
The final growth yet not from out of foundation of water, sun and soil - stem reaching for heaven and dancing in the wind was the finest and final proclamation in geometric and circular light as a feather symmetrical flower sweet celebrating, shaped as trumpet or universe vortex, attracting and giving sustenance to insect and bird, colorful berry to deer, bear and pleasing to the eyes and smell of humans.
For in the 'wild' there are not geometric divisions or man's hand in creation but the unadulterated and pure hand and finger of God.
When Jesus wrote with finger in sand it was as if he was also wiping out the tensions and divisions and from the trough in the sand-dirt made with his finger immediately sprouted heaven.
Be quiet and watch the lillies of the field. How our 'dominion' has eliminated the sacred, turning the world into a 'pleasure palace' and perverted 'joy'.
The valley has become a weekend excursion. A grown man lay on his belly in 'field' and lovingly gazed at pure dominion.'

In remembrance of Shantideva in Fish Town, Liberia, 2010.

2010-07-15T11:39:00.005-04:00

'Milarepa walked on the field of play in spaces where very few trekked. Lush green and rock, gnarly wood, the lizard, awkward trees, large boulders in the stream.
His 'supply' relinquished, the burlap sack reduced, hanging in straps on his bony body. The man traveled from cave to cave seeking an interval when everything dropped. And it did.
The rain fell making the rock slippery, the rocks above in dry season crumbled under the step of a pack of yaks heavy loaded with dry goods from China (and to and fro) being taken to the remote small village in Tibet led by man in red hat.
Milarepa sat silently atop a bed of dried grass under an overhang or to the side of cascading stream -- either the man leading caught notice of him or not and either sought his discussion or counsel, usually not.
There are men of commerce and men of particular contemplation. If the former sought him out it was usually utilitarian and sometimes disruptive and in the latter a change to lightly engage in triad of man, man and 'nature'.
Questions: "Do you know how far it is to my destination?', 'By which path?', 'Any danger along the way?'
Milarepa's answers and questions back were interestingly similar: 'To where do you wish to reach?', How far it is 'depends on circumstances and quality of effort and judgment.' 'Dangers exist but can be well met, let them not disturb your peace', By which path? Stories of King Che, the young boy Po Li, the pregnant woman and sister Arono; the path changes due to conditions, there are riches to be gained on each.
Many merchants did not understand Milarepa's speech. For some there was laughter and deep understanding.

A reflection on 'Milarepa', a 13th century Tibetan Buddhist saint, while chasing away children at my house in Liberia.

2010-06-17T13:23:00.010-04:00

Mark:
'And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;
and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, 'You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.'
But he denied it, saying, 'I neither know nor understand what you mean.' And he went out into the gateway.
And the maid saw him, and began to say to the bystanders, 'This man is one of them'.
But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, 'Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.'
But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, 'I do not know this man of whom you speak.'

Luke:
Peter followed at a distance.
and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them.
Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, 'This man also was with him.'
But he denied it, saying, 'Woman, I do not know him.'
And a little later some one else saw him and said, 'You also are one of them.' But Peter said, 'Man, I am not.'
And after an interval of about an hour another insisted, saying, 'Certainly this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean.'
But Peter said, 'Man, I do not know what you are saying.'

Matthew:
Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a maid came up to him, and said, 'You also were with Jesus the Galilean.'
But he denied it before them all, saying, 'I do not know what you mean.'
And when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders, 'This man was with Jesus the Nazareth.'
And again he denied it with an oath, 'I do not know the man.'
After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, 'Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.'
Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, 'I do not know the man.'

John:
Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did the other disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
The maid who kept the door said to Peter, 'Are you not also one of this man's disciples?' He said, "I am not.'
Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.
(Jesus interrogated, Sent to Caiaphas the high priest)
'Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, 'Are not you also one of his disciples?' He denied it and said, 'I am not.'
One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, 'Did I not see you in the garden with him?'
Peter again denied it; and at once the cock crowed.

Jesus, 'It is finished':
So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!'
Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
After this, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the scripture), 'I thirst'
A bowl of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished', and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.'

Theopoetic

2009-06-17T11:24:00.022-04:00

peace to all and to all a good night, and day and life.

Me Try Draw

2009-05-09T21:36:00.005-04:00

2009-05-04T12:03:00.004-04:00

The prince: 'How do the supreme soul and the living soul differ?
The ascetic: 'They do not differ, and pleasure and pain, which are ascribed to the living soul, arise from its imprisonment in the body. The water of the Ganges is the same, whether it run in the riverbed or be poured into a decanter.
The prince: 'What difference can this create?
The ascetic: A difference: A drop of water added to the water in the decanter will impart its flavor to the whole, but it would be lost in the river. The higher soul, therefore, is without accident, but living soul is afflicted by sense and passion. Water cast loosely on a fire will extinguish the fire; put that water over the fire in a boiler, and the fire will vaporize the water. So the body is the confining cauldron; passion the fire; and the soul, the water, is dispersed abroad. The one great supreme soul is incapable of these properties, and happiness is therefore only obtained in reunion with it, when the dispersed and individualized portions combine with it, as the drops of water with the parent stream. Hence, although God needs not the service of his slave, yet the slave should remember that he/she is separated from God by the body alone, and may well exclaim perpetually: Blessed be the moment when I shall lift the veil off that face. The veil of the face of my beloved is the dust of my body.'

Prince Dara Shekoh and the Ascetic Baba Lal
from Buber's Ecstatic Confessions

2009-04-21T21:19:00.010-04:00

The boy who told me of the 'laumei': Naamanu, right, 2004
Nise, his sister and my friend

**********************************

'The hostile multitudes are as vast as space --
What chance is there that all should be subdued?
Let but this angry mind be overthrown
And every foe is then and there destroyed.

To cover all the earth with sheets of hide --
Where could such amounts of skin be found?
But simply wrap some leather round your feet,
And it's as if the whole earth had been covered?

Likewise, we can never take
And turn aside the outer course of things.
But only seize and discipline the mind itself,
And what is there remaining to be curbed?

'The goal of every act is happiness itself,
Though, even with great wealth, it's rarely found.
So take pleasure in the qualities of others,
Let them be a heartfelt joy to you.'

'It is the universal vehicle that saves
All wandering beings from the states of loss --
The rising moon of the enlightened mind
That soothes the sorrows born of afflictions.'

Shantideva, The Way of the Bodhisattva
******************************

From Samoa, 2004:

'I was walking by the sea; blue and white and black and green, a place for turtles, an indentation here, there. A boy told me that he has eaten the turtle eggs of the laumei, ‘manaia’ (good) said the boy from Falealupo, the place of Moso’s footprint, mounds, forest and awkward looking trees and dense coconut tree forests at the edge of this world of Savaii. But this story is of from a place they call Taga, which I believe means any place with lava rock and the crashing sea and blowholes.
I was walking and amazed; the power of the sea and its deposits on the shore. There is an organization or filtering that goes on; fine, fine sand to lay down on, soft in one area, and then coarse sand and coarser sand, shells, and bigger shells and then coral and then larger coral up to huge coral boulders all stacked in separate organized piles. The intricacy, the infinite diversity but grouped and in relationship.
The sun setting and the moon opposite; can you imagine the attention the sunset gets over the moon? The white moon against the blue sky was nice this night, thought I would give it some attention. I opened up the book where sea meets land, the wind and black birds dancing on the tops of waves, and read:
‘For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body. And if the ear should say, Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body, that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? …But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.’ Cor I 12.14
At the time the reading rang true, like a clear bell, in a Japanese garden, arranged, texture, change but one. The body and the separate. Its tie in to the tidy groups, where the land meets the sea I leave up to you.
Since that time, some time has passed, but the all remains true.
Somewhere a mother sea turtle has climbed over lava rock, found a place in the sand, and is laying her eggs, under the moon and setting sun, giving life to something new. Isn’t that nice?'

Peace, BW

Early Quaker

2009-04-06T19:26:00.005-04:00

'The seed of the kingdom is sown man knows not how, even by a sound of the Eternal Spirit, which he is not a fit judge of; and it grows up he knows not how; and the power appears and works in it a way that he is not aware of. He looks for the kingdom, the power, and the life, in a way of his or her observation, answerable to the thoughts and expectations of his or her heart. But thus it never comes; but in the way of its own eternal motion, it springs in the hearts of many, and they overlook the thing, and turn from it daily, not knowing its proper way of appearance, but expecting it some other way. And thus the enemy holds them in the bands of death, and they are captives in the strange land, refusing the Prince of Life, in his daily offers of life, because they look not for him thus, but after another way and manner. And till this eye of observation be put out in them, they can never clearly see the appearance of the Saviour to them, nor feel the efficacy of his saving them from that, from which none but he can deliver.'

Isaac Penington

2009-04-05T09:38:00.006-04:00

On my way back from Albuquerque, I jotted down some connections from the gospel of John regarding the mystery of the resurrection and as it relates to Peter, the other disciple and Mary Magdalene. I am thinking of sequencing: Peter takes it first but consider a latter seeing.

I am going to put down some information from the gospel of John.1st (Lazarus, the man's raising from the dead: 'Jesus wept'): 'then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.' (11.45)

Comparing the woman brought to Jesus accused of adultery (stooping and writing) and Jesus' resurrection at the tomb which involves Mary, the other disciple and Peter (stooping and seeing-believing):

Woman brought to Jesus / Jesus' Resurrection
'early in the morning' / 'first day of the week cometh early when yet dark'
'first placed woman in midst' / Mary Magdalene present
'Jesus stooped down' (1) / Mary sees the stone taken away
Jesus wrote in the ground (1) / Peter and the other disciple run to tomb
Men accusing woman / The other disciple arrives first
Jesus lifted himself up (1) / Other disciple 'stooping down', looking in
'Let (him) cast first stone at (her) / Sees linen clothes but does not go in
Jesus stoops down second time / Peter arrives and goes into tomb
wrote on the ground (2) / P. sees linen clothes and napkin (not on head, rolled up by itself)
accusers leave / Other disciple goes in: sees and believes
eldest to last / 'for as yet they did not know the scripture (rising from dead)'
J. alone with (woman in midst) / Mary alone: weeping, as she wept she stooped down
Jesus lifted himself up (2) / Mary looked into sepulchre
J. looked up and said to her / She saw two angels in white
'Woman, no one accuse you?' / 'Woman, why are you weeping?' M: Donde esta mi Lord?
Woman: 'No one' (KJV, 'man') / Mary turns around and will see Jesus in gardener: Rabonni! Mary sees her Lord and as instructed goes to the disciples to tell of his ascension.

I am not quite sure of the connections here but believe that they are worth listing for you. Formatting did not allow me to make columns. Follow down the separate stories: I am not making connections between separate /. Peace.

2009-01-31T23:45:00.014-05:00

GLOBAL TRINITY

'Fall into division, resurrection into unity.'
William Blake

Try this as a heretic use of the Trinity: Consider the Motivation for World Peace

The Father (Jews)
'Salvation is from the Jews.' Jesus (John, 4.22)
'Father worshipped in spirit and truth.' Jesus to Samaritan woman re: Samaritans who worshipped Mount Gerizim (different direction from Jerusalem)
Abraham who sacrificed Isaac (Ishmael, Muslim tradition), circumcised Ishmael 'his son' in Genesis 17.26.
God provided a 'sacrificial lamb.' (Gen 22.13)
Abraham built Kaba in Mecca in Muslim tradition.

The Son (Christians)
Jesus as way, truth and life sacrificed on the cross between two to 'Christ': 'There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them.' (John 19.18)
'I who speak to you am he.' Jesus to Samaritan woman simplifying 'Messiah' or 'Christ' (John 4.26)
Blind man made to see simplifies in context of dispute between Jew and Samaritan (common lineage, historical dispute, direction of worship dispute): 'If anyone worships God and does his will, God listens to him.' (John 9.31)

Jesus as first born Son of God sacrificed on Passover (see other first borns killed in Egypt and first born Ishmael-Esau lineage, two covenants, Hagar-Ishmael to Muslim, Sarah-Isaac to Jews-Christian (Jesus: 'King of Israel')
Two namings 'Israel': first, Esau appears, Jacob-Israel flees, People of Shechem circumcised, Dinah defiled, God's commandment to return to Bethel 'when you fled your brother Esau (first time)': place of original covenant to Abraham 'All the families of the earth will bless themselves...(Gen 12.1), Jacob-Israel goes and leaves, on way to Bethlehem, Benjamin (son of sorrow, son of right hand) born as Rachel dies, Jacob-Israel continues, Jacob-Israel reacting to Joseph as 'a God' (Gen 50.19): 'How dare you tell him there was another brother?' (Benjamin, son of sorrow and/or Esau?, Gen 43.6))
Jesus: 'Before Abraham was, I am.' 'I am' the door to the sheep'. Consider Genesis 29.1-12.

The Holy Spirit (Muslims): (Jesus' resurrection through Mohammed, peace be upon him):
Given the separations in Christian community and Jewish-Christian division, Mohammed calls for a return to the one God (and to unite his idol-worshipping people).
(Muslims) descend from Ishmael-Esau lineage. Hagar, mother of the oppressed.
A grafting thing, considering dual covenants, salvation from Jews, through Jesus to Mohammed, integrating stories of Jews and Muslims, celebrating in sharing of tradition. Jesus as way, truth and life in his distilling 'Love God with all and neighbor as self to Samaritan inclusion. Isaiah: 'I will have mercy on Jacob, yet choose Israel.' Abraham's compassion on Ishmael and Hagar: 'Oh, let Ishmael live in thy sight'. Enough. Just trying to find a way to hold to a fundamentalist Christian position and tradition yet open to possibility to a higher resurrecting truth to a loving all inclusive God by way of his self-emptying Son.
Solve this triad of dispute among brothers and sisters, and all (Hindus, Buddhists whom may help, Native American, aboriginal, athiests, humanists, ....)....gotta go through the religious texts to solve...this is a Kierkegaardian 'intellectual experiment' only...not serious but playful...yet serious...

2008-12-11T13:15:00.007-05:00

much work this semester on credo,
does one not write something to be read?

endnotes add. peace, BW

completed credo at: http://bwcredo.blogspot.com/

2008-12-10T20:24:00.004-05:00

Photo: At Newman Residence, Richmond, IN.

'The only element in the historic religions which the world is justified in calling upon is the intrinsic reality of faith which is beyond all attempts at formulation and expression but exists in truth; it is that which constantly renews its presence from the flow of personal life itself. This is the one thing that matters: the personal existence, which gives actuality to the essence of a religion and thus attests to its living force.'

'What does it mean to be a 'people of God'? A common belief in God and service to his name do not constitute a people of God. Becoming a people of God means rather that the attributes of God revealed to it, justice and love, are to be made effective in its own life, in the lives of its members with one another; justice materialized in the indirect mutual relationships of these individuals; love in their direct relationships rooted in their personal existence. Of the two, love is the higher, however, the transcending principle.'

Martin Buber, 'The Silent Question: On Henri Bergson and Simone Weil'

2008-12-06T14:13:00.008-05:00

'What was the intention behind all my intentions, the fundamental intention which I represented rather than willed, the thing to which I was committed rather than committed myself? In unbelief I call that intention fate - what I was fated to do - in confidence I call it divine governance.'

'The more the world deceives, the more patience wins.'

'It is all a repetition, it is not a question of making a conquest, of hunting and seizing something, but of becoming more and more quiet, because that which is to be gained is there within a person, and the trouble is that one is outside oneself, because that which to be gained is in the patience, it is not concealed in it so that the person who patiently stripped off its leaves, so to speak, would finally find it deep inside but is in it so that it is patience itself in which the soul in patience inclosingly spins itself and thereby gains patience and itself.'

Soren Kierkegaard

2008-11-26T21:23:00.007-05:00

'The brave man of the Promethean type confronts a distrusted transcendent reality with courage; the brave man trusting stands before God like Job asking for an answer; the fearsome man confronts the distrusted Transcendent with trembling; the fearsome man full of trust is awed but not cowed and there is joy in his awe.'

'The ghosts and deities and symbols which to psychologism seem to be projections of an irrational inner fear, may be regarded also as symbols of that transcendent reality which man confronts but from which he flees in distrust. There is an object of this religious fear; what the fearsome man regards as the object is indeed a fiction of his imagination; but the object is nonetheless present. There is something of which he is afraid. It is life itself; it is the principle of life; it is the ultimate reality that he is up against, the counterpart of his existence as a self.'

H. Richard Niebuhr, Faith on Earth

As Jesus says, 'It is I, be not afraid'. Trust.

2008-11-25T21:43:00.004-05:00

snow, look close this winter.

2008-11-19T18:42:00.003-05:00

Denver, the Porch, Summer,
Evening heat, windows to lives,
The Rear Window, witnessing,
White clouds against dark
Blue evening sky,
Cars pass, the Path, accept
Non-forcing, Dreams, Disappointment,
Staying power, Non-pressure,
It will present itself,
and I will positively adapt,
Elevation, Mountains, reaching
for the sky,
Much more beautiful up close,
Must look closely,
The G-8 Summit,
World leaders emerge,
Hedges and power washer by day,
Recapturing sense of Human in work,
lost seriousness,
Means to an ends,
Non-threatening,
Redefining, why not have
fun in the process?
Learning, steps, waxing and waning,

A rushing stream,
A still beaver pond,
the aspen leaves,
Rustling, shining,
The rain,
On city streets,
the old man’s hat,
the Mexican pushing
an ice cream cart,
the Burger King sign,
the Bus stop,
Ducks glide in and swoosh in water,
Two together,
Where is the crowd?
An old woman in worn sneakers,
and discarded Walmart apron,
blue,
narly elbows,
searches through the trash,
with a bent hanger,
necessity? or out of
purpose, a ritual, of something to do?
I see her at work,
and the Vietnamese children on rollerblades,
a Hispanic boy named Jesus,
I help on a bike,
Found cars and plastic G-men in bushes,
I set them on the air conditioner by his door,
like Bo in To Kill a Mockingbird

The boss swoops in,
to view an investment,
and guides, and the people follow,
The green, and maroon and gray hoses all
make a line and reach around carstops to
water the roots of trees and bushes,
my job today,
I spray the kids, they
laugh, ‘Mr. Big Man’,
the trees drink and the
whole environment smiles.
Tending a circle,
that is my job,
it is helpful and soothing,
when it is all within sight,
all that can be seen,
A boy crawls over the balcony,
a word corrects or shows concern,
Behaviour tells you something,
A cry,
A welfare pot-bellied man, at 50,
comes and sits, drinking coffee, nervous
or anxious, lost in darkness,
capable yet empty,
Jokes: ‘sex with cats’, ‘hold hostages with
grenades’, a never ending banter of sickness,
His brother is picking him up for a swim today,
‘free cigarettes’,
his brother honks.
Lost dreams,
The stars are still there,
Up in the sky,
and people meet, and smile,
imperfection, flaws and in
midst it all,
pure humanness, folly,
characters, laughter, joy
in uniqueness,
the story of life,
perceptions, angle of a leaf
falling from a tree,
the sun or lack thereof,
and wind directs,
to a soft landing,
in the love of God’s hands.

‘Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing.’
Mill, John Stuart

2008-11-19T18:17:00.008-05:00

asau, savaii, samoa 2003:

'The day is at hand and it is rest time following a day of school. Everyday in a sense is school, for the cup overflows with lessons anew and it is good. I finished another day of school, in a harsh place, and difficult setting in this fishing village by the sea. The grass is now brown outside; it is subtle, the effects of nature, one must listen. I still fail to notice things but if I am away from the thoughts I do better. After school, a student asked me about a photo I took of her, the primary kids were playing with puppies in the shade of the meeting hall, and the big yellow bus drove past filled with students in their blue and white school uniforms. This is a different place; the sea a stone throw away, black lava rock, coconut palms and the dense forest mountains acting as a shield to something different. It is different than the city center, the suburbs, equatorial Africa but it is the same in that I am who I am, regardless of setting or circumstance. Time is the only changing factor so patience is to be.

My interest today and always stems from life, and the myriad of forms from the soil; a life separate, and a speculative interest in why things are the way they are, and where the path leads. For I am in love with the human experience, not in the sense of having a love or passion for life like sailing around the world or shooting five point bucks on six different continents, but for life experience. This moves beyond my conditioned paradigm for when I think of the phrase love or passion for life, the natural inclination is to imagine, to form a picture of someone scaling Mount Everest or some business tycoon going around the world in a balloon, something related to action and achievement (and spending money). And I wonder about this.
The definitions that are so deeply imbedded in my being as a member of the American T.V. life generation are frightening in terms of their manipulative force. And so my contention follows that all important concepts and words have been tainted by the Western paradigm, and they can only be renewed by a balanced view. '

2008-11-15T20:14:00.006-05:00

No poetry for long time makes a dullness.

Shiprock, New Mexico, 1999.

The Shiprock connection. A letter from friend Pam, ‘You will never be the same.’ and the art guy at Illinois Art Mart reminded. So I went to Shiprock, New Mexico; a Navajo town, passed the rock at midnight and saw a silhouette in darkness like a sunk ship. Cool, two spires shoot out of the Rock like the spine of a reptile. Drove in circles, excited, to gas station to get bearings straight. Taco Bell and gas station: ‘Is this Shiprock or Haunted Rock?’ to young Navajo under the light. ‘Yes’, said young guy Ferrell and friend, wife a Hopi, showed me a curio he makes.

I went out to the site, a dirt road off the highway passing a wire fence and cans, to park along the end of the spire, the moon, slept on the top of my car blue Vestiva. Clouds and stars. Sitting on hood, trying to sense something, the hood buckling, the crack, my sleeping bag around, center…Only sense: spinning as I sat on the top of my car, a tumbleweed lodged in my brain. Spinning, spinning, set, things spinning not me. Morning. toss and turn.

At dawn, I walk the two miles along the spire on the soft mud trail, writing symbols, phrases with pointed rock in wet sand, to Navajo Rock, Haunted Rock. I was told one could see dead ancestors in the shapes and shadows of the rock. I wrote, kneeling, chanting, feeling the cool sand with my hands, (Pagan symbols), word 'guilt', 'Jesus'…”, a light rain. Chanting. Trying to be weird as possible. Up to rock. Sand. Heavy. Beer bottles. Desert, Lava Shiprock, 3 million years old, where spirits go before heaven or something. Still a tough climb. Rattlesnakes? Scrub. boulders. Voices, two talking, but where? Faces in the shapes and shadows of rock, bouncing light; Judy, my deceased mother and African dog Bosco, I turn my head and see.

I walk around the objective, the Rock; rocks, sand, hills, am I completely around? I walk the spire, thought I was at the right spire, end, my car? I walk the two miles to the end and then cross over expecting to see my car. No. Wrong spire or in circles? I look across the desert and see another spire some two miles across, running across, chanting, the open scrub, long, the rain falling heavier, no water to drink, am I going in the right direction? am I turned around? where is my car and place in the universe? I chant, rain clouds, boom, exhausted, I cross the threshold of the ragged spire and see my blue car, momentarily lost, tricked, illusion but not.

(One year later, I will be teaching and coaching football fifty miles south in Tohatchi). Take my own students to same rock after Farmington peptalk; legless man drives motorcycle across Siberia, motivational speaker. There is a forward motion. We receive seeds for future. This is part of it.

2008-11-13T18:03:00.005-05:00

'A logic of polarity, we might say, is a mode of thinking and writing that tends to attend to the wholeness, the unity, of a complex phenomenon, by juxtaposing the detailed but partial views of it acquired from the several possible points of vantage (each of which may tend to make totalistic claims for its perspective), and by combining those perspectives, making such reconciliations of their contradictions as can legitimately be made, but without any specious removal of the tensions between them.'

'(T) means humility before the penumbra of mystery that sets the bounds on human reason; relativism means that no conception of the absolute or of reality is adequate. Realism in Niebuhr means discerning, valuing, and responding in life in light of a trust that the mystery has integrity, is personal, and exercises its power redemptively, inviting human collaboration; relativism means 'that it is an abberation of faith as well as of reason to absolutize the finite but that all this relative history of finite hu(man) and movements is under the governance of the absolute God.'

James W. Fowler, To See The Kingdom: The Theological Vision of H. Richard Niebuhr, 1974

2008-10-11T10:35:00.013-04:00

'I have something in mind deeper than the simplification of our external programs, our absurdly crowded calendars of appointments through which so many pantingly and frantically gasp. These do become simplified in holy obedience, and the poise and peace we have been missing can really be found. But there is a deeper, an internal simplification of the whole of one's personality, stilled, tranquil, in childlike trust listening ever to Eternity's whisper, walking with a smile into the dark. This amazing simplification comes when we 'center down', when life is lived with singleness of eye, from a Holy Center where the breath and stillness of Eternity are heavy upon us and we are holy yielded to Him.
Some of you know this holy, recreating Center of eternal peace and joy and live in it day and night. Some of you may see it over the margin and wistfully long to slip into that amazing Center where the soul is at home with God. Be faithful to that wistful longing. It is the Eternal Goodness calling you to return Home, to feed upon green pastures and walk beside still waters and live in the peace of the Shepherd's presence. It is a life beyond fevered strain. We are called to abandon strain, to peace and power and joy and love and thorough abandonment of self.'

'To that divine Life we must cling. In that Current we must bathe. In that abiding yet energizing Center we are all made one, behind and despite the surface differences in our forms and our cultures. For the heart of religious life is in commitment and worship, not in reflection and theory.'
Thomas Kelly, Testament of Devotion, 1941

Idea: No binding creeds or statement of beliefs which denote completion and foster separation but statements of tension or balancing. Example, an ethic of love as centered reflection within a held tension and balance between Spirit and Scripture as a community's 'creed'.

2008-10-02T09:33:00.004-04:00

'Whoever comes to this something knows what happiness consists in. It has neither before nor after, and it is in need of nothing additional, for it can neither gain nor lose. '

'Letting go is the best of all, for it purifies the soul and cleans the conscience and inflames the heart and awakens the spirit and enlivens the desires and lets God be known.'

'The person who has learned to let go is one without objects in his or her life, even life itself is no longer an object.'

'Thus what letting go does is to develop sensitivity and openness to the spirit and this receptivity results in letting be. Schurmann describes letting be as an act of respecting the autonomy of things. It designates the attitude of a human who no longer regards objects and events according to their usefulness, but who accepts them in their autonomy...enter so fully into events and things that we reverence all that is there....what is being spoken of here is to meet with gentleness, in true humility and selflessness, everything which comes your way.'

'There all barriers will break down; we will no longer be a people who preserve distinctions.'

Meister Eckhart, Breakthrough: Commentary Matthew Fox

2008-10-01T22:31:00.007-04:00

'Faith is not a knowledge derived from the senses but an assent of the soul to what enters through hearing. (Romans 10.17)'

'Faith causes darkness and a void of understanding in the intellect, hope begets an emptiness of possession in the memory, and charity produces the nakedness and emptiness of affection and joy in all that is not God.'

'If individuals resolutely submit to the carrying of the cross, if they decidedly want to find and endure trial in all things for God, they will discover in all of them great relief and sweetness.'

St John on the Cross, Collected Works (16th c.)

2008-09-28T13:18:00.005-04:00

D.T. Suzuki describing two forms of Buddhism. (Interest as it applies to Christianity):

'Both schools started with the same spirit, pursuing the same course. But after a while one did not feel any necessity for broadening the spirit of the master and adhered to his words as literally as possible; whilst the other, actuated by a liberal and comprehensive spirit, has drawn nourishments from all available sources, in order to unfold the germs in the original system that were vigorous and generative. These diverse inclinations among primitive Buddhists naturally led to the the dissension of Mahayanism and Hinayanism.'

'Mahayana Buddhism...is the Buddhism inspired by a progressive spirit, broadened its original scope, so far as it did not contradict the inner significance of the teachings of the Buddha, and which assimilated other religious-philosophical beliefs within itself.'

'Is there a religion which has shown some signs of vitality and yet retained its primitive form intact and unmodified in every respect?'

D.T. Suzuki, Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism, 1963.

2008-09-22T22:16:00.006-04:00

'...that goodness is over and done with (past) and abides under judgment, must not have any form of lurking place alongside of Christ.'

'Christ is at the end of all religion...'

'Christ is the end of the Law, the end - the thorough relativizing - of all religion over against its Object.'

'the limit at which humans, confronted by the Personality, the Subjectivity of God, knows himself for lost, ...gives him/herself up, and can take comfort in the righteousness of God only in this her/his self-surrender.'

'Faith in its decisive act is the collapse of every effort of his/her own capacity and will, and the recognition of the absolute necessity of that collapse.'

'in order to know Him...to that end Paul sees his Jewishness as dung (lostness)...the very boundary, the limit I can understand myself as lost...at Christ's resurrection, not some sort of happy change, an exhaltation or glorification, but the fellowship of His sufferings.'

'the object of rejoicing is that great axis round which all personal questions and all human earthly fates ultimately revolve.'

Karl Barth, Epistle to the Philippians

2008-09-17T16:27:00.009-04:00

I appreciate this bowl.

'The lichen hanging in the trees wafts to and fro,
Stirred by every breadth of wind;
Likewise, all I do will be achieved,
Enlivened by the movements of a joyful heart.'

Shantideva, Way of the Bodhisattva

2008-09-10T23:28:00.015-04:00

'...the Journey to the Lord of Power and the arrival in His presence, and the return, through Him, from Him to His Creation, without separation.'

'Every rational person must know that the journey is based upon toil and the hardships of life, on afflictions and tests and the acceptance of dangers and very great terrors. It is not possible for the traveler to find in this journey unimpaired comfort, security and bliss.'

'Revelation corresponds to the extent and form of knowledge. The knowledge of Him, from Him, that you acquire at the time of your struggle and training you will realize in contemplation later. But what you contemplate of Him will be the form of the knowledge which you established previously.'

Ibn 'Arabi, 12 th c.

Light and Power in George Fox

2008-08-17T20:06:00.018-04:00

'Stand still in the Power, which brings peace.' George Fox, 1652

Reflections on CPE I at Kettering Medical Center, Summer 2008:

A couple of words come to mind. There is an image of a lantern; the wick is turned and the light goes upward and all else falls to the side and down. It is like that. Stand still. Feel the power which brings peace. Contained in this Power is justice.

It is not about agenda or where we come together and a person emerges in memory. All persons fall to the side and down. In this ministry moment of encounter, there is an empty space, it is organic. I am thinking of John the Baptist; not the light but came to bear witness to the Light. Let your light shine is written to the collective.

Neither role or bodily form or agenda or expected outcome or knowledge of where to be taken, just allowing the empty space, something related to the Light, see it, we sense, and the Truth emerges sometimes accompanied by word; a realization, an awareness of the wonder recognizing smile that knows a spark of transformation, a moment beyond words.

The realization comes first and then the words reinforce (just as I read Fox). 'Stand still in the Power, which brings peace.' A moment when and where all dissolves downward and the Light goes forth upward and outward; like a fountain, living water, our senses infused, allelujah, we are filled with the Holy Spirit and all that remains are grateful children of God; abundance, joy and comforting Power in the eternal Life-Light.

George Fox (1652):
'Stand still in that which is pure, after ye see yourselves; and then mercy comes in. After thou seest thy thoughts, and the temptations, do not think, but submit, and then power comes. Stand still in that which shows and discovers, and there doth strength immediately come. And stand still in the Light, and submit to it, and the other will be hushed and gone; and then content comes. And when temptations and troubles appear, sink down in that which is pure, and all will be hushed and fly away. And earthly reason will tell you what ye shall lose. Hearken not to that, but stand still in the Light, that shows them to you, and then strength comes from the Lord, and help, contrary to your expectation...but stand still in the Power, which brings peace.'

I am convinced of something real and true that has nothing to do with me. The light forever present. BW

All is Vanity as I chased Wind

2008-05-08T10:00:00.034-04:00

I have finished this semester, and have decided to return to the blogsphere. This semester, I have worked on three papers for three classes: a look at William Penn's universalist thought, 'Jesus and Ishmael: A Connection between John's Gospel and Genesis' and the Tibetan Buddhist lojong meditation as it relates to the ecumenical endeavor. I have added a fourth paper on Integrative Religion. Five months online and no response indicates that this is mostly for my entertainment -- call it a hobby. Probably better to build a chair.

All papers are works in progress and need editing-revision. There is some intra-relationship between the four. The goal this semester was to explore accumulated thoughts and attempt to frame general strand of ideas.

*****************************************************

Buddist Lojong Meditation: Gaining from Other

We are learning from one another in today’s world. This paper suggests that there are riches to be gained from sharing across traditions. In this ever increasingly multi-cultural and multi-ethnic world, the modern view recognizes that we can learn a great deal from our differences. As human beings as a coming-together species, we are discovering that a binding element between people of difference is in the sharing of story. When I hear a story from a person, a story from their own life or from a work of art that speaks to them, something unique or common to my experience, both the story-teller’s life and my life are enriched. We gain in giving a piece of ourselves to others when we are given the opportunity to openly share in an environment of respect and wonder. In my mind, examples of works of art are the poem, the Beatitudes, a crayon drawing of Jesus, a Zen haiku by a Japanese elder. We can bring into view a work of art story that crosses boundaries and thereby enter into a new world.

This paper addresses one of many potential choices for shared art form across boundaries in the religious text-prayer. As a Christian speaking to a wide variety of other Christians, the author proposes to create a framework for engaging with a ‘religious’ text of difference in the Tibetan Buddhist lojong prayer. In the process of creating the framework in teamwork with others, the participants will be introduced to a new form of prayer and offer translations of the prayer into their own traditions.

In the Beginning: Preparation
Jane Vennard tells us that the ‘first step is to begin the teaching with a brief introduction to the prayer forms.’ (V, 114) Therefore, after having selected a Buddhist prayer of interest, the Tibetan lojong prayer, I had to select the translation of lojong prayer and find both a historical background of the form of prayer and a commentary on the text. For the translation of lojong prayer, I selected the Dalai Lama’s translation in the pamphlet ‘Training the Mind’. Although perhaps more philosophical and challenging than other translations, I knew that the majority of the people I would be interviewing were graduate students. Therefore, it is important for the ‘spiritual facilitator’ who wishes to introduce a new form of prayer, to consider the audience in terms of choosing language that is appropriate. The Dalai Lama uses terms in his translation that are particular to the Buddhist tradition and perhaps not familiar to a non-Buddhist audience. It was important for me to do additional research to come up with Buddhist translations to terms unfamiliar. Much of the necessary historical information of the ‘lojong prayer’ could be found in the commentary chosen, The Practice of Lojong, by Traleg Kyabgon. Through these two resources, I was able to print out copies of the lojong translation by the Dalai Lama to be distributed to the participants and have at hand the historical background as introduction and chosen commentary by both the Dalai Lama and Kyabgon which I felt gave particular insight into the spirit of the lojong prayer. Once the materials were assembled, it was then time to experiment with the process.

Wonder of God
Jane Vennard speaks the truth in stating that ‘teaching prayer is…simply sharing the wonder of God.’ (V, 111) The understanding in this process of discovery is that bringing in a poem or prayer from another tradition with an intent to open up to it in respect and wonder is an opening up to God. What became evident early on is that a great challenge is in fostering a prayerful environment and mood throughout. I think Vennard is right: get yourself prepared and then trust in the flow. She says: ‘we study the material, prepare our lessons, call on our experience to enliven our teaching, and then we let go…we are not attached to our success.’ (V, 108) Similar to Vennard, the Dalai Lama speaks of the teacher’s necessity to prepare and then to let go: ‘I am giving you this lecture. If somewhere in my thoughts there is a sense of curiosity - ‘Have I performed well? What do people think? This will pollute the spiritual training.’ (DL, 21) Therefore, a second important thought, after preparing oneself, is to set the right climate by establishing a prayerful peace through an opening prayer, statement or ritual.

Explaining the Form and Process
Vennard suggests three principles: ‘brief introduction to the prayer forms’, ‘offer the group an opportunity to practice the prayer form together’ and ‘sharing after the common prayer experience’. (V, 114-115) After step one and two have been completed, it is now time to enter into an introduction of the prayer form and description of the process.

Introducing the prayer form:
‘Lojong’ in Tibetan means mind training. It is a form of prayer-meditation that ‘leads one to enlightenment and frees one from suffering’. As early as the eighth century, Shantideva developed the idea of ‘bodhichitta’ which is the ‘exchange of self for others’ and ‘equalizing self with other’ as a way to a deeper revolutionary understanding. The lojong teachings are part of the Mahayana tradition within Buddhism. Today the practice is a form of meditation used by many American Buddhists as a way to overcome ego-centering and to gather a more healthy view of reality. Traleg Rinpoche comments: ‘the practice of lojong will make us feel less like a victim and more like the author or architect of our own life…our real problem is that we blame other people for our misery and never tire of the abuse we suffer from subjecting ourselves to our own egoistic minds…the suffering generated within is always worse than the suffering we experience at the hands of other people or external situation…the idea is turning adverse circumstances and situations to our own advantage...our sphere of influence regarding how others treat us is very limited.’ (TK, 6, 8, 10, 11, 11, 11)
The lojong meditation calls us into a new other-focused form of intention and meditation that offers an alternative path to greater joy and peace.

After introducing the background of the lojong prayer, the next step is to explain the direction the group will be taking in the shared meditation. Because of my own preference to adapt to the flow of the group (in partnership with the group), I did not set out on a clear structure but communicated to the group a general direction taking from Vennard and Baker: The process that we will be taking is to practice the prayer form together and to share our own personal reactions to it (Vennard). I encourage us to remain faithful to maintaining a kind environment which is deeply respectful of one another and the spirit of this work. Along the way, we will review some new Buddhist terms. At center, we will share our own ‘feelings and associations, symbols, messages’ that arise from the lojong meditation and I will ask each of us to offer their Christian perspectives as it relates to the work (a combination of Baker’s ‘experience near’ and ‘experience distant’, DB, 33). You can respond in writing or draw a picture as a creative and fun way of stimulating conversation. (self add). At the end, we will share how the experience with the lojong meditation has affected us and how it might change our daily interactions (taking from Baker’s ‘going forth’, DB, 33).
Rather than setting out a linear step-by-step program in prayer form sharing, I felt it best to give a general direction of process that would be open to making adjustments along the way in partnership with the participants. This was the choice taken because the sharing was done in peer group.

Entering into the Process
The first step in engaging with the lojong prayer with participants was to do a shared reading. After explaining the importance of entering this prayer in a compassionate spirit out of a foundation of silence, the group was instructed to read in a circle with each participant reading one stanza. The text chosen comes from the Dalai Lama’s translation of a text written by Chekawa Dorje (1101-1175). Dalai Lama comments: ‘Chekawa knew that the complete intellectual and emotional understanding of these verses could transform human existence.’ (DL, iv). The Dalai Lama’s translation of the ‘lojong prayer’ reads:

By thinking of all sentient beings as even better than the wish-granting gem
for accomplishing the highest aim
may I always consider them precious
Wherever I go, with whomever I go
may I see myself as less than all others, and
from the depth of my heart
may I consider them supremely precious.
May I examine my mind in all actions
and as soon as a negative state occurs,
since it endangers myself and others,
may I firmly face and avert it.
When I see beings of a negative disposition
or those oppressed by negativity or pain,
may I, as if finding a treasure,
consider them precious, for they
are rarely met.
Whenever others, due to their jealousy,
revile and treat me in other unjust ways,
may I accept this defeat myself,
and offer the victory to others.
When someone whom I have helped
or in whom I have placed great hope
harms me with great injustice,
may I see that one as a sacred friend.
In short, may I offer both directly and
indirectly all joy and benefit to all beings,
my mothers, and may I myself secretly take
on all their hurt and suffering.
May they not be defiled by the concepts
of the eight mundane concerns,
and aware that all things are illusory,
may they, ungrasping, be free
from bondage.

Other lojong prayers are available that are shorter and are translated into simpler language. Reading out loud in a circular way brought all of the participants into the prayer and allowed them to both hear and see the words on page (handouts distributed).

After offering an opportunity for anyone to comment on what was shared in the first reading, I then entered into some of the more unfamiliar terminology of the meditation from the Dalai Lama and Traleg commentaries. Breaking the prayer down line by line and stanza by stanza fostered rich insights. The following terms were discussed. I will include any particular insights that flowed out of our discussion:

sentient beings: The Dalai Lama describes sentient beings as ‘those who are capable of experiencing suffering…the true source of our joy, prosperity and happiness.’ (DL, 11) Because the prayer of lojong is undertaken in deep compassion in exchange or equalization of self with other, understanding ‘sentient beings’ is important in understanding the scope of our prayer. The Dalai Lama introduces a new way of thinking of pain-suffering where the emphasis is a movement away from an entrenched self-focus: ‘In the Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life’ (12th c), Bodhicaryavatara says that there is a phenomenological difference between the pain you experience when you take on someone else’s pain yourself and the pain that comes directly from your own pain and suffering.’ (DL, 11) There is a new awakening when we realize this shift. Most participants had no difficulty in placing animals within the ‘sentient being’ range for animals too have the capacity to suffer. One participant took the idea of ‘sentient beings’ to include trees and plants; for they ‘grow toward the light’ and ‘in darkness (without adequate light), plants suffer or die.’ The lojong prayer can be directed to one ‘other’ individual or expanded to include the whole universe of ‘sentient beings’. We discussed the gospel of Thomas and its pantheistic statement: ‘split a piece of wood and I am there…lift up the stone and I am there’[1]. We discussed how different the Christian view would be if this gospel was considered canonical and if we took the love of all sentient beings to plants and animals as it relates to dominion.

wish granting gem: I chose a Buddhist poem by the Tibetan saint Milarepa (1052-1135), to describe the wish-granting gem: ‘All the wealth you have acquired from beginningless time until now has failed to fulfill all your desires, Cultivate therefore this wish-granting gem, of bodhichitta, O fortunate ones.’ (Milarepa, ‘Drinking from the Fountain Stream’) Cultivating bodhichitta (self for other, universal compassion for all sentient beings), from a Tibetan Mahayana perspective, is the highest gem. This idea was contrasted against the highest gem in the Western world which is generally money, sex and power. We discussed the sharp contrast between Tibetan and U.S. aspiration and the challenges inherent in taking on the mental focus-perspective called for in the lojong prayer. Some equated the highest gem as ‘treasure’ in the New Testament.[2]
seeing oneself as less than all others: The way of the Bodhisattva in bodhichitta can be misinterpreted by Westerners. The Dalai Lama assures us that he ‘certainly is not saying that one should engage in thoughts that would lower self-esteem…what is being emphasized is a sense of caring for others and a recognition of their preciousness based on reverence and respect, as superior beings (rather than pity or that they are inferior).’ (DL, 17, 15) This especially relates to negative emotional states such as anger. The Dalai Lama suggests that a cultivation of reverence to others gives one a restraining factor: ‘when powerful emotions arise, they will not be so powerful as to cause you to disregard the impact of your actions upon other sentient beings.’ (DL, 17) Instead of getting angry and reacting negatively, we can catch ourselves and hereby transform the experience. One participant took the phrase ‘may I see myself as less than all others and from the depth of my heart’ and spoke on how small one really is and the benefit of relinquishing the small and petty for the heartfelt good of the whole. In my own experience, there is an accumulation factor of power that comes in letting the small and petty fall to the side for a larger project.

examining the mind in all actions: The Dalai Lama identifies this verse as ‘the essence of the practice of Buddhism.’ (DL, 18) This essence is the freedom found in recognizing the ‘enemy’ within; the ‘emotional and mental afflictions that give rise to pain and suffering.’ (DL, 18) Traleg suggests that ‘our real problem is that we blame other people for our misery and never tire of the abuse we suffer from subjecting ourselves to our own egoistic minds.’ (T, 10) These ‘subtle inner thoughts have a huge impact on how we respond to others, how we conduct ourselves and how we evaluate ourselves.’ (T, 12) The lojong prayer takes us outside ourselves and essentially turns all events, regardless of their contents, into an advantage through a positive and ideally cheerful outlook.

beings of a negative disposition: Beings of a negative disposition give us an opportunity for practice. The Dalai Lama posits that when we encounter such people of negative disposition, our inclination is to react ‘in some strong and negative way’. (DL, 19) Instead of avoiding or running an internal dialogue about the person, the Dalai Lama informs that this is what practice is all about; using the most difficult and trying situations for transforming reality. People can be seen as a ‘treasure’ or ‘precious’ for they give us a vehicle to transform experience.

offer the victory to others: The lojong prayer offers an alternative to our natural inclination to win. The Dalai Lama writes that we ‘need to eliminate the excessive competitiveness and the ill-conceived ideas of prestige and face that continue to bedevil human relationships today.’ (DL, iv) We see this manifested in our relationships where in the minutest detail, we seek to save face: ‘the true practitioner is encouraged to accept defeat and offer victory, so that one doesn’t react in a negative way with outrage and anger.’ (DL, 19) These reactions can be very subtle and often come from our self-measurement. Can we lose our self-and other-critique and instead send out compassion to all sentient beings? As in the previous case, all opportunities offer an invitation for deeply transforming natural reaction for the good of the world.
may I see that one (giver of injustice) as a sacred friend: As in the previous example, a naturally troublesome situation can be transformed. The Dalai Lama is not advocating a kind of passivity where we accept everything that comes our way without utilizing our ‘force’. He suggests a transforming of the emotion through a deeper understanding. Transforming the ‘enemy’ situation follows along with the wisdom teachings of Jesus. Dalai Lama asks us to transform emotional and mental states and conditioned stimulus-response by standing outside and witnessing; turning naturally negative responses into beautiful gems. He also would suggest, to not stand passive, but to make strategic decisions (in Christian sense, in partnership with God) that uses our chosen reactions in order to teach others. Jesus, too, carried a similar kind of passivity (other than turning tables) yet he was able to create intersections of experience with certain people in order to teach higher universal truths that overturned conventional understanding.

eight mundane concerns: the eight mundane or worldly concerns are: material gain, material loss, praise and blame, acceptance and rejection, pleasurable sensory perception and unpleasant sensory stimulation. One participant reminded us that many of the themes in the lojong prayer are parallel to the teachings of the ancient Christian mystical tradition. Although Buddhists can be considered to be ‘atheistic’ (some commentators describe that an atheistic label is wrong but that the Buddha’s simply was unwilling to enter into debate about ‘God’ which detracts from the here and now), their teachings have a strong ‘Christian’ component.
Following the flow of introducing Buddhist terminology and the rich discussion that resulted, the group then went through the poem again stanza by stanza and identified additional Christian themes.

Additional Christian parallels
The most common connection found between the lojong prayer and the Christian tradition was in Jesus’ core commandment of ‘Loving God with all and neighbor as self’[3] with an emphasis on expanded neighbor[4] and in Jesus’ ‘self-emptying’ to the cross[5]. One participant made the link with the ‘mystical theology’ found in the Imitation of Christ.

The group discussed the use of ‘mother’ in the line ‘may I offer all joy to beings, my mothers, and may I take on their hurt and suffering.’ The patriarch Jacob came up in discussion regarding his wrestling and saying, ‘seeing your face is like seeing the face of God’[6] to brother Esau the following day. One young man suggested that seeing ‘mother’ in all others is positive for mothers ‘provide the greatest compassion, nurture, love…and call for our dependence.’ Placing this within the context of the lojong prayer’s focus on other, regardless of package, as a great gift and precious, is helpful. How transformed would our lives be if we saw all sentient beings that pass our way as a great gift for our nurture and to cherish our inter-dependence?
Many silent lojong meditations take on the giving and receiving: ‘may my joy flow out to you and may I take on your suffering.’ This is a difficult practice for many Westerners as a result of our system which places so much importance on self-empowerment and personal ‘rights’. Many people see such entry into a lojong prayer of this type as ‘weak and dis-empowering‘. I find it interesting (and sad) that this is the highest teaching among Tibetan Buddhists (all Mahayana traditions) yet in the Western world as a whole (and in many Christian circles), it is looked down upon as a non-viable practice. Luckily, there are many who are open to such refreshing teachings. What impact would the lojong teachings intention have on humankind if they were embraced rather than the norms derived from the capitalist-materialist set? At the center of the teachings of lojong, is the idea of self-sacrifice. From my perspective, Jesus calls us to a sacrifice and his example falls in line with the general intention of the lojong prayer.

Review of One Group’s Interaction
I thought it might be helpful to share some insights derived from one group’s working with the lojong prayer facilitated by me. I had an advantage in that this group was very open-minded.

Friend 1
Of special appreciation is the impact that the crossing of tradition had on the participants. One of my friends (as part of a group of four going through this exercise) is from India. Many years ago he converted to an evangelical form of Christianity. Kumar was quiet and did not become involved early saying that the prayer was ‘too philosophical’. Yet when we entered into discussion on the ‘eight mundane concerns’, he jumped in and taught us on the ‘illusory and impermanent nature of experience’ and discussed the overarching ‘Brahma’ in Hindu terms. His entry spurned a deep philosophical discussion on Brahma as representing the real truth as the Sun; the Rays as relative truth. At the end of the meeting, he contributed a re-languaged prayer that integrated his Indian roots with his Christian faith that brought in the spirit from the Buddhist lojong prayer:
May we seek the Eternal,
May we go Wherever You Lead Us,
May Our Mind be As Yours,
May We Think as You,
May We Treat Others as You Treated Us,
May We Be Filled with Joy of Eternal Salvation,
May We Be Free and not Under Bondage.
I believe that my friend’s entry into the new prayer and his recovery of familiar childhood roots is significant. He was able to contribute from many places that span his life experience and integrate them into something he created spontaneously yet is consistent with the spirit of the prayer.

Friend 2
In this group was a friend with Christian roots, who has traveled through Buddhism to the Islamic faith. She was able also to integrate from a wide variety of perspectives. For this friend, the lojong prayer is a prayer of an actively living faith. Although it may appear to some to be highly passive, for Anne, the meditation requires an effort of great proportion. By extending the concept of ‘sentient beings’, the prayer calls the participant into a greater communion and gives one a sensitivity to the whole universe. It expands one’s universe of inclusion.

Friend 3
Friend 3 is a young man I will call Malcolm who identified himself as a Christian-Buddhist. Malcolm referred us to Luke 9.23[7] and Jesus’ teachings to the disciples to ‘deny oneself, take up the cross and follow me’. For Malcolm, he chose to concentrate on the humanity of Jesus. Humans take up the cross in facing the human emotions of negativity, pain and suffering. We cannot escape living in the world without the natural reality of pain and suffering. The lojong prayer pushes us away from focusing on a divine emphasis and instead requires that we enter into the reality shifting the focus to other as Jesus did. In this respect, the lojong prayer is a very grounded meditation. Malcolm also introduced us to Isaiah and the testimony that ‘suffering is inherently meaningful.’

Taking the Lessons Forward
All of the participants were grateful for the entry into the lojong prayer. Some of the themes that were of particular importance include this reality that on one level, our internal thinking is our own worst enemy. Negative interpretations and judgment need to be checked and many committed themselves to noticing when their minds drift in counter-productive ways. Some took the prayer sheet and their notes with them and may work with the prayer on their own. Most participants agreed that the self-emptying component and Jesus’ kenotic movement was more original to Jesus and has been lost in many Christian congregations and in the pulpit today. We discussed that the self-emptying component in America is often seen as being ‘feminine’ when in fact it is ‘Jesus-centered’. My own take is that it offers a counterbalance and more directed solution to many of the world’s central problems.
Many gained a new-found appreciation for the Buddhist way. We were able to assemble and in our sharing learned more about one another.
After we finished our discussion, I asked the group for permission to wrap up our meeting with a final prayer and a period of silent worship. For prayer, I read the final two stanzas of the lojong prayer, added the contributions made by the three participants from my notes and we sat in silence as some voiced their appreciation for the moment.

Conclusion
I find great affinity with the Buddhist lojong prayer and see many parallels in Jesus’ kenotic movement to the cross. There have been many links made between Buddhist emptiness and Christ’s Kenosis in inter-religious dialogue efforts. The language of the prayer in this exercise presented specific challenges in processing the prayer with others. This brings to attention the importance of matching language, structure and exercise to the audience of participants.
Expanding one’s compassion to sentient beings on the widest level and exchanging self for other (bodhichitta) presents a great challenge. Regardless of the results, it is a challenge worth entering into in a spirit of deep compassion for other and in self-forgetting. This is not a way of passivity but a way of wisdom and strength that knows a different path to joy and peace which also benefits and teaches other.
Some were attracted to a more rounded understanding of God which included mother apart from Mary (as mother of Jesus), the idea of finding means for overcoming our self-focus and a more pantheistic view that sees God in all living things which includes animals and plants. Others may not agree; yet we must search for ideas that solve many of the current problems on a specific level and provide a greater balance. Part of this greater balance comes in inviting other traditions into our circles and building a greater Story.endnotes:
[1] Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." (Gospel of Thomas, verse 77)
[2] ‘’Do not lay for yourselves treasures on earth…but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven…for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.’ (Matt 6.19-20) ‘That their hearts be knit together in love, to have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.’ (Col. 2.2-3), Luke 12.21, Hebrews 11.26.
[3] ‘love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength…You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Mark 12.30-31)
[4] The parable of the good Samaritan. (Luke 10.25-37)
[5] ‘though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant…he humbled himself.’ (Philippians 2.6-8)
[6] ‘truly to see your face is like seeing the face of God.’ (Genesis 33.10)
[7] ‘If any person would come after me, let him deny themselves and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.’ (Luke 9.23-24)

***********************************************************************************

This paper represents my core interest in Abrahamic faith connection. Some of the links are reaches -- there is some good stuff in here though. Among my interests, this project integrating Buddhist mechanisms generates the greatest passion (accompanied by social action cooperative action-shared story-art among varied faith communities).

Three Flocks: Connecting the Gospel of John with the Book of Genesis

Introduction
Almost two thousand years have passed since the death of Jesus of Nazareth on a hill outside of Jerusalem. On each side of Jesus, hung on a cross, were two others. Through the Biblical account, in the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, Jesus spoke to God the Father before his death and uttered a final word. In the gospel of Mark, Jesus will cry to God, ‘Why have you forsaken me?’ and in Luke and Matthew, his words are ‘Into thy hands, I commit thy Spirit.’ In the gospel of John, Jesus says the final word ‘It is finished’.

The middle part of the first to the early second century was a period ripe with diverse gospel testimony. Beyond the gospels that will be accepted into canon and considered divinely inspired (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John), are a wide range of writings that speak to Jesus’ coming and resurrection from varied perspective. Scholars agree that many of the canonical gospel authors had access to the written works of others beyond the oral tradition such as the gospel of Thomas and the theoretical Q source.

Within the gospel canon of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John is an overlapping of story. The multiplicity adds richness as well as complexity to the interpretative process. New Testament scholars use the term double-tradition and triple-tradition to describe canonical gospel content that is found in two or three gospel narratives respectively. For example, the story of Jesus’ transfiguration is of triple-tradition because it can be found in Mark, Matthew and Luke but not in John. Many of Jesus’ parables are of double-tradition and triple-tradition; some stories or sayings are limited to one gospel. Some stories or sayings are found in all four canonical gospels.

The Markan priority is a leading theory that places the gospel of Mark as the first gospel written. If the reader look closely and follows key events among the canonical gospels (i.e. the transfiguration, Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Jesus’ crucifixion), a pattern of both progression and complementarity is presented to the reader. This progression is from the first gospel (Mark) in which the disciples ‘do not quite get it’ to the fourth gospel of John (considered the last gospel written). Comparing text of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem and Jesus’ crucifixion in the gospel of Mark to John, the reader is witness to a revealing pattern:

Mark: ‘Blessed be the kingdom of our father David that is coming!’
Luke/Matthew: ‘Blessed be the King who comes in the name of the Lord!’
John: ‘Blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!’

Mark: ‘Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?’
Luke/Matthew: ‘Into thy hands I commit my spirit.’
John: ‘It is finished.’

Whereas contemporary Biblical scholars look to other criteria to determine the sequence of gospel canon, their findings are showing an interesting movement of Holy Spirit inspiration. Is there a progression of Christ from Mark’s ‘Davidic lineage’ (‘why have you forsaken me?’) to John’s ‘the inclusive ‘King of Israel’’ (‘it is finished’)? This project will be looking at the gospel of John’s portrayal of Jesus as it relates to ‘Israel’ and the higher mediating solution in ‘Christ’.

Canon 363
New Biblical scholarship is opening up fresh ways of understanding the mystery of Biblical assembly. Many hold to the ‘closed view’ of Biblical canon and revelation and feel that much of the new interpretative work (outside of disciplined holding-to-tradition and accumulated canon of commentary and scholarship) is not respecting the sacredness of Biblical text and t(T)radition.

In the decades following Jesus’ death and resurrection, there was an explosion of oral and written testimonies of the Christ event. Many of the epistles of Paul were circulating in Asia Minor and Rome speaking to both Jews and Greeks before the four gospels were completed. Because pseudonymous works were common in the early period, modern scholarship is beginning to rightfully question the authenticity of some of the letters attributed to the apostle Paul.

Some question if whole letters were not written by others in the name of Paul. Others are finding that it is very likely that many of Paul’s letters contain interpolations—or later additions in the form of critical statements that shift the emphasis of Paul’s intent after his death. Therefore, the new scholarship on Paul is exciting as the sacred text is being examined and the idea of closed revelation is being challenged.

The assemblers of canon had before them a wide range of texts in which to choose from in putting together the Bible. In general terms, twenty-seven ‘books’ (the four gospels, the fourteen epistles of ‘Paul’, letters and the book of Revelation) were selected from a wide range of texts.

The recent findings of sacred scrolls at Nag Hammadi in southern Egypt (1947; many of the texts not available until the 1970’s) bring to attention that there was a great vitality and diversity of thought that surrounded Christ from both Jewish and Greek perspectives in the early centuries. Many of the unearthed texts, found in water jars hidden in caves in Nag Hammadi, point to a one time necessity among devoted ‘Christian’ groups to preserve sacred teachings. Could their timely exposure in the mid-twentieth century, (some forty-five different tractates found) be a call for an opening up and critique of canon and closed revelation?

Looking back to the early centuries, the idea of setting a new canon among the emerging ‘Christian’ group came as early as the second century. Marcion (110-160) and his followers chose the gospel of Luke and ten epistles of Paul, taking out eschatological content (prophesies concerning Christ’s second coming), to guide their group in the mid-second century AD. Irenaeus, during this same period, was the first to call for the four-gospel set of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

Church Fathers Origen’s (185-254) and Eusebius’ (263-339) writings demonstrate that many books were taken into consideration running up to final canon establishment which occurred in 363 AD with the Council of Laodocia and Constantine. Some books that found themselves on the fringe of canon include the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermes, Revelation of Peter and the Revelation of John.

It is revealing that books such as the gospel of Philip, the incomplete gospel of Mary and the gospel of Thomas, as well as the books mentioned above, if accepted into canon, would have greatly shifted the normative view of Jesus.

According to sources, the Council of Laodocia’s canon did not include the book of Revelation. It was not until St. Athanasius’ Easter Letter of 367 that the book of Revelation was included and the canon that matches today’s Christian Canon was finalized (adding thirty-nine books from the Jewish tradition). Athanasius’ letter also suggested other books ‘profitable for instruction’: The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd. The differences in canon among varied Christian groups are referred to as apocryphal works.

An important matter to consider is that the Christian Bible that we know today in 2008, which includes a foundation of sixty-six books, was set by a group of European men in the year 363, over sixteen hundred years ago.

The concern for the author is that the idea of a closed canon and closed revelation is limiting to solve the issues that we face today as Jews, Christians and Muslims. Our separate divinely-inspired and set positions put us in a precarious intra-relationship as Abrahamic faith traditions that share a common beginning; one that is potentially heading for a greater divisive end.

Jewish-Christian-Muslim Beginning in Genesis

The suggestion of a greater Jewish, Christian and Muslim intra-relationship may place the reader in a predicament either through a lack of background knowledge or through the author’s own limitation.

Let me make this background clearer to you as it is read in the book of Genesis (a common book for Jew and Christian). (As a mention, the Islamic Koran (7th century AD) presents different stories of Adam, Noah, Mary, Abraham, Joseph, Moses,…and the Jewish tradition adds additional riches to the tradition through the Rabbinic Mishnah and Midrash).

Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God of Abraham and trace their lineages back to Abra(ha)m as founding Father. Abraham became the father of two sons; the first born Ishmael and the second Isaac. Ishmael and his mother the slave-woman Hagar were expelled into the wilderness.

In the Muslim tradition, as an example of shared story, there is the story of Abraham and Ishmael building the Kabba (a place of Muslim worship in Mecca) and a story of the sacrifice of Ishmael at Mount Olives (the Jewish-Christian sacrifice story is that of Isaac).

Contained in the book of Genesis is the story of Hagar and Ishmael and the first-born son and mother’s expulsion into the wilderness. It is in the desert that God will hear the boy and respond in offering Hagar a covenant at the well Beersheba.

The story in Genesis continues with Isaac, the second born who is given a greater covenant. Isaac will marry Rebekkah and another first and second born son story follows. Esau the first-born is tricked out of covenant-blessing and Jacob is favored.

Jacob is named on two occasions Israel, and after fleeing his brother Esau at Bethel following his second naming, the story of 'Israel' runs to the end of the book of Genesis.

The first-born Esau, after being tricked out of his blessing, marries Ishmael’s daughter and so begin the descendents Edom who play a very subtle role throughout the rest of the Old Testament. The end of Genesis tells the story of the establishment of the twelve tribes of Israel. Edom and the descendents of Ishmael-Esau establish their own nation to the east in Arabia.

We will be discussing at some point the interesting role of Joseph in Egypt in the book of Genesis as it relates to 'Israel'.

Thousands of years are included in the story of the people ‘Israel’ that runs throughout the Old Testament. In the book of Exodus, the story of deliverance, the ‘congregation Israel’ is led by Moses and delivered from the hand of Pharaoh (the Koran also includes similar subject stories of the exodus, the giving of the law, Moses, Aaron..). Stories of the rise and fall of kingdom and Israel’s intense suffering at the hands of foreign leaders are balanced against times of prosperity and independence. God’s covenants change as do his workings with the leadership of Israel.

There is great hope that a Messiah will come from the Jewish people. Jesus is born a Jew, and instead of being the Earthly Messiah as expected by the Jewish people as a descendent of David, Jesus, the first-born Lamb of God, dies and is raised as the King of the inclusive Israel. It is in his resurrection that came through Jesus’ example, that Christians believe that humankind can be saved and resurrected. This Jesus ‘came from God and returned to God’, the same God as the God of Abraham. He came as the ‘true Light in every (hu)man’ (John 1.9) and all humankind should see themselves and others as ‘sons and daughters of this Light’ (John 12.36).

The Muslims, as descendents of the people Edom and Ishmael-Hagar, offer a call for a return to the One God through the revelations of the Prophet Mohammed in the seventh century. The Koran speaks of Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, ‘the children of Israel’, Ishmael, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Mary and Jesus and other Old and New Testament figures and events offering a rich traditional perspective.

The emerging discussion-of-difference is not what was in Jesus’ day between Jew and Samaritan-Greek but what stands between Jews and Muslims today. And this is Jesus the Christ, the first-born sacrificed in compassion for the outcast; a group that includes the descendents of expelled first-born Ishmael and Esau into an inclusive Israel.

Table 1 (not imported) gives some idea of the macro focus of this project. The attempt is to align the macro intention with the micro at the cross with Jesus as the pathway to a higher reconciling point. Jesus, resurrected as the Christ, in fulfilling God’s will, shows the way to reconciliation that he showed to the Samaritan and Jewish group in the first century.

The way of John’s Jesus is a path of movement; a path of holding to one’s own tradition while entering into increasing layers of difference and distilling the message of inclusion. The assumption in the table is that time is eternal and that the sacred Scriptures as they read should, beyond giving life to our own circles as Christians, be pointed to today’s predicament in the split between Jew and Muslim. Underneath the sacred and divisive scriptural word, in the Bible and in the Koran, is a story that can be assembled to the greater unification of Christian, Jew and Muslim.

Among all things, which includes on a micro level the way of Jesus to the Christ at the cross as the mediating solution between you and me or he and she (wherever two or three are gathered) into a higher resurrected Light of Truth, Jesus died to break down the dividing wall of difference that comes from a one-sided ego perspective. Depending on the gospel translation, it is written that Jesus was crucified between two ‘thieves’, 'others', 'revolutionaries' or ‘robbers’.

On both a micro and macro level, we are in danger of taking to mind only a one dimensional perspective as robber and it can be said, that we need the gift of other’s perspectives of God for a deeper understanding. The light of the resurrected Christ draws us up to a binding compromise, a higher fulfillment that comes in partnership with the ‘other side’.

The covenants given in Genesis to both the descendents of Ishmael-Hagar and Isaac-Sarah should be known. As Christians, we should lift up the stories of both Jew and Muslim in our circles and serve in calling Jews and Muslims together to share their rich traditional stories into a greater story of inclusion and fullness. The synergetic call in the reconciling effort is to identify a higher binding essence of neutrality, to return to the beginning of the story and to work together to heal the divisions that separate.

As example, as Christians, how can we help to reconcile the story of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac found in the Jewish and Christian tradition but also that of Ishmael as found in the Muslim tradition? God’s covenant given to both Hagar and Abraham-Sarah? Is there any benefit in linking the well stories of Jesus and the Samaritan woman in the gospel of John backward to the well stories in Genesis which include God’s covenant given to Hagar and the story of the three flocks of sheep at Jacob’s well. Jacob says: ‘It is high noon, it is not time for the sheep to be gathered.’ Consider Jacob’s weeping at the well when he gathers one of the three flocks, Esau and Jacob weeping at a potential for reconciliation into Israel, Jesus’ weeping at Lazarus’ raising from the dead, Mary’s weeping at Jesus’ tomb.

Why the Gospel of John?

John’s gospel gives us a way to the high point of resurrecting mediation in Christ. Of the four gospels, the gospel of John provides an additional answer into the unlocking of understanding Jesus as the Lamb of God, the inclusive Christ and the King of a greater Israel. In addition, the gospel of John comes closer to opening up linkages with the recently recovered gospels of Philip, Mary and Thomas and provides an entryway back into Jesus’ proclamation ‘before Abraham was, I am’ and the book of Genesis.

My belief is that the Scriptures are divinely inspired and that there is a continuation of divine inspiration in each Biblical translation. Whereas most scholars return to the Hebraic or Greek language root and the original historical context to gather meaning, the project’s method is to work within the universe of one translation and to search for a solution that comes from out of the words in a full inclusionary spirit speaking to today’s macro and hence micro context. Both methods can prove vital. (In additional research, I hold to the belief that some texts are three dimensional (true in the historical situation, today's situation and universally true and that in the example of the 'shepherd' (John 11) that there can be two voices...this is a recent inquiry)

In this case, I will limit the universe of inquiry to the gospel of John and the book of Genesis using the Revised Standard Version. Hereby, the flow will consist of circular movements within the gospel of John in cultivating an increased understanding of the Christ Essence, as Jesus’ way to the Resurrected end and new beginning, and then the project returns to the beginning in the book of Genesis before Abra(ha)m. It is the project’s intention to explore the reality of Christ as the expression of non-division for John’s Jesus only divided against the dividers.

The second table (not imported) speaks to one of the challenges inherent in this project. The emerging idea is to foster an ability to see matters more non-dualistically as it relates to inclusion and exclusion. The working is to encourage a way of holding to one view while giving credence to an opposing view (i.e. baptism debate, Isaac-Ishmael sacrifice) and meeting in a higher transcending intersection. John’s Jesus urges us to be One, a God worshipped in spirit and truth transcending form and name.

In a later chapter, the project will work with the Pharisaic tendency to collective judgment contrasted against the born blind man made to see who simplifies the ‘way of entry’: ‘If anyone is a worshipper of God and does his will, God listens to him’ which is significant in terms of Jesus’ Samaritan inclusion as it connects to a Muslim parallel.

The gospel of John best addresses the dual nature of One for Christians as John presents both a micro answer to developing and sustaining community (footwashing, Jesus’ urgings to be One) and a macro Universal contribution that speaks to the all inclusive ‘Israel’ reflected in Jesus’ identification as both a Jew and as a Samaritan: Our assignment in engaging with the gospel of John will be to identify the Christ Essence through John’s telling of the story of Jesus.

This project has come from many hours of scriptural study with a compassion for the outcast represented by Ishmael and his mother Hagar. There is a covenant to protect, and a book of beginning in Genesis that can be read through the cross that attempts to integrate first and second born splits and bring richness to the Abra(ha)mic story and a greater Israel through also including the Koranic perspective. My hope is that other faith traditions and the people of the East can join in to suggest ways of overcoming our ego-centered perspectives so that we may meet in a more fruitful way in our intersection with others of difference.

Chapter One: John’s Jesus ‘Come and See’

Within its many layers, John’s gospel presents a story of paradigm expansion. The universe he creates in telling the story of Jesus in all its intricacy offers the reader wondrous challenges. One challenge is in identifying the Christ Essence contained within ‘Jesus of Nazareth’, the ‘Son of man’, the ‘King of the Jews’, which led him forward and into Jerusalem for the final time to receive His great glorification as the ‘Son of God’, ‘the Christ’ and ‘the King of Israel’.

The movement from Jesus to Christ is in the linear story culminating in the glorifying resurrection on the third day following Jesus’ sacrifice between two (‘there they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them’, John 19.18). Jesus, hereby, is the ‘way, the truth and the life’ (John 14.6) and is to be followed. But where and in what way is he asking us to go?

Before we begin our entry into the gospel of John, let me warn the reader that this is strenuous work. John’s gospel, in its high spiritual content, is also considered to be the most anti-Semitic gospel.

I think a good way to read this gospel is in a highly symbolic sense; what John presents in the example of Jesus to Christ is a deeper movement to Essence that speaks to a Light Universal in all people, an entry into a way that 'transcends yet includes' tradition. The way will result in a challenge to the Pharisaic element and 'original family' who use a conditioned group collective or tradition in which to claim exclusive salvation and exclusive blessedness.

There is a clear revolutionary message that comes from John’s gospel and it is important to look at who Jesus engages with and what he says. There are Pharisees in every group as there are (Jesus) and others who seek to transcend form and to find some higher binding element that brings people together. The inclusive drive balances against the necessity for order and living out of tradition. Jesus is the way, truth and life spiritually and found in each religious tradition: loving God, embracing tradition, seeking a simplified ethic of inclusion and loving others as self.

A good place to begin may be at the beginning with Jesus’ first question and his first two statements in his first interaction with his first two disciples. (I will also include Jesus’ last statement in the gospel of John on questioning):
(Realize that much of the text used is scripture, so read slowly...)

‘John was standing with two of his disciples: and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God!’ The two disciples (consider 'unknown disciple') heard him say this and followed Jesus.’ (1.35-37, RSV)
Jesus’ first question: ‘What do you seek?’ (1.38)
Disciples answer with a question: ‘Rabbi (Teacher), Where are you staying?’ (1.38)
Jesus two statements: ‘Come and see’ (1.39) and ‘Follow me’ (1.43)
Jesus’ last statement on questioning: ‘So you have sorrow now, but I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you. On that day, you will ask me no questions.’ (16.22)

Although there are different ways of interpreting what ‘on that day’ means, in one sense it could be seen as the day of the resurrection. Jesus appears to Mary first, saying to her, ‘Mary’ (20.16). Mary first recognizes Jesus as the gardener. Once her name is called, ‘she turned and said to him in Hebrew, ‘Rabboni!’ (joy without question).’ (20.16) Jesus tells Mary of his coming ascension to the Father:
‘…go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father, and your Father, to my God and your God...’ (20.17) ‘Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples, ‘I have seen the Lord’; and she told them that he had said these things to her.’ (20.18)…..

The significance of Jesus’ original question and answer sets the stage for John’s gospel. The two disciples immediately follow Jesus after hearing John the Baptist proclaim Jesus as the ‘Lamb of God!’

John (the Baptist) has proclaimed that this ‘Lamb of God’ has come to ‘take away the sins of the world.’ (1.29b) John said, ‘This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me…for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.’ (1.30-31) (why 'to Israel'?)

Jesus, as a Jew, was in a position to be the new King from the Jewish perspective, as a descendent of David. Yet instead of accepting this role, Jesus was being revealed to the people Israel and will show the disciples his way to a resurrected end and new beginning.

This is the first use of the author John's 'come and see' in his gospel.

Second: Philip to Nathanael, ‘Come and See’

The next day, following Jesus’ encounter with the two disciples Andrew and ‘the other’ (who name him Rabbi then: for ‘they came and saw where he was staying’ (1.39b) naming him ‘Messiah’), Philip is asked by Jesus to follow him to Galilee and Philip gathers Nathanael.

In their excitement, both Philip and Nathanael, are tied to a historically-bound paradigm of Messiah:

‘Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, ‘We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’ Nathanael said to him, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ Philip said to him, ‘Come and see.’ (1.45-46)

‘Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said of him, ‘Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom, there is no guile.’ (1.47) Consider 'Israelite without guile', guile meaning 'cunning, deceit, treachery' and Jacob's (later 'Israel') trickery of Esau.

‘Nathanael said to him, ‘How do you know me?’ Jesus answered him, ‘before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.’ (1.48)
‘Nathanael answered him, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!’ (1.49)

Philip is, perhaps without knowing it, inviting Nathanael into an understanding of the Messiah which will be unveiled as they serve as Jesus’ disciples. One statement and three stumbling blocks are put up here as the gospel of John unfolds:
1. Jesus’ primary title is Rabbi or Teacher.
2. the references to Jesus’ sonship to God (‘Son of God’) will bring him into conflict with the Jewish authority.
3. the reference to ‘King of Israel’ will bring Jesus into conflict with Caesar and the Roman authority and
4. Jesus’ movement-expansion of designated ‘Israel’ threatens traditional understandings of Israel and the Pharisaic authority.

Jesus as Rabbi is inviting his disciples in to give them a revolutionary teaching about the son-ship or daughter-ship of all that transcends tradition-identification (such as Jewish or Samaritan understandings of group-saving Messiah) and a God that infuses all in the form of Light. The words in chapter one may help us: ‘He gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.’ (1.12b-13)

Third Instance: The Samaritan Woman at the Well

Perhaps one of the most significant movements of the Jewish Jesus in John’s gospel is in his interaction with the Samaritans. Jews worshipped toward and in the temple in Jerusalem. Samaritans, while holding many Jewish foundations such as Torah observance, worshipped a temple built on Mount Gerizim (of opposite direction).

Jewish teachers such as the Pharisees and the Jewish people in general, because of different traditions and a contentious inter-relational history with the Samaritans, held them in the greatest contempt (and vice versa). As we know, Jesus walked among the Samaritan people and taught them. It is the Samaritan woman in chapter four of the gospel of John, who after engaging with Jesus, returns to the city and:

‘said to the people, ‘Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?’ (4.29)

What is the significance of Jesus’ visit and affiliation with a group despised but having similar histories and worshipping a different direction (mount Gerizim)? We know the beginning of this story as Jesus approaches the Samaritan woman at the well. She questions Jesus and he responds:

Woman: ‘Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well, and drank of it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?’ (4.12)
Jesus: ‘Every one who drinks of the water that I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life’ (4.13-14, combined)

Jesus banters with the woman and tells her about her past. Her answer speaks of Jesus as a great prophet: ‘Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.’ (4.19) Jesus is seen in different ways by the people.

Jesus gives her a compromise on the issue of the direction of worship, Jesus states:
‘God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.’ (4.24)

Rather than an emphasis on tradition-bound insistence on place, Jesus is opening up a radical acceptance of mutuality between Samaritan and Jew. Although his words are challenging in stating:

‘You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.’ (4.22),

Perhaps there is a relationship here of Jesus’, ‘I come not to destroy, but to fulfill’, and that the relationship between tradition and inclusion is a great mystery. Salvation is from the God of the Jews extended outward to include the Samaritans.

After the Jewish Rabbi’s (Jesus’) teaching that those who worship God should do so in spirit and truth, the woman proclaims:
‘I know that the Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things.’ (4.25)

Jesus replies with a saying of full inclusion: ‘Jesus said to her, I who speak to you am he.’ (4.26)

Throughout John’s gospel, Jesus speaks in pronoun combinations that shape truths outside of title labels. Imagine the following possibilities here. Beyond Jesus’ agreement that he is what she says as she imagines and more, Jesus could be saying (taking into consideration Jesus’ previous statement, ‘I who speak to you am he.’):
1. I am God.
2. God is speaking to you.
3. You are contained within God (you within I and am).
4. Perhaps the greatest stretch is that within the Godhead, the ‘I am’, contains all three singular pronouns of I, you and he(she). The fact that Jesus, as Jew, is speaking these words to the greatest representative outsider to the Jewish tradition (Samaritan woman), and because ‘salvation is from the Jews’, then salvation is for all people, individually, into a greater One. ‘We’, as collective, in a negative form is represented by the Pharisees who use the collective to judge in terms of separating those outside of God and hold to a law and language of exclusion.

The woman leaves her water jar, goes into the city, and says to the people:

‘Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ? They went out of the city and were coming to him.’ (4.29-30)
The Samaritans come to Jesus and invite him to stay:
‘he stayed there two days. And many more believed because of his word.’ (4.40-41)

In a friendly interpretation, Jesus did not seek to convert or change them but he let them be; he gave them freedom to worship as they did in a good way and perhaps encouraged the ‘spirit and truth’ aspect. After Jesus left, the Samaritan people responded to the woman concerning Jesus:
‘We know indeed that this is the Saviour of the world.’ (4.42)

In some way, we could say that Jesus identified himself as a Samaritan. Later in John’s gospel, Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees:

‘Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?’ Jesus answered, ‘I have not a demon; but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.’ (8.48b-49)

Jesus’ not addressing the first question, could reflect his sympathies and lack of identifying himself in limiting terms. Perhaps Jesus sees himself as a Jew and Samaritan.

Fourth and final use: Lazarus and the Jews, 'Remove the Stone’

In chapter eleven, we have the final use of ‘Come and see’ in John’s gospel. The text identifies the following people present in Bethany when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead; Mary, Martha, the disciples including Thomas the twin, and other Jews.

Following Martha’s proclamation ‘Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world’ (11.27), Martha went and called her sister Mary, saying quietly, ‘The Teacher is here and is calling for you. And when she heard it, she rose quickly and went to him.’ (11.28-29)

Mary rises quickly and goes to the tomb followed by the Jews. Mary sees Jesus and falls at his feet. Jesus, touched by the weeping of Mary and the Jews, and perhaps as a premonition to his own death (cave burial), becomes ‘deeply moved in spirit and troubled.’ (11.33)

Jesus says: ‘Where have you laid him?’

‘They said to him, ‘Lord, come and see.’ ('When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was deeply moved and troubled')

'Jesus wept.’ (11.34-35) ('Wept' can be found throughout the Bible, 'Ishmael wept and God hears' (Gen 21.16), 'Esau weeps at lost blessing' (27.38), 'Jacob kisses Rachel and waters one flock of sheep' (29.11), 'Jacob and Esau weep together' (33.4), Joseph's heart yearned for brother (Benjamin-son of sorrow, 43.30), Joseph weeps on Benjamin and Benjamin weeps on Joseph)

‘So the Jews said, ‘See how he loved him!’ (11.36) (Mary, Jews, people of Lazarus)
‘Then, Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb; it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. Jesus said, ‘Take away the stone.’ (11.38-39)

‘Come and See’ Wrap-Up

The three stories of ‘come and see’ are brilliant in revealing the breadth of Jesus the Christ’s resurrecting power and the extent of his mission. In the first case with Philip and Nathanael, there is a ‘right seeing’ that is associated with understanding Jesus as ‘Son of God’ (Jesus' correction that 'all can be (are) sons and daughters of God') and his kingship for an inclusive ‘Israel’ that will be unfolding in the story.

In the second case with the Samaritans, we are given a lesson as to the inclusive extent of John’s gospel and to an idea of a God who wishes to be worshipped in spirit and truth transcending difference in form. And in the raising of Lazarus, Martha’s deep understanding of the resurrecting power is brought back, raising her beloved brother from the dead and giving a potential foreshadowing to the power of the stone removed and the release of flowing eternal water and life, Spirit for all. (See stories of 'well' in Genesis)

In the first case, we have Jesus’ ‘Come and see’; in the second, Philip to the ‘Jew without guile questioning whether anything good can come out of Nazareth’, Nathanael; the third, the Samaritan woman to her people (worshippers of a different direction) who saw Jesus as ‘Savior of the world’ and fourthly to a group of disciples and Jews who out of compassion for Lazarus, told Jesus, ‘Lord, come and see.’

The sequence of ‘Lamb of God’ (1.29, 1.36), to ‘King of Israel’ (1.49), to inclusive of Samaritan as ‘Saviour of the world’ (4.42), to the Resurrecting Power Giving Life (11.44) as a Foreshadowing of Jesus Resurrection (21) is staggering in its pattern. Jesus remained a Jewish Rabbi until his death and in his resurrection (Mary, ‘Rabboni!’) taught the world the true path to and in God.

Jesus and the Pharisees: ‘We’ and Judgment

Throughout the gospel of John, Jesus’ greatest challengers came in the form of the Pharisees. As Jesus kept moving outward into new areas of ministry bringing sight and a simplified message to the people, the Pharisees were close at hand ready to correct his healing presence to those outside the fold and challenge him on the ‘law’. (i.e. Sabbath healing)

In the Encyclopaedia Judaica, the origin of the word ‘Pharisee’ comes from:
‘the Hebrew root parash and is generally believed to mean ‘the separated ones’ or the ‘separatists’. The entry suggests that ‘according to some scholars, ‘Pharisee’ would mean ‘those who are set apart’, i.e. avoiding contact with others for reasons of ritual purity, or those who ‘separated themselves’ from the heathens.’ (30, v 16)

This is significant for the gospel of John is very subtle in its inclusionary message: ‘the true light that enlightens every (hu)man was coming into the world.’ (1.9) Jesus came for judgment and his greatest challenge was directed at the Pharisees. He called them for their tendency to separate and to speak out of a judgmental and collective ‘We’ identification often centered on law and ritual.

We see opposite views when we contrast statements of 'we' as they relate to the ‘light in every person’ versus the Pharisaic use of ‘we’. Let us compare some of the various uses of 'we' in John's gospel:

followers:
‘And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.’ (1.14)
‘From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.’ (1.16)
‘We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’ (6.69)
‘Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.’ (17.11)

Pharisees-Jews:
‘The Jews said to one another, ‘Where does this man intend to go that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?’ (7.35)
‘They answered him, ‘We are descendents of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, ‘You will be made free?’ (8.33)
‘Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?’ (8.48)
‘The Jews said to him, ‘Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and so did the prophets; yet you say, ‘Whoever keeps my word will never taste death.’ (8.52)
‘Then they reviled him (the born blind man made to see), saying, ‘You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.’ (9.28)

Jesus’ direct hit on the Pharisaic way and judgment is found in chapter nine for:

‘Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.’ (9.39)

One translation of this passage is:
‘those who do not see (judgment) see and that those who see (judgment) may become blind.’

Judgment, of course, is a natural human condition and essential for discernment. What Jesus is challenging in this passage is the strong divisive Pharisaic element of collective judgment that runs throughout John’s gospel (and within our separate traditions).

Part of the frustration is in receiving support of this interpretation in other Reformation Biblical commentaries (there is no collective ‘We’ in divisive sense). Therefore, in making this assessment, the author is entering new territory. (as much of this work)

One example of commentary on John 9.39 is given below by John Calvin:
Calvin on John 9.39: ‘So, then, they see, says our Lord Jesus Christ, who, deceiving themselves and others under a foolish confidence in their wisdom, are guided by their own opinion, and reckon their vain imaginations to be great wisdom. Such persons, as soon as Christ appears in the brightness of his Gospel, are made blind.’

This commentary does not address the ‘judgment’ aspect as presented. Calvin’s interpretation is a bit different than the assessment given encouraging a sight that comes in not judging who is in and out of God’s love and plan and points to an alternative perspective on ‘sin’. The passage continues:

‘Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, ‘Are we also blind?’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no ('sin' in NRSV) guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see’, your (sin) guilt remains.’ (9.40-41)

Inserting ‘judgment’, we have:
‘If you were blind (to judgment), you would have no (sin) guilt’

In a more radical way, not only is Jesus speaking against judgment but he is speaking against any form of exclusionary ‘we’. Jesus’ antagonism with the Pharisees is important to consider.

The separatists stand ready to divide and cut up through a tradition-bound paradigm and exclusive claim to God. Jesus stands in the midst of the groups of Samaritan and Jew (and all such separation, crucified in between two). Jesus continually works on a complicated pattern of ‘mutual acceptance’; that both allows separate traditions to stand (‘salvation is from the Jews’) but seeks unification in ‘spirit and truth’.

This is not to say that there is not judgment. It is not ours to give. The judgment to be given in following Jesus is in dividing against the dividers such as Pharisaic-like representatives. There is a clear divisiveness of judgment in John’s gospel.

Jesus claims authority to ‘execute judgment’ as ‘Son of man’ (5.27). He speaks in chapter five:
‘Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and to those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.’ (5.29)

May I equate doing good as a natural result of a non-divisive vision? What to do with this second layer of the light as a corrector to behavior and as final judge? These are questions that will need to be put on the shelf for now.

Necessity of Being Born Anew

Jesus corrects Nicodemus in chapter three and emphasizes the importance of the new birth, ‘unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ (3.3) Jesus is speaking of a new birth in the Spirit (3.5); a re-birth that transcends blood associations.

We remember the beginning in John: ‘born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God.’ (1.13) Right here and right in front of one in Jesus.

Nicodemus questions Jesus and Jesus replies:
‘Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?...And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life…For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son…and this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil…But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.’ (3.10, 14, 16, 19, 21)

The author is not advocating that ‘vision of the Light within all’ (‘came or coming’ but eternal reality beyond form and at death) is the necessary sole component.

John's Jesus is calling all into this undivided Light. If we see beyond the differences as ‘children of God’ (1.12) and are born anew in the Spirit, then a full inclusionary vision will result in good deeds because of a more intense awareness of the Infinite nature of the triad of ‘Loving God with all mind and heart, and one’s neighbor as oneself.’

It is the Pharisaic mentality that sees deep divisions based on tradition and law and holds to an exclusionary perspective that Jesus addresses here, beyond those clearly lost in evil deeds.

Jesus was for the one beyond any group affiliation. Jesus said, ‘For this is the will of my Father that every one who sees the Son (and will be clarified) and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.’ (6.40) Jesus calls for full inclusion and a simple truth.

The gospel of John speaks on ‘seeing’. What was it that the born blind man made to see has to teach the reader as he encounters the Pharisees (collective dividers)?

Jesus and the Born Blind Man Made to See

The gospel of John gains momentum as both a sense of fragmentation and urgency surfaces for the ‘Pharisees-Jews’ (symbolic sense within each tradition) as the deeply held collective understandings of the ‘Messiah’ and exclusive favor fall apart before their eyes. The collective expectation is challenged in the form of Jesus’ interactions as he moves forward to full glory on the cross.

The story of the born blind man made to see in chapter nine, just as the story of the Samaritan woman at the well in chapter four, point to this complete paradigm shift to a simplification in the message of inclusion, where the forms of security are being dropped and the status quo of institution and power are challenged. There is fear and realization; a fear and realization that ‘the light that enlightens every man was coming into the world’ (1.9) and that a new dawn was coming into being challenging people's understanding and calling for a new vision.

We see this shift in the simple story of the born blind man made to see.

Coming out of the temple, Jesus is quickly met by a ‘man blind from his birth.’ (9.1)
Notice the symbolism here. What does it take for a person to receive his sight and see and believe in a new understanding of the Lord? He is calling us to the same movement. We are all born blind in a sense of original tradition. Jesus is calling all to a transcend-and-include view that simplifies the criteria for entry and makes greater connections with those outside one's own tradition. Jesus sets out to heal giving the man the capacity to see.

Jesus ‘spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay, saying to him, ‘Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which means Sent).
So he went and washed and came back seeing.’ (9.6-7)

Within a short time, John weaves the neighbors, Pharisees and parents into the story. The story continues:
‘The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar, said, ‘Is this the man who used to sit and beg?’
Some said, ‘It is he’; others said, ‘No, but he is like him.’ He said, ‘I am the man.’ (9.8-9)

This interpretation runs on two levels; the second is the question of who did the healing. Is the man Jesus, as some say, the ‘Son of God’, the ‘Christ’, the ‘King of Israel’? The people are answering a different question here and are divided (enter into to John’s pronoun artistry):

Some say that Jesus is he, the Son of God, the Christ-Messiah, the Taleb, the King of Israel. (based on their own interpretation of those titles and hopeful expectation)
others say, no, he is only a resemblance but falls short.
the born blind man made to see testifies: The man is God (I am), (and God is in man).

The blind 'person' made to see is asked how he received his sight.

The new man answered, ‘The man called Jesus made clay…’ Within Jesus contains the resurrecting power of Christ in God (Son of God) to those who believe in him (he who is-was sent). They said to him, ‘Where is he?’ He said, ‘I do not know.’ (9.12)

The man is taken to the Pharisees for the healing was done on the Sabbath, ‘and there is a division among them.’ (9.16c)

The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, and took him to his parents. His parents deferred from entering into conversation for they feared they would be put out of the synagogue (put out of their collective group; a form of self-preservation). They say: ‘He is of age, ask him.’ (9.23)
The new man speaks confidently and the Jews tell him: ‘You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.’ (9.28)

The man answered,

‘Why, this is a marvel! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshipper of God and does his will, God listens to him.’ (9.30-31)

This is a very simple formulation that transcends the Jew-Samaritan debate. The matching translation of ‘marvel’ is found in Jesus’ interaction with Nicodemus regarding the necessity of being born anew.

After the new man’s distilled inclusive testimony, the Pharisees ‘cast him out.’

‘Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, ‘Do you believe in the Son of man?
He answered, ‘And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?’
Jesus said to him, ‘You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you.’
He said, ‘Lord, I believe’; and he worshipped him.’ (9.35-38)

The born blind man was healed through Jesus to God. And from the lesson, the message was distilled to a simple one: worship God and do his will and God will listen.

There is a new birth in the Spirit that comes not ‘of blood nor the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God.’ (1.13) All are Son (Daughter) in the Spirit.
‘While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons (daughters) of light.’ (12.36)
‘…and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.’ (12.32)

Chapter Two: ‘I am’

On one level, Jesus was a man born into a tradition who had great power. He kept to his tradition as Rabbi and Teacher yet sought a greater inclusion. We have seen how he moved among the Samaritans and encouraged a mediating solution in worshipping the Father in spirit and in truth. We have seen how his miracles such as healing the born blind man gave the man new sight where the message of inclusion was simplified to ‘if any person worship God and does his will, God listens to him.’

Jesus' preaching and prophesy to a coming change where the collective is expanded to include others set him up against his own people and eventually ended in his death on a cross. (Jews, Muslims and Christians who take the same inclusive path within their own traditions are open to the same symbolic result of lesser extent)

This section will enter difficult territory as the author will attempt to both identify the titles of this movement and link the gospel text in the gospel of John going back to the book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Of particular interest is in Jesus’ engagement with the Jews when the discussion turns to Abra(ha)m and Jesus proclaims ‘before Abraham was, I am.’ (John 8.58)

This is significant for Jesus as the way points to many ‘I am’ statements in the gospel of John that refer to his historical importance as shepherd of One Flock. There is a sense in the linear flow of history that Jesus’ message and way points to a new triad that runs ahead and is particularly parallel to his movement with the Samaritans.

In today’s world, the duad of Jew and Samaritan and Jesus’ solution as discussed can be especially significant for today as we move forward into the s(S)tory that includes the Muslims. This triad points to the beginning in the formation of Israel in the book of Genesis and of the monotheistic God of Abraham.

This complex entry of understanding the flow of the three religions of Abraham will be addressed as we venture forth. Important to remember is that there is a way in Jesus to Christ that embraces one’s own particular tradition but seeks a greater unification with ‘other’ by simplifying the message of inclusion and finding that the other’s story brings greater richness to the s(S)tory.

But also call to mind that a challenge to the more fundamentalist and exclusive function within each faith may very often result in persecution and suffering. I will not be speaking against any one tradition of course but will be encouraging an open mind and a willingness to see the triad of Jew, Christian and Muslim in a new way; with new eyes.

In order for this to be possible, it is important to consider the Christ Essence taken back and running through the story in a reconciling sense; as the resurrecting power between two just as Jesus was crucified in between two ‘others’. Consider Jesus as first-born sacrificed in relation to other first-borns separated and the pains in familial separation.

‘I am’: the book of Exodus or Genesis?

To begin, we will review some of Jesus’ ‘I am’ statements in the gospel of John. Jesus says:

‘I am the bread of life.’ (6.35)
‘I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’ (8.12)
‘I am the door to the sheep.’ (10.7)
‘I am the good shepherd.’ (10.11)
'I am the resurrection and the life'
‘and where I am, there shall be my servant.’ (12.36)

This new call is in a servant spirit for God calls us all to be servants. At first we must be servants in order to be called to be sons, daughters and heirs. In stating, ‘I am the door to the sheep’, Jesus is taking us back to the beginning to tell us that it is the great ‘I am’ that is the door. This ‘I am’ takes us back to the God of Israel and Abra(ha)m as entry point for the sheep. (this is the radical interpretation I am exploring)

Many associate the ‘I am’ with God in the book of Exodus where God appears to Moses from out of the burning bush and refers to himself as ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ (3.4)

Moses asks God his name and God says: ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ (3.14) Jews and Christians generally equate this ‘I am’ and ‘God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ as the ‘God of Israel’ and in some respects they are correct as it relates to the book of Exodus and in the great deliverance from Egypt.

Powerfully, Jesus calls the Jews on this understanding in John’s account in his statement ‘before Abraham was, I am.’ (8.58)

Jesus reminds them that the beginning of the ‘I am’ goes back further before the formation of Israel when God addresses Abra(ha)m (actually as Abram) and gives him the inclusive covenant:

‘Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you shall all the families of the earth bless themselves.’ (Genesis 12.1-3)

In chapter fifteen, we have another interesting passage:
‘After these things the (word of the Lord) came to Abram in a vision, ‘Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.’

But Abram said, ‘O Lord God, what wilt thou give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, ‘Behold, thou hast given me no offspring; and a slave born in my house will be my heir.’

And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, ‘This man shall not be your heir; your own son shall be your heir.’ (Genesis 15.1-4)

In doing some exegesis, the following possibilities arise:
1. the ‘word of the Lord’ is in a Christ sense.
2. in the second instance, Abram is making a statement of potential truth: ‘a slave born in my house will be my heir.’ As we will address, the ‘Abraham-Isaac-Jacob lineage’ is missing an important branch in the beginning of the lineage of the Muslims; first born slave Ishmael expelled and first born Esau tricked. Slave Ishmael and mother Hagar are given a covenant in Genesis 17. Esau will marry Ishmael’s daughter and so begins the break.
3. the ‘word of the Lord’ is indicating that Abram’s own son shall be his heir. In Genesis, Abraham refers to Ishmael as ‘son’ (‘Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram named his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael’, 16.15). When the stronger covenant is given to Isaac, Abraham cries: ‘Oh, that Ishmael may live in thy sight.’ (17.18) Ishmael is circumcised with Abraham: ‘Then Abraham took his son Ishmael…he circumcised them…that very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised.’ (17.23-26).

Other linkages will be made between the Genesis text with the gospel of John in reviewing the story of Abra(ha)m. For this section, we will make two connections as it relates to the idea that underlying the Bible text is a long story of inclusion between the three groups. The metaphors and symbols can be constructed to make a new story in Christ.

‘I am’ the Door (God) and Shepherd (Jesus)

There is some indication that among the ‘I am’ statements in the gospel of John, it is important to read them in the sense of Jesus’ proclamation, ‘the Father and I are one’ keeping in perspective that Jesus also says: ‘the Father is greater than I’.

John's chapter ten can be read with the creative understanding that Jesus-God is-are speaking when scripture reads:

‘I am the door of the sheep.’ (10.7)
‘I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.’ (10.9)
‘I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep…so there shall be one flock, one shepherd.’ (10.14, 16)

My interpretation is that ‘I am’ is the door to the sheep. Jesus is the shepherd to the ‘I am’ before Abraham (Jesus tells the Pharisees, ‘before Abraham was, I am’, 8.58) and Abraham was glad to see his day (8.56).

Could this be the resurrection day?
Our goal is to go back further in order to understand the beginning before Abra(ha)m. The idea is to make comparisons between the gospel of John and the book of Genesis that will help us to better grasp the significance of the ‘I am’ as door, the split of first-born son and Jesus as the path to reconciling Christ Essence (as he was to the Samaritans) as Lamb of God.

To begin our effort, let me again review the split in first born and second born in the book of Genesis.

Ishmael was the first born son to Abra(ha)m through Sarai’s attendant Hagar. After Isaac his brother was born, Hagar and Ishmael were expelled into the wilderness where God attends them. (actually there are two Hagar wilderness stories, Genesis 16.7-14, 21.14-21. Notice Abraham's involvement and compassion for Ishmael)

Isaac was the second born son to Abraham through Sarai and receives a fuller covenant. The story continues with the story of the birth of Esau (first) and Jacob (second), twin sons of Isaac and Rebekka. Esau is tricked out of his birthright (okay, so he sold his birthright!, youthful negligence!) and according to the Genesis text, seeks to kill his brother Jacob in early adulthood following his loss of birthright at the hands of Jacob and mother. Jacob, who will later be named Israel, flees for Paddanaram to avoid Esau and gather a wife from his mother’s brother Laban.

Three Flocks at Jacob’s Well

On the way to Paddanaram, Jacob comes to a well (here comes the long text):

‘Then Jacob went on his journey, and came to the land of the people of the east. As he looked, he saw a well in the field, and lo, three flocks of sheep lying beside it; for out of that well the flocks were watered. The stone on the well's mouth was large, and when all the flocks were gathered there, the shepherds would roll the stone from the mouth of the well, and water the sheep, and put the stone back in its place upon the mouth of the well.
Jacob said to them, "My brothers, where do you come from?" They said, "We are from Haran." He said to them, "Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?" They said, "We know him." He said to them, "Is it well with him?" They said, "It is well; and see, Rachel his daughter is coming with the sheep!"
He said, "Behold, it is still high day, it is not time for the animals to be gathered together; water the sheep, and go, pasture them."
But they said, "We cannot until all the flocks are gathered together, and the stone is rolled from the mouth of the well; then we water the sheep."
While he was still speaking with them, Rachel came with her father's sheep; for she kept them. Now when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother's brother, Jacob went up and rolled the stone from the well's mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his mother's brother. Then Jacob kissed Rachel, and wept aloud.’ (Gen 29.1-11)

What can be said about this passage as it relates to what we have reviewed? Making connections along these lines is generally not done and looked at with great suspicion. In reading this passage, I ask you to remember the following:

1. The Samaritan woman at ‘Jacob’s well’ (John 4).
2. Three flocks of sheep for ‘out of that well the flocks will be watered.’ (Gen 29.1-12)
3. When all the flocks were gathered, the stone would be removed, and all would be watered. (reference to Jesus’ living water and eternal life and ‘the stone had been taken away from the tomb’ and Mary, 20.1)
4. Jacob proclaiming that it is noon (as ‘Jesus wearied at the well…noon ‘sixth hour’, John 4.6) and it is 'not time for the flocks to be gathered.'
5. Jacob tells the men, ‘water the sheep and go and pasture them.’ And they indicate that it cannot be done until all three flocks are gathered together, and the stone is rolled away (Jesus’ resurrection) then we water the three flocks of sheep.
6. Jacob takes the initiative, rolls back the stone and waters only one of the three flocks. Jacob wept aloud.

There is much here and many gaps in the information. But one thing is true; this connection has not been made for intra-Abrahamic peace: Jesus to Christ shows the way and the power of the resurrection so that the three flocks of Jew, Muslim and Christian can be gathered together. (See John’s ‘Feed my lambs’, ‘tend my sheep’, ‘feed my sheep’ at breakfast, 21.15+)

Jesus as ‘Lamb of God’

‘This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me. I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.’ (1.30-31)

The first title for Jesus in the gospel of John comes from John the Baptist in chapter one. The day following John’s questioning by the Pharisees as to his identity and purpose, John sees Jesus ‘coming toward him’ and said:

‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!’ (1.29)

John will repeat the same title a second time on the next day as he stood with the two disciples. He looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God!’ (1.36)

In both instances, it is not clear at what distance Jesus was when the words were given but we know in the second, Jesus engages with the ‘two disciples’. John’s title for Jesus’ ‘Lamb of God’ is immediately followed by verse 1.37:

‘The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus.’ (1.37)

Hereby, in the first chapter of gospel of John, the sequence of spoken titles (and key phrases) for Jesus are:

1. 'Lord'. (spoken by John the Baptist)
2. 'Lamb of God.' (John the Baptist) ‘who takes away the sins of the world.’
3. ‘he might be revealed to Israel.’ (John the Baptist)
4. ‘he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ (John the Baptist)
5. 'Son of God'. (John the Baptist)
6. 'Lamb of God'. (John to two disciples, which mysteriously potentially includes ‘other whom Jesus loved’. They come and see where he was staying)
7. 'Rabbi'. 'Son of God!' 'King of Israel!' (Nathanael, ‘the Israelite in whom there is no guile’ to Jesus), Philip and Nathanael go to Galilee.
8. 'Son of man'. (Jesus)

What kind of connection, will I try to make? It has something to do with the lineage of ‘Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ without taking into consideration Ishmael and Esau and descendents. It has something to do with the Passover, when thousands of innocent Egyptian first-borns were slain due to collective association.

The sequence of titles; John the Baptist’s call of Jesus as ‘Son of God’, through two namings of ‘Lamb of God’ (consider the third at passion-resurrection), to the Israelite’s recognition of ‘Son of God’ and ‘King of Israel’ in potentially expanded sense to Jesus’ title of ‘Son of man’ (all as children of Light).

Jesus uses the title ‘Son of man’ throughout and there is a sense that he is speaking that his way of Son is to the Father. (will call all people to me.)

So what does the title ‘Lamb of God’ mean in a traditional sense?
An entry defines ‘Lamb of God’ in this way:
‘Lamb of God is one of the titles given to Jesus in the New Testament and consequently in the Christian tradition. It refers to Jesus' role as a sacrificial lamb atoning for the sins of man in Christian theology, harkening back to ancient Jewish Temple sacrifices in which a lamb was slain during the passover, the blood was sprinkled along the door, and the whole of the lamb was eaten.’

In another entry:
‘Lamb of God - The Passover Lamb
The Lamb of God is dramatically revealed in Exodus 12 and 13, with the Jewish Feast of the Passover. This is perhaps the most compelling foreshadow of the coming Lamb of God, the Messiah. The Passover Feast occurs each year on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. It is eaten in remembrance of the Lord "passing over" the houses of those who had sacrificed the Passover Lamb and sprinkled its blood on their wooden doorposts and mantles, while the angel of death visited those who had not sprinkled the blood of the lamb.
The angel of death was the final of ten plagues sent by God to redeem His people from slavery in Egypt, the land of their bondage. Approximately 1,500 years later, on the 14th day of Nisan, the Passover Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, was sacrificed upon a wooden cross for the sins of all mankind. When the Day of the Lord comes, those who have covered themselves in the blood of the Lamb by accepting Christ will be kept safe while the world pays for their rebellion against God.’

I propose to put the idea of Jesus as ‘Lamb of God’ within the eight points on the previous page. The ‘Son of God’ is to be revealed to Israel. The Israelite Nathanael recognizes Jesus as the ‘Son of God’ and the ‘King of Israel’.

This is an Israel that is inclusive of ‘Samaritans’ (those who worship in different form; or a Samaritan group that is inclusive of Jews!), maintains tradition-root (‘salvation is from the Jews’), omits strong judgment (Pharisaic mentality and ‘we’), unified in Christ Essence, reconciled between two (on cross), without guile (seeking authentic mutual respect) , who see the light in all, worship in spirit and truth and distill the message of inclusion (born blind to see).

Abraham's Sacrifice

If we take Jesus’ ‘Lamb of God’ title back to the beginning in Genesis, we cannot help but make an interesting connection to Abraham’s call to sacrifice. Just as the Exodus text proclaimed God as a ‘God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’, Abraham’s sacrifice is seen in only one way in the Jewish and Christian traditions as the sacrifice of his only son, Isaac.

This one sided linear thread has run from the beginning. All is built on it from a Christian perspective. The son sacrificed was Isaac. But what about Jesus’ teachings of the door, and imagining both Abra(ha)m’s apprehension and pleasure in seeing Jesus’ day?

Beyond taking into consideration the connections made throughout the Genesis text of Abraham’s love for Ishmael, how might we see the reconciling presence present at the sacrifice of Abraham’s ‘only son’ in Genesis? Consider that the solution of this project is a reconciling of story taking into consideration the Muslim’s tradition and story in claim that it was Ishmael who was sacrificed? (Actually the Koranic text itself is less clear, more open (see appendix))

To begin, we will first list texts that link Abraham and Ishmael (as 'son') in Genesis' text:
1. ‘Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram named his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael.’ (16.15)
2. When the larger covenant is given through son Isaac (which is lessened in Jacob in Genesis), Abraham said to God, ‘O that Ishmael might live in your sight! (Ishmael is given blessing and will be the ‘father of twelve princes.’)
3. At God’s command, ‘Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised.’ (17.24)
4. When Sarai expels Hagar and Ishmael, ‘the matter was very distressing to Abraham on account of his son.’ (21.11)

I will also add an additional layer connecting the word ‘lad’ (RSV). After ‘the matter was very distressing on account of his son’, God says to Abraham:
‘Do not be distressed because of the lad and because of your slave woman (mother Hagar addressed in later chapter)…’ (21.12)

Abraham takes bread and water and gives it to Hagar and sent her and Ishmael away. In the wilderness, Hagar sets Ishmael opposite him a good way off, ‘Do not let me look on the death of the child.’ It is written:

‘the child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, ‘What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.’ Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink. And God was with the lad.’ (21.16-21)

The text above comes from the second story of Hagar at the well. It is important in many ways:
1. Abraham gives bread and water to Hagar and Ishmael. (Jesus’ bread and living water)
2. God hears the voice of Hagar-Ishmael and responds. (the child lifts his voice and wept as Jesus wept, remove the stone, Lazarus is raised and Jacob will weep).
3. God hears the voice of the lad, Ishmael. (thinking ahead to Abraham sacrifice story)
4. The ‘he is’ reference is that the voice of the lad falls within the ‘voice’ of Christ-God. (more later; throughout John’s gospel, ‘I am he’.)
5. The NRSV reads, ‘Come, lift up the boy’ (strong reference to Samaritan woman at well, come, see)
6. Hagar sees a well of water. (reference to Jacob’s well and Jesus and Samaritan woman at well, Jesus with Lazarus community and to Jesus’ resurrection and living water.)
7. The lad will partake of this water and God is with him.

There is a second significance of this use of ‘lad’ in the story of Abraham’s sacrifice of his ‘only son’. At this time in the story Genesis, the principal covenant is given to Isaac. Ishmael could be seen as a ‘slave’ (son of slave woman Hagar) during this time.

The story begins with God saying to 'Abraham, Abraham!’ (2), and Abraham replies, ‘Here am I’. Abraham saddles his ass, and ‘took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. (3)’ (22.3) (close reading, consider shifting of 'young man, child, son, only son, lad...):

(Text)‘On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off. Then Abraham said to his young men, ‘Stay here with the ass; I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.’ (Consider break)
And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they (slave and son, my add) went both of them together. And Isaac said to his father Abraham, ‘My father!’ And he said, ‘Here am I, my son.’ He said, ‘Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?’ Abraham said, ‘God will provide himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.’
So they went both of them together.
When they came to the place of which God had told them, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound up Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, ‘Abraham!, Abraham!’ (2) And he said, ‘Here am I.’ He said, ‘Do not lay your hand upon the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son from me (2). And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.’ (22.4-13)

There are two main ideas I wish to emphasize here: one is the potentiality that Ishmael was one of the two of the young men and perhaps the 'lad' on the excursion up to the top of the mountain and was present at the sacrifice. I say this for these reasons:

1. The phrase, ‘took two of his young men with them, and his son Isaac’ is peculiar and there is a potential that in a creative reading (taking into consideration that Muslims hold to the view that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed) Ishmael could have been present as one of two-three.
2. If 1 is true, then ‘I and the lad will go and worship’ could be that Ishmael and Abraham went to worship and returned, then the wood is laid on Isaac, and both Ishmael and Isaac go together with Abraham.
3. Isaac’s call could be in wonder at what will happen, and who shall be sacrificed? Abraham’s test. Abraham returns to Isaac.
4. Isaac is bound and is laid on the altar.
5. Abraham may have had it in his mind that the lad Ishmael present may need to be sacrificed; through Abraham’s strength both lineages are preserved.
6. In the passage following, the covenant is reinforced and ‘Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.’ (22.19) Beersheba is where ‘God heard the voice of the lad and the angel called to Hagar from heaven.’ (21.17)

We are still working off the ‘Lamb of God’ label of Jesus. The connection that I am making is that Jesus is this ‘ram’ or ‘the lamb offered by God’ for this break in the story between Muslim and Jew (and as representative reconciling Spirit of all).

The ‘Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world’ connected with the ‘before Abraham was, I am’ is Jesus seeking for an inclusive story and a movement away from Pharisaic exclusivity (one-sided perspective). In the Muslim tradition, the story is that Ishmael is the one sacrificed by Abraham. It is true that the Muslim formation of story came through the revelation given to Mohammed, peace be upon him, in the early seventh century and some six hundred years after Christ. Yet the history goes back to Ishmael and Esau, mother Hagar and of a story biased, stereotypical, divided and incomplete. Any compassionate person would wish to preserve and include the blessed in 'Hagar, Ishmael and Esau'.

'Israel': an incompleted story

Jacob and Esau split: First Born Tricked

It is written in the book of Genesis concerning Isaac and his twin sons first born Esau and Jacob:

‘when Isaac was old and his eyes were dim so that he could not see, he called his elder son Esau his older son and said to him,
‘My son’; and he answered, ‘Here I am’. (not 'am I') (27.1)

Esau was instructed by his father Isaac to go and gather game so that: ‘I may bless you before I die.’ (27.4)

Rebekkah heard Isaac’s command and instructed her favorite son Jacob to gather from the flock and to prepare a meal for his father, and and in doing so take away from Esau his father’s blessing.

Jacob gathered ‘two good kids’; and mother Rebekkah prepared the savory food placing Esau’s garments on Jacob. She also placed the skins of the kids on his hands and on the smooth part of Jacob’s neck so that he could resemble his hairy twin.

‘So he (Jacob) went into his father, and said, ‘My father’; and he said, ‘Here I am; who are you, my son?’

Jacob said to his father, ‘I am Esau your first-born. I have done as you told me; now sit up and eat of my game, so that you may bless me.’

But Isaac said to his son, ‘How is it that you have found it so quickly, my son?’
He answered, ‘Because the Lord your God granted me success.’ (27.18-20) (An early example of Jacob’s attributing trickery to God)

‘Then Isaac said to Jacob, ‘Come near, that I may feel you, my son, to know whether you are really my son Esau or not.’

So Jacob went near to Isaac his father, who felt him and said, ‘The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.’…so he blessed him. He said, ‘Are you really my son Esau?’ He answered, ‘I am.’ (27.20-24)

After some feasting and drinking wine, Isaac blessed Jacob as Esau:

‘…Let peoples serve you and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you!’ (27.29)

Just following Jacob's departure from his father, Esau immediately followed. Esau had secured game and prepared a succulent dish for his father. His father Isaac said to Esau:

‘Who are you?’ (27.32)
‘He answered, ‘I am your son, your first-born, Esau.’ (27.32)

Then Isaac trembled violently; the blessing had been given. Esau explained:

‘Is he not rightly called Jacob? (he takes by the heel) For he has supplanted me these two times. He took away my birthright; and look, now he has taken away my blessing.’ (27.36)

Esau said to his father:

‘Have you but one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father!’ And Esau lifted up his voice and wept.

Then Isaac his father answered him: ‘Behold, away from the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be, and away from the dew of heaven on high. By your sword you shall live, and you shall serve your brother; but when you break loose, you shall break his yoke from your neck.’ (27.39-40)

When Esau said that he would kill Jacob as a result of his trickery after his father's death, Rebekkah intervened and sent Jacob off north to her brother Laban in Paddan-aram…’until your brother Esau’s fury turns away.’ (27.44) Esau married the daughter of Ishmael and so began as many believe the beginnings of the Muslim people.

Jacob’s Dream at Bethel

On the way to his mother's place in Paddaram, Jacob leaves Beersheba and travels toward Haran. (28.10) It is at Bethel (remember the covenant of 12.3), that Jacob has his great dream:

‘He came to a certain place, and stayed there for the night, because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones of the place, he put it under his head and lay down in that place to sleep. And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, the top of it reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.
And the Lord stood beside him (above it) and said:‘I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your descendants; and your descendants shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and by you and your descendants shall all the families of the earth shall be blessed (or bless themselves). Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done that of which I have spoken to you.’ (28.11-15)

Then Jacob woke from his sleep and said:

‘Surely the Lord is in this place – and I did not know it!’ And he was afraid, and said:
‘How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.’ (28.16-17)

‘So Jacob rose early in the morning, and he took the stone that he had put under his head and set it up for a pillar and poured oil on top of it. He called that place Bethel but the name of the city was Luz at the first.’ (28.18-19)

Then Jacob made a vow that if God would provide and keep him in the way that he would give God a tenth to all that is given him.

Jacob went to Laban, his mother’s brother, and secures wives Leah and Rachel.

After twenty years in battle with Laban and perhaps using some ‘guile’, Jacob is commanded by God (‘the Lord said’) to:
‘Return to the land of your fathers and to your kindred, and I will be with you.’ (31.3)

After 20 years in the land of Laban..returning...

Jacob Prepares For Esau

‘Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother in the land of Seir, the country of Edom, instructing them,
‘Thus you shall say to my lord Esau: Thus says your servant Jacob, ‘I have (much)…I have sent to tell my lord, in order that I may find favor in your sight.’ (32.3-5)

‘The messengers returned to Jacob, saying, ‘We came to your brother Esau, and he is coming to meet you, and four hundred men are with them.’

Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed; and he divided the people that were with him…if Esau comes to one company and destroys it, then the company that is left will escape.’ (32.6-8)

‘And Jacob said:
‘O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O Lord who didst say to me, ‘Return to your country and your kindred, and I will do you good.’(although this was not the command, 'I will be with you') I am not worthy of the least of all the steadfast love and all the faithfulness that you have shown to your servant, for with only my staff I crossed this Jordan; and now I have become two companies. Deliver me, please, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him; lest he come and slay us all, the mothers with the children. But thou didst say, ‘I will do you good, and make your descendants as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.’ (This was said in an earlier covenant) (32.3-12)

Jacob spent the night at Mahanaim. Jacob put a large gift in the hand of his servants and told them:

‘Pass on ahead of me, and put a space between drove and drove.’ (32.16)
‘He instructed the foremost, ‘When Esau my brother meets you, and asks you, ‘To whom do you belong? Where are you going? And whose are these ahead of you?’ then you shall say, ‘They belong to your servant Jacob; they are a present sent to my lord Esau; and moreover he is behind us.’ (32.17-18)

He sent out other droves with the same instructions. ‘For Jacob thought, ‘I may appease him with the present that goes ahead of me, and afterwards I shall see his face; perhaps he will accept me.’ (32.20)

Jacob Wrestles with ‘Angel’: First Naming of Israel

‘The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two maids, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. He took them and sent them across the stream, and likewise everything that he had.

And Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob…then he said, ‘Let me go, for the day is breaking.’
But Jacob said, ‘I will not let you go, unless you bless me.’ And he said to him, ‘What is your name?’ And he said, ‘Jacob’. Then he said, ‘Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel (the one who strives with God), for you have striven with God and with humans and have prevailed.’
Then Jacob asked him, ‘Tell me, I pray, your name.’ But he said, ‘Why is it that you ask my name?’ And there he blessed him.
So Jacob called the place Peniel (face of God) saying,
‘For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved.’ The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel.’ (32.22-31)

'Israel' and Next Day Esau

And it is interesting that Jacob is named 'Israel' and the very next morning is met by Esau with a decision.

‘And Jacob lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, Esau was coming, and four hundred men with him. So he divided the children among Leah and Rachel and the two maids. He put the maids in front…Leah…Rachel and Joseph last of all. He himself went on before them, bowing himself to the ground seven times, until he came near his brother.

But Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept.

When Esau raised his eyes and saw the women and children, he said, ‘Who are these with you?’

Jacob said, ‘The children whom God has graciously given your servant.’ Then the maids drew near and bowed down; Leah likewise and her children drew near and bowed down; and last Joseph and Rachel drew near and they bowed down.

Esau said, ‘What do you mean by all this company which I met?’

Jacob answered, ‘To find favor in the sight of my lord.’

But Esau said, ‘I have enough, my brother; keep what you have for yourself.’

Jacob said, ‘No, I pray you; if I have found favor in your sight, then accept my present from my hand; for truly to see your face is like seeing the face of God, with such favor have you received me.’ (33.1-11)

Esau accepts Jacob’s gift.

‘Then Esau said, ‘Let us journey on our way, and I will go before you.’

But Jacob said to him, ‘My lord knows that the children are frail, and that the flocks and herds giving suck are a care to me; and if they are overdriven for one day, all the flocks will die. Let my Lord pass on before his servant, and I will lead on slowly, according to the pace of the cattle that are before me and according to the pace of the children, until I come to my lord in Seir.’

So Esau said, ‘Let me leave with you some of the men who are with me.’

But Jacob named ‘Israel’ said, ‘What need is there? Let me find favor in the sight of my Lord.

So Esau returned that day on his way to Seir.

But Jacob journeyed to Succoth (Booths), and built himself a house and made booths for his cattle; therefore the place is called Succoth.’ (33.12-17) ('Israel' deceives Esau)

It is significant that Jacob is named Israel and then the very next morning 'Israel' is confronted with what to do with his estranged brother Esau and company. They weep, there appears to be genuine reconciliation into 'Israel' yet Jacob again 'beguiles' his brother and journeys off toward Shechem. Let us see what happens in Shechem, God's call to 'Jacob-Israel' to return to Bethel (place of original covenant and original 'dream')and then what happens when 'Israel' decides to leave Bethel and the resultant birth of 'the son of sorrow' in Benoni.

Jacob-Israel Settle in Shechem

After leaving his brother Esau, Jacob and his sons camped before the city Shechem. It is there that Jacob ‘erected an altar and called it El-Elohe-Israel (God, the God of Israel)’. (32.20)

Dinah, the daughter of Leah, is raped by the sons of Hamor the Hivvite. When the brothers heard about it, they were made angry.

Hamor asks Jacob if the peoples should inter-marry. The sons of Jacob answer ‘deceitfully.’ (34.13) They insist that the men of Hamor are circumcised and so all the males in Shechem are circumcised. (link of Shechem and Sychar, place of Samaritans)

On the third day, when the men were still in pain, ‘two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and came upon the city unawares, and killed all the males. They slew Hamor and his son Shechem with the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went away.

And the sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and plundered the city, because their sister had been defiled. They took (all)…all their wealth, all their little ones and their wives, all that was in the houses, they captured and made their prey.’ (34.25-29)

Jacob expresses his anger at his sons:

‘You have brought trouble upon me…my numbers are few, and if they gather themselves against me and attack me, I shall be destroyed, both I and my household.’

But they said,
‘Should our sister be treated like a whore?’ (34.30-31)

God appears for Second Naming Israel

‘God said to Jacob,
‘Arise, go up to Bethel, and settle there. (Return to place of original covenant and dwell) Make an altar there to the God who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau.’ (35.1)

‘So Jacob said to his household and to all that were with him,
‘Put away the foreign gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; then let us arise and go up to Bethel, that I may make there an altar there to the God who answered me in the day of my distress and has been with me wherever I have gone.’ (35.2-3)

‘So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods that they had, and the rings that were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak that was near Shechem.’ (35.4)

‘As they journeyed, a terror from God fell upon the cities that were round about them, so that they did not pursue the sons of Jacob.

It is written:

Jacob came to ‘Luz’…and there he built an altar, and called the place El-Bethel.’ (35.5-7)
Yet Jacob came to 'Luz'! Luz is defined as 'departed, turned away' whereas Bethel means 'house of God'.

‘God appeared to Jacob again… and he blessed him. And God said to him, ‘Your name is Jacob; no longer shall you be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.’
So his name was called Israel.

And God said to him: ‘I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall spring from you. The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your descendants after you.’ (there is nothing of 'and in you all the families of the earth will bless themselves' as in 12.3 or as in dream).

Then God went up from him in the place where he had spoken with him. Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he had spoken with him, a pillar of stone; and he poured out a drink offering on it, and poured oil on it. So Jacob called the place where God had spoken to him Bethel.’ (35.9-15)

Benoni and Jesus

God instructed Jacob named Israel to return to Bethel and dwell and he and his people left or 'departed':

‘Then they journeyed from Bethel; and when they were still some distance from Ephrath, Rachel travailed, and she had hard labor. And when she was in her hard labor, the midwife said to her,
‘Fear not; for now you will have another son.’ And as her soul was departing (for she died), she called his name Benoni (‘son of my sorrow’) but his father called him Benjamin (‘son of the right hand’).’
‘So Rachel died, and she was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem), and Jacob set up a pillar upon her grave…Israel journeyed on.’ (35.16-20)

How can one read this and not be astounded? 'Israel' (and 'Jacob' and 'Israel' will be used interchangeably to the end of Genesis: have not done a complete comparison) leaves Bethel ('house of God', 'united') and the last born son Benjamin as 'son of sorrow' is born 'on the way, short of 'Bethlehem' and mother dies! Don't stop here!

It is written:
‘Isaac breathed his last; and he died and was gathered to his people, old and full of days; and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him.’ (35.29)

A listing of the descendants of Esau immediately follow. ‘Esau took (all) that he acquired in the land of Canaan; and he went into a land away from his brother Jacob.’ (36.6-8) Perhaps a mutuality in being separate, perhaps due to the vastness of their wealth...

Jacob as Israel missed a chance for reconciliation once again. Bethel is never spoken of again in the book of Genesis. Esau is the only patriarch or matriarch in the book of Genesis whose death is not mentioned.

Joseph as 'God' to 'Israel'

Our next section again takes a great amount from scripture. The idea is that there is a story that is contained within the Genesis text concerning Joseph and 'Israel' that has never been considered. We will find the theme of 'other brother' as it relates to 'Israel' in a challenging way which brings up imagery of 'Esau', 'Jesus-Benoni(jamin)(son of sorrow)', and 'lad' (Ishmael).

Reader, the story places Joseph as 'God' to 'Israel' in this challenging way. The text infers Joseph in this way in several places: the brothers state: 'shall we come and bow to you?' (37.8) and later Joseph says to 'Israel': 'am I like a God to you?' (51.9). Keep this in mind as you read the next section.

‘Other Brother’ and ‘God’

The story in the book of Genesis now shifts to include Jacob-Israel’s sons and the story of Joseph: (Please read through, mostly scripture, an intriguing story never interpreted in this way)

‘Jacob dwelt in the land of his father’s sojourning, in the land of Canaan. This is the story of the family of Jacob.’ (37.1-2)

Joseph clearly separates himself from his other eleven brothers:

‘Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his children, because he was the son of his old age; and he made a long robe with sleeves. But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him. Now Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers they only hated him the more.’ (37.3-5)

Joseph’s dream spoke of his superiority to his brothers:

‘His brothers said to him, ‘Are you indeed to reign over us? Or are you indeed to have dominion over us? So they hated him yet more for his dreams and for his words.
Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, ‘Behold, I have dreamed another dream: and behold, the sun, the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.’ (37.8-9)

Joseph told his dream to his father and brothers. His father said to him, ‘What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?’ (37.10)

‘Now his brothers went to pasture their father’s flock near Shechem. And Israel said to Joseph, ‘Are not your brothers pasturing the flock at Shechem? Come, I will send you to them.’
And he said to him, ‘Here, I am’. So he said to him, ‘Go now, see if it is well with your brothers, and with the flock; and bring me word again.’ So he sent him from the valley of Hebron.’ (37.12-14)

It is written that Joseph:

‘came to Shechem…so Joseph went after his brothers, and found them at Dothan. They saw him afar off, and before he came near to them they conspired against him to kill him.
(The brothers ‘Israel’) they said to one another, ‘Here comes this dreamer. Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; then we shall say that a wild beast has devoured him, and we shall see what will become of his dreams.’ (37.14-20)

Reuben suggested that they do not kill Joseph but should ‘cast him into this pit here in the wilderness’ thinking that ‘he might rescue him out of their hand, to restore him to his father.’ (37.21-22)

‘So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe…and they took him and cast him into a pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it. Then they sat down to eat; and looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing gum, balm and myrrh, on their way to carry it down to Egypt. (37.23-25)

‘Then Judah said to his brothers…
‘Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh’…
They drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver; and they (the Ishmaelites) took Joseph to Egypt.’ (37.26-28)

Reuben reacts by ‘renting his clothes’. (37.29) They took ‘Joseph’s robe, and killed a goat, and dipped the robe in the blood; and they sent the long robe with the sleeves and brought it their father, and said,
‘This we have found; see now whether it is your son’s robe or not.’

Jacob recognized it, and said:
‘It is my son’s robe; A wild beast has devoured him; Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces.’ Then Jacob rent his garments, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned his son for many days.’ (37.31-34)

Joseph is sold into Egypt

‘Now Joseph was taken down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard, and Egyptian, bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there.
The Lord was with Joseph, and he became a successful man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian, and his master saw that the Lord was with him, and that the Lord caused all that he did to prosper in his hands.’ (39.1-3) As a result, Joseph becomes an overseer of the house.

Joseph was ‘handsome and good looking’ (39.6) and his master’s wife cast her eyes on Joseph. She asked Joseph to lie with her and after his refusal, she framed him by catching hold of his garment and accused him of attempting to lie with her. Joseph is put into prison.

While in prison, Joseph continued in the Lord’s favor:

‘And the keeper of the prison committed to Joseph’s care all the prisoners who were in prison…whatever he did, the Lord made it prosper.’ (39.22-23)

After several years, Joseph is put in the position of interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams regarding a coming famine and finds favor. Pharaoh said to Joseph:
‘Since God has shown you all this, there is no one so discrete and wise as you are; you shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.’ (41.39-40)

Joseph manages the coming drought:
‘During the seven plenteous years the earth brought forth abundantly, and he gathered up all the food of the seven years when there was plenty in the land of Egypt, and stored up food in the cities; he stored up in every city the food from the fields around it.’ (41.47-48)
After the seven years of plenty, ‘there was famine in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread…moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine became severe over all the earth.’ (41.54-57)

Jacob and Joseph: Haunting Words

The story in the book of Genesis is written:
‘Ten of Joseph’s brothers went down to buy grain in Egypt’ at Jacob’s command.
‘But Jacob did not send Benamin, Joseph’s brother, with his brothers, for he feared that harm might befall him.’ (42.2-4)

‘And Joseph’s brothers came, and bowed themselves before him with their faces to the ground. Joseph saw his brothers, he knew them, but he treated them like strangers and spoke roughly to them:
‘Where do you come from?’ he said…
thus Joseph knew his brothers, they did not know him…He said to them, ‘You are spies; you have come to see the weakness of the land!’…
They said, ‘We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of a certain man in the land of Canaan; and behold, the youngest is this day with our father, and one is no more.’ (42.6-13) (Benjamin-Jesus is with Jacob and Esau is no more (this is an interpretation, 'other brother' is 'Joseph' but can be read as 'Esau'...)

Joseph says to them (the brothers):
‘you shall not go from this place until your younger brother comes here. Send one of you, and let him bring your brother, while you remain in prison, that your words may be tested, whether there is truth in you.’ (42.15-16) (You shall remain imprisoned until Benjamin-Jesus comes here...)

‘On the third day Joseph said to them (the brothers):
‘Do this and you shall live, for I fear God: if you are honest men, let one of your brothers remain confined in your prison, and let the rest go and carry grain for the famine of your households, and bring your youngest brother to me; so your words will be verified, and you shall not die.’ And they did so.’ (42.18-20)

There is an interesting twist here. The brothers (Israel) say to one another:
‘In truth, we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us and we would not listen; therefore is this distress come upon us.’ (42.21) (Multiple levels: whereas they are speaking of Joseph, but for this effort and concerning 'Israel', did Jacob see Esau's distress and repentence when they embraced and wept? when he besought us to follow and we fled?)

Although the brothers ‘Israel’ are speaking of their betrayal of Joseph at the pit, on an additional level there is a potential undercurrent that the text speaks to ‘Israel’s guilt’ for the left-out Esau, the beguilement toward covenant and in remembering God’s call to Bethel.

Then Reuben answered them:
‘Did I not tell you not to sin against the ‘lad’? But you would not listen. So now there comes a reckoning for his blood.’ (42.22) (We connect 'lad' with Ishmael on the second level)

Joseph overhears:
‘He turned away from them and wept; and then he returned to them and spoke to them. And he took Simeon from them and bound him before their eyes.’ (42.24)

Joseph sends ‘Israel’ away with plenty of provision to return to their father. The brothers report to their father Jacob that Joseph told them:
‘to bring your youngest brother to me; then I shall know that you are not spies but honest men…then I will deliver to you your brother (Simeon), and you shall trade in the land.’ (42.26-34)

Jacob responded with fear and Reuben offers to protect Benjamin. Jacob said to them:
‘My son shall not go down with you, for his brother is dead, and he only is left. If harm should befall him on the journey that you are to make, you would bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol.’ (42.38)

The food is spent. Their father said to them:

‘Go again, buy us a little food.’
But Judah said to him, ‘The man solemnly warned us, saying,
‘You shall not see my face unless your brother is with you.’ If you will send our brother with us, we will go down and buy you food; but if you will not send him, we will not go down, for the man said to us, ‘You shall not see my face, unless your brother is with you.’ (You shall not see God unless Esau and Benjamin-(Jesus) son of sorrow is with you...remember Jacob named Israel first time to Esau: 'seeing your face is like seeing the face of God...)

Israel said, ‘Why did you treat me so ill as to tell the man that you had another brother?’ (Do not haunt me with this regarding Esau...)

They replied,
‘The man questioned us carefully about ourselves and our kindred, saying, ‘Is your father still alive? Have you another brother?’ What we told him was in answer to these questions; could we in any way know that he would say, ‘Bring your brother down?’

And Judah said to Israel his father,
‘Send the ‘lad’ with me, and we will arise and go, that we may live and not die, both we and you and also our little ones.’ (43.2-8)

Then ‘Israel’ instructed the brothers in detail a strategy for going down into Egypt. He said:
‘Take also your brother, and arise, go again to the man; may God Almighty (El Shaddai) grant you mercy before the man, that he may send back your other brother and Benjamin.’ (43.13-14)

‘When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the steward of his house, ‘Bring the men into the house, and slaughter an animal and make ready, for the men are to dine at noon.’ (43.16) (Significance of 'noon': 3 flocks, Jesus with Samaritan...)

After discussion, Joseph ‘brought Simeon out to them. And when the man had brought the men into Joseph’s house, and given them water, and they had washed their feet, and when he had given their asses provender, they made ready the present for Joseph’s coming at noon, for they should eat bread there.’ (43.23-25)

The brothers ‘bowed down to him to the ground’. (43.26) He inquired about their welfare, and Joseph asked:
‘Is your father well, the old man of whom you spoke? Is he still alive?’
They said, ‘Your servant our father is well; he is still alive.’ And they bowed their heads and made obeisance.
And he lifted up his eyes, and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son, and said,
‘Is this your youngest brother, of whom you spoke to me? God be gracious to you, my son!’
Then Joseph made haste, for his heart yearned for his brother, and he sought a place to weep.

And he entered his chamber and wept there. Then he washed his face and came out; and controlling himself he said, ‘Let the food be served’.

‘They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.
And they sat before him, the first-born according to his birthright and the youngest according to his youth, the men looked at one another in amazement.‘ (43.27-33)

This is an amazing scene: the first-born according to birthright (Ishmael, Esau) and the youngest according to his youth (Isaac, Jacob) sitting together at meal?
Joseph sends the brothers on their way ‘filling the men’s sacks with food’ (44.1) but commanded his steward to place his silver cup in the sack of the youngest, Benjamin.

When they were outside the city, Joseph commanded the steward to confront them about the stolen cup.

The brothers state:
‘With whomever of your servants it be found, let him die, and we also will be my Lord’s slaves.’
He said (the steward), ‘let it be as you say: he whom it is found shall be my slave, and the rest of you shall be blameless.’
Then every man quickly lowered his sack to the ground, and every man opened his sack.
And he searched, beginning with the eldest and ending with the youngest; and the cup was found in Benjamin’s sack.
Then they rent their clothes, and every man loaded his ass, and they returned to the city.’ (44.9-13) (Benjamin to die? as Jesus entering the city?)

‘Judah and his brothers came to Joseph’s house he was still there; and they fell before him to the ground.
Joseph said to them, ‘What deed is this that you have done?’…
And Judah said to Joseph, ‘What shall we say to my lord? What shall we speak? Or how can we clear ourselves? God has found out the guilt of your servants; behold, we are my lord’s slaves, both we and he also in whose hands the cup has been found.’
But he (Joseph) said, ‘Far be it from me that I should do so! Only the man in whose hand the cup was found shall be my slave; but as for you, go up in peace to your father.’ (44.14-17)

‘Then Judah went up to him and said,
‘O my lord, let your servant, I pray you, speak a word in my lord’s ears, and let not your anger burn against your servant; for you are like Pharaoh himself. My lord asked his servants, saying, ‘Have you a father, or a brother?’ And we said to my lord, ‘We have a father, an old man, and a younger brother, the child of his old age. His brother is dead; he alone is left of his mother’s children; and his father loves him.’
Then you said to your servants, ‘Bring him down to me, that I may set my eyes on him.’ We said to my lord, ‘The ‘lad’ cannot leave his father, for if he should leave his father, his father would die.’ (Layers: Israel, Jesus-Benjamin, dead Esau (remember Esau's death cannot be found in Genesis text), Ishmael...) Logically, there is a level where the words speak to the situation of Jacob-Israel, Benjamin and Joseph, but symbolically as identified, we are working with a linking of RSV words: 'His brother (Esau) is dead, bring 'Israel' to Joseph (as God), for without the lad (Ishmael and Jesus and Esau), Israel is not complete.'

Then you said to your servants, ‘Unless your youngest brother (Benjamin-Jesus) comes down with you, you shall see my face no more.’ (other brother-God)
When we went back to your servant my father (Jacob-Israel) we told him the words of my lord. And when our father said, ‘Go again, buy us a little food,’ we said, ‘We cannot go down. If our youngest brother goes with us, then we will go down; for we cannot see the man’s face unless our youngest brother is with us.’ (44.18-26)

‘Then your servant my father (Jacob-Israel) said to us, ‘You know that my wife bore me two sons; one left me, and I said, Surely he has been torn to pieces; and I have never seen him since. If you take this one also from me, and harm befalls him, you shall bring down my gray hairs to Sheol.’

Now therefore, when I come to your servant my father (Jacob-Israel) and the ‘lad’ (Benjamin-Jesus-Ishmael (lad)) is not with us, then, as his life is bound up in the lad’s life, when he sees that the lad is not with us, he will die (Israel needs Jesus?); and your servants will bring down the gray hairs of your servant our father with sorrow to Sheol.’ (44.27-31)

‘For your servant became surety for the lad to my father, saying, ‘If I do not bring him back to you, then I shall bear the blame in the sight of my father all my life.’ Now therefore, let your servant, I pray you, remain instead of the lad as a slave to my lord; and let the lad go back with his brothers. For how can I go back to my father if the lad is not with me? I fear to see the evil that would come upon my father.’ (44.32-34)

‘Then Joseph could not control himself before all those who stood by him, and he cried, ‘Make every one go out from me.’

So no one stayed with him when Joseph made himself known to his brothers. And he wept aloud, so that the Egyptians heard it, and the household of Pharaoh heard it. And Joseph said to his brothers, ‘I am Joseph; is my father still alive?’ But his brothers could not answer him, for they were dismayed at his presence.’ (45.1-3)

Joseph comforts his brothers by telling them:
‘God sent me before you to preserve life…God sent me before you to preserve a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors…Make haste and go up to my father and say to him, ‘Thus says your son Joseph, God has made me lord of all Egypt; come down to me, do not tarry; you shall dwell in the land of Goshen…you and your children and your children’s children, and your flocks, your herds and all that you have…And now your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin see, that it is my own mouth that speaks to you.’

’then he fell upon his brother Benjamin’s neck and wept, while Benjamin wept upon his neck. And he kissed all his brothers and wept upon them; and after that his brothers talked with him.’ (45.5-15)

Appendix: Pulling In Riches-The Project

This paper is a work in progress. My initial objective was to set down some of the openings that have come to me regarding the book of Genesis and its potential relationship to the gospel of John in considering Israel.

I am hoping to paint a more comprehensive view of ‘Israel’ that contains a greater integration of the people of Abra(ha)m; Jew, Christian and Muslim into the story.

Perhaps this initial effort can foster dialogue amongst the three traditions and open up the necessity for Christians to see ourselves as part of a greater whole.
Building more comprehensive and inclusive understandings of story could prove helpful. I write with great hope that Muslims, Christians and Jews can continue to ‘feed’ the story and thus find solutions to a more common identity.

The hope is in a spiritual Bethel or a House of God where all humanity receives blessing and abundant life. Healing the story is part of healing the world.

‘We must develop from them much deeper and more inclusive meanings…the vast reversion – from the end to the beginning, from sin to grace, from doom to righteousness, from death to life, from man to God, from time to eternity.’
Karl Barth, Word of God, Word of Man

This project is not complete without adding some additional fragments from both the Old and New Testaments and the Koran. This is an exercise that will continue in integration; an encouragement to cut and paste into the mosaic. (Scholars will cringe)

Deuteronomy
‘If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other disliked, and they have born him children, both the loved and the disliked, and if the first-born son is her that is disliked, then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the first-born in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the first-born, but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.’ (21.15-17)

Isaiah
‘But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!
Thus says the Lord who made you,who formed you from the womb and will help you:Fear not, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen.’ (Isaiah 44.1-2)
‘Jeshurun’ is defined as the ‘proper name meaning ‘upright’ or ‘straight’. A poetic name for Israel. It may represent a play on Jacob, the original Israel, known for deception. Jeshurun would show that Israel had quit deceiving and become upright or straight in actions.’ (Holman Bible Dictionary).
From another source, ‘Jeshurun’ means ‘righteousness, justice, upright, the brilliant one, tranquility, harmony, happiness, blessedness. Metta: the happy state (blessedness) which includes love, mercy, good judgment, order, and the activity of all the faculties of the mind raised to spiritual consciousness.’ (Metaphysical Bible Commentary).

‘Sing, O heavens, for the Lord has
done it;shout, O depths of the earth;break forth into singing,O mountains,O forest, and every tree in it!For the Lord has redeemed Jacob,and will be glorified in Israel.’(Isaiah 44.23)

‘Therefore thus says the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob:Jacob shall no longer be ashamed,no more shall his facegrow pale.For when he sees his children,the work of my hands, in his midst,they will sanctify my name;they will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob,and will stand in awe of the God of Israel. And those who err in spirit will come to understanding,and those who grumble will accept instruction.’(Isaiah 29.22-24)

‘But now thus says the Lord,he who created you, O Jacob,he who formed you, O Israel…For I am the Lord your God,the Holy One of Israel, your Saviour…Fear not, for I am with you;I will bring your offspring from the east,and from the west I will gather you;I will say to the north, ‘Give them up’and to the south, ‘Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth –everyone who is called by my name,whom I created for my glory,whom I formed and made…Thus says the Lord,your Reedeemer, the Holy One of Israel.’ (Isaiah 43.1-14)

‘The Lord will have compassion on Jacob and will again choose Israel, and will set them in their own land, and aliens will join them and will cleave to the house of Jacob.’ (Isaiah 14.1)

‘And now the Lord says,who formed me in the womb tobe his servant,to bring Jacob back to him,and that Israel might be gathered to him.’ (Isaiah 49.5)

Psalms

‘O that deliverance for Israel would come from Zion! When God restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob will rejoice and Israel will be glad.’ (53.6)

‘God reigns over the nations; God sits on his holy throne. The princes of the people gather as the people of the God of Abraham. For the shields of the earth belong to God; he is highly exalted!’ (47.8-9)
Re: God’s promise to Hagar-Ishmael through Abraham: ‘he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.’ (Genesis 17.20)

Hebrews
‘But you have come to Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to enumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of the just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant.’ (12.22-24)
Re: Relationship of Jesus as first-born and first-born Ishmael and Esau, first-born Egyptians slain by God.

Ephesians
‘remember that you were at that time you were separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility.’ (2.12-14)

Philippians
‘Have this in mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant or slave, being born in the likeness of men. And being in human form he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross.’ (2.5-7)

Galatians
‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than the slave, though he is owner of all the estate; but he is under guardian and trustees until the date set by the father. So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe. But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as ‘sons and daughters’. And because we are sons and daughters, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir.’ (3.28-4.7)

Early Muslim Contribution (and Jewish + coming):

Regarding the sacrifice of Ishmael by Abraham from the Koran:

surah 37:
99. He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!
100. "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"
101. So We gave him the good news of a forbearing son.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I have seen in a vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills, one of the steadfast!"
103. So when they had both submitted (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104. We called out to him "O Abraham! ...
105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
106. For this was a clear trial-
107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
111. For he was one of Our believing Servants.
112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet- one of the Righteous.
113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to themselves.

‘It is an undeniable fact that Ishmael was the first son of Abraham (peace be on them). He was the one who was put to the test of sacrifice. The event is celebrated yearly by Muslims all over the world and serves as the biggest holiday of the year. The festive event is called Eidul-Adha. Millions of Muslims go for Hajj (pilgrimage) to Makkah.’ Several hundred thousand goats, lambs and cows are sacrificed to commemorate the trial of Abraham and Ishmael. Part of the meat is shared with relatives, friends and the poor.’ http://www.islam101.com/.

Abraham and Ishmael re-building the Ka’aba:
[Quran; 2:125] We have rendered the shrine (the Ka`aba) a focal point for the people, and a safe sanctuary. You may use Abraham's shrine as a prayer house. We commissioned Abraham and Ismail: "You shall purify My house for those who visit, those who live there, and those who bow and prostrate."
[Quran; 2:127] As Abraham raised the foundations of the shrine, together with Ismail (they prayed): "Our Lord, accept this from us. You are the Hearer, the Omniscient.’

‘Kaaba, also known as, Ka'bah, Kabah and Caaba is the center of the holiest place of worship in Islam (Submission in English), i.e. the Sacred Mosque of Mecca, Al Masjid Al-Haram. Its name is an Arabic word that means a home or a room that looks like a cube.. It is a cube shaped stone structure built in the middle of the Sacred Mosque. The Kaaba was built by prophet Abraham as a landmark for the House of God, for the sole purpose of worshipping of God alone.’ http://www.submission.org/hajj/kaaba.html

As it relates to the blind man made to see’s simplification:
‘Those that surrender themselves to God and do good works shall be rewarded by their Lord: they shall have nothing to fear or regret.’ 2.111, 21

As it relates to Samaritan and Jesus’ discussion of correct direction of worship:
‘God worshipped in spirit and truth’:
‘To God belongs the east and the west. Whichever way you turn there is the face of God. He is omnipresent and all-knowing.’ 2.115, 21
‘Righteousness does not consist in whether you face toward the East or the West. The righteous man is he who believes in God and the Last Day, in the angels and the prophets;….’ (2.176, 27)

Differentiation between the ‘children of Abraham’ and Jacob and towards inclusion:
‘Abraham enjoined the faith on his children, and so did Jacob, saying: ‘My children, God has chosen for you the true faith. Do not depart from this life except as men who have submitted to him.’ (KP, 2.132, 23)

Difference in lineage consideration with Muslims:
‘(Jacob) said to his children: ‘What will you worship when I am gone? They replied: ‘We will worship your God and the God of your forefathers Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac: the One God. To Him we will surrender ourselves.’ (KP, 2.133, 23)

‘We believe in God and that which is revealed to us; in what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the tribes; to Moses and Jesus and the other prophets by their Lord. We make no distinctions among any of them, and to God we have surrendered ourselves.’ (2.136 or so)
‘If they accept your faith, they shall be rightly guided; if they reject it, they shall surely be in schism.’ (2.138)

This is a work in progress: some insight, some crazy ideas, some blasphemous, just trying....************************************************************

The third paper is on William Penn, Quaker great, as a great universalist. His is an understanding of a central Light and forms around; an emphasis on the spirit and truth.

The ‘Quaker Christian’ and The ‘Rule of Christian Faith and Practice’: William Penn’s Vision Completed by the Schismatic George Keith, 1699.
by Blair Weaver

At the end of the seventeenth century, two forces of thought came together in the documents of the Quaker-turned Anglican George Keith and the Quaker William Penn. Following the Keithian controversy of 1690-1696 that debated the concept ‘Christian Quaker’ and temporarily divided the Philadelphia Quaker community, the final testimony of explanation addressing the theological base of the rift came in William Penn’s The Christian Quaker and his divine testimony stated and vindicated from Scripture, reason and authority (1699) and George Keith’s response in his The deism of William Penn and his brethren destructive to the Christian religion (1699).

These two works speak to the tensions inherent in questions regarding the (in)fallibility of Scripture, the person of Christ, the notion of primitive Christianity and the relationship of Spirit and Scripture. The entry into the critique and hence revelations go back to the early days of the Christian Reformation in Europe. This paper will review an important development in the Cambridge Platonists; a seventeenth century group of European intellectuals-religious who drew from a wide variety of philosophical sources both Platonist and scientific-mystic. Both Penn and Keith were influenced by the Cambridge Platonist group and member Henry More.

After a review of the Quaker encounter with the Cambridge Platonists as setting the stage for the final confrontation between Keith and Penn, the paper will look closely at the barbed dialogue contained in the final word between these the two giants in Penn and Keith. It is the author’s intent to show that Penn had a universal vision that both promoted the Light of conscience in all men and took Reason to a higher universal convergence that the schismatic one-sided Scriptural-bound Keith could not accept nor see. Therefore, this paper passes by the multitude of reasons for the Keithian rift in early Philadelphia, some of which reflect Keith’s genuine heart-felt concern, and instead looks at the development of Penn’s thought as it is shaped by More and Keith finding expression in his work The Christian Quaker in 1699.

William Penn
Hugh Barbour, in ‘William Penn, Model of Protestant Liberalism’, introduces the opinion that ‘William Penn intended no synthesis of thought.’[1] He bases his opinion on Penn’s humanist strand: ‘the total transforming of men, ethics and society by God’s spirit with a humanist’s trust in reason and conscience already at work within all men universally.’[2] Quakers, it is said, were well fed by Penn’s ‘exuberance and pragmatism and his uncritical openness about ideas.’[3] Barbour places Penn as a raiser of important issues for both Quakers and Protestants alike and teaches us that Penn’s ideas ‘developed gradually’.[4] Were Penn’s ideas unique? Barbour writes:
‘William Penn’s ideas cannot be claimed as unique. Yet Penn drew a unique intensity in both his universalism and his radicalism from his Quaker community, from its wrestling with ‘the Light within’, and from his own experience of the unity of world truth and the radical depth of evil. He was no mere blender of ideas.’[5]

Penn represented the best of what was found in the Cambridge Platonists, a group of seventeenth century philosophers, who sought to challenge creed and lift up Reason. Labels are deceiving; it is incorrect to assume that the Cambridge group was of one mind and soul. Some refer to the Cambridge group, a whole entity open up to diverse forms, as ‘Latitudinarians’. Referencing Burnet, Ignatius defines the Latitudinarian spirit:
‘They loved the constitution of the Church, and the liturgy, and could well live under them; but they did not think it unlawful to live under another form…They continued to keep a good correspondence with those who had differed from them in opinion, and allowed a great freedom in both philosophy and divinity.’[6]
Some historians consider that it is the spiritual component of German pietism (and the Cambridge Platonists engaged with Boehme) and the European latitudinarians that have provided the richest depth to the Christian movement. We see these two movements opening up in early Quaker writings. Reverend Mauritz Kaufmann explains:
‘In their combined effect, Latitudinarianism in England and the English-speaking countries overseas, on the one hand, and Pietism in Germany and the neighboring countries in northern and central Europe, influenced by German thought, on the other, appear as mutually supplementary movements, the one more practically, the other more ideally, affecting the course of European thought and life. Thus they succeeded in establishing the supremacy of reason and the complete autonomy of conscience, and brought about a partial recovery from religious lethargy and moral enervation.’[7]

Quakers were naturally attracted to the exploration going on in the Cambridge circle; at both Lady Anne Conway’s Ragley estate and at Henry More’s Christ’s College at Cambridge. Whether it be through direct contact (as in the case of Keith) or through the mutual beneficial sharing of ideas (Penn through letters and reading), the early Quaker movement was, in one part as in relation to many, deeply affected through their mutual enriching engagement with the Cambridge Platonists.

Cambridge Platonists and the Quakers, 1672-1677
Clearly, ‘Penn was not a direct disciple’ of the Cambridge Platonists as indicated by Barbour. Barbour states that ‘Penn shared deeper outlooks of the humanists: that the world is one and is rational; that we are taught about it by the philosophers of all faiths and eras.’[8] The only records that we have of Penn’s engagement with the Cambridge group are through two letters: a letter from Henry More to Penn in May 1675 and in Penn’s response to Lady Conway later that same year. Despite this lack of direct contact, Barbour assures that Penn was influenced by the ideas of the Cambridge Platonists in ‘their love of erudition, their sense of the universality of men’s awareness of truth, and their teachings on inspiration and prophesy.’[9]
George Keith’s experience, however, with More and Conway was direct as he became a disciple of Henry More and served as a close confidant and Quaker convincer to Lady Anne Conway. Keith ‘visited More at Cambridge in the spring of 1674 and 1675 on (More’s) annual trips to London to meet with leading Quakers.’[10]
Majorie Hope Nicolson, through her analysis of an anthology of letters centered on the person of Lady Anne Conway (1642-1684) published in 1930, indicates that ‘the modern student can see what More himself never entirely realized, though he had a suspicion of it before he died, that Henry More and the Quakers were integral parts of the same movement; two inevitable aspects of a whole.’[11] This movement seen in a long view, and not of Nicolson’s opinion, is one of a parallelism that poses the challenge in reconciling Scripture and the Spirit.

Nicolson places More and the Quakers of the early days as seeing ‘eye to eye’ and states that ‘their message was essentially the same.’[12] She writes: ‘In its (Quakerism’s) essentials, the emphasis on the light within, the belief in unmediated human communion with the Divine, the casting off of shackles of convention…(More’s) theology had much in common with Quakerism.’[13]

Yet we see a different strand through a close reading of the letters. It is interesting to view the letters centered on Lady Conway in the period of 1674 to 1677 as they offer a view into the relationship of More, Keith and Penn. Henry More writes to Lady Conway on August 11, 1674: ‘But I perswaded G. Keith when he came, both to sup with me and dine with me the next day, and I had I believe 9 or 12 hours discourse with him, and setting aside his Schismaticallness, which I roundly told him off, and the ridiculous rusticity of that (Quaker) sect, that I found him a man very considerably learned, of a good wit and quick apprehension, and which is best of all, heartily breathing after the attainment of the new life of a Christian.’[14] Henry More, twenty-four years Keith’s senior, uses a Fatherly and mentoring tone in all his letters. Keith absorbs More’s intention which is to be called into More’s power and rhetorical artistry: ‘He (Keith), after a (time) beg’ed of me one of my Echidiridion Metaphysicum…he gave me a little book…of the Oriental Philosophy, and particularly of the profound wisdom of Hai Ebn Yokdan.’[15]

William Penn and Henry More
Approximately nine months following on May 22, 1675, the elder More, then sixty-one years old, wrote a lengthy letter to the thirty-one year old Quaker William Penn in London. This is seven years after Penn was imprisoned in the Tower of London after writing the Sandy Foundation Shaken and two years after his father Sir Admiral William Penn’s death. In their introduction to More’s letter to Penn, Dunn and Dunn indicate that the letter demonstrates the difficulty that most Christians had in understanding ‘the Quaker’s greatly-reduced emphasis upon Christ as a divine entity distinct from, yet of the same nature of God.’[16] We will find the challenging distinction in Christ-Jesus-God-Light-Spirit language and the balance of Spirit and Scripture-Word running throughout the More-Keith and Penn debates.

More uses the ‘Familists’ as a label tag to guide Penn throughout his letter. Dunn and Dunn identify the ‘Familists’ as ‘the Family of Love…a vehemently anticlerical, radically antinomian, and vaguely communistic and pantheistic sect of Anabaptist origin.’[17] More’s letter is lengthy; over nineteen pages as in translated book form.

There is a tone of subtle condescension and a corrective sense in his letter to the young Penn. More uses his discussions with George Keith as a springboard to his treatise: ‘I was pleased with my converse with G.K. who so freely and declaredly affirmed to me, that he, (and he putt in the rest of the Quakers) did heartily believe the History of the Gospell, or the literall sense thereof.’ He expresses his hope ‘according to the measure of their sincerity, the Quakers faith and practice will grow more ample and articulate, (till) they reach at last the full stature of Christ in the primitive and Apostolick times.’[18]

The first two-thirds of More’s treatise-letter to Penn is an urging for the Quaker group to re-consider the importance of baptism and the practice of the Lord’s Supper as central to Christian Faith and Practice. In arguing for the importance of a water baptism, More comments: ‘And that Baptisme is a forme of admission into the Church and profession of our Faith in Christ the Son of God…those that would lay aside baptisme, are especially that would lay aside the Person of Christ.’ [19] The Lords Supper, according to More, is ‘instituted by Christ and declared so to be by St. Paul as well as the Evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke.’[20]

More’s letter takes a turn after his plea: ‘this omission of the Lord’s supper by the Quakers, is part of that smutt of Familisme that still lyes upon them.’[21] He opens up with a view that is quite Anglican in form and reflects one side of the debate on the Christ:
‘For the eternall Logos is not the anointed as Christ signifies, but the Anointer, he that imparts to us the unction of the Holy Spirit, that teaches us all thinges. But it is this logos in conjunction with the Divine Soul of the Messias incarnate of the Virgin Mary etc. that it is the speciall object of our Christian Fayth, in which all must believe that believe the Historie of the Gospell…dependence on the person of Christ in the orthodox sense.’[22]

More is setting the ‘orthodox’ view on the form of baptism and communion and in the person of Christ. He places his argument within the context of the Trinity, three that bear record: the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. He will link ‘Life’ as the same as the ‘Holy Ghost’ (More is referencing 1 John in Greek in his argument) as ‘that eminent light of men…in all ages and places of the world.’[23] He equates Wisedom with ‘the Logos or Divinity of Christ’ that enters ‘Holy Soules’ making them ‘friends of God and Prophets’ or ‘Lights of the world’. The ‘noble illuminated Soules’ that have come into this world are fixed on the ‘most eminent example, ‘the Soul of the Messias come into the flesh.’[24]

More’s emphasis, as will be Keith’s in his later dispute with Penn, is on the person of Christ and the Word made flesh reflected in the ‘letter’: ‘The true light is not to be understood of the mere logos, but of the Soul of the Messias incarnate and visible person of Christ.’[25] More argues for a kind of apostolic succession; ‘soul of the Messias united with the logos become incarnate…by virtue of the Records and Historie of his life and doctrine, and of the lives and doctrines of his Apostles…borne of a Virgin…gift of the Holy Ghost…doctrines of Christ…’[26]

Henry More’s call to Penn and the Quakers in August 1675 to regard baptism and communion with his emphasis on apostolic succession and on ‘Institution’ challenges Nicolson’s statement that he and the Quakers were essentially saying the same thing. Whereas More calls for an open tolerance he manipulates it. He turns his profession of ‘loving others…and not giving offense’, into his subtle criticism of Penn's No Cross, No Crown, the Quaker use of ‘thou’ and ‘cap-honour’ as their ‘ignorance and mistake.’ The whole ending of his letter is infused with language that places More as a concerned patron or father for the ‘wayward’ Penn.

Penn’s Answer, 1675
Penn responds in indirect manner by writing a letter to Lady Anne Conway, in lieu of a visit, and has Quaker George Keith deliver it to her in November 1675 at Ragley. In the letter, Penn indicates that he has sent George Keith to her ‘in the Spirit of Jesus.’[27] His letter, interpreted as a response to More’s letter (for Penn knew that Lady Conway and Henry More were close confidants and that George Keith, a close Friend was deeply attached to the two) is languaged as to communicate Penn’s and the emerging Quaker stance on the Jesus and Christ understanding. After all, Penn was in the process of forming his own theology. He writes to begin his two page letter, brief and to the point, understanding that Lady Conway was a deep philosophical presence and drawing closer to the Quaker way against the wishes of Henry More. Penn writes:
‘We preach the Light of Christ in the conscience, which is god’s faithfull and true witness, that the worldly, pompous church has slain…thos that are in the fleshly religion (insensible of this pure light and spirit of Jesus) they are in Babilon…the outward Jew, circumcision, Christian, that is born of the fleshly nature in religion (form without eternal life and powr) persecutes him that is born of the spirit…now that which gathers to be one of that blessed church which is of the lamb’s spouse is the light and the spirit of Jesus.’
‘I have been acquainted with Papists, Protestants, Presbiterians, Independents, Baptists, and I know that they have formerly felt some touches of the divine powr, that raised up the soul above formality…our testimony is, that all turne their mind unto the light, and spirit of Jesus within them.’
‘That a witness, a living faithfull and true witness thou mayst be in thy generation, to him immediate powr and worke in the soul against all lifeless letterall, formall worships, in which heavenly fellowship cannot be found…this inwardly slays and mortefys, and brings into fellowship of the mistery of the death and resurrection of Christ and his assencion too, into the heavenly place: for the children of the resurrection, live in heavenly places, in Jesus Christ…God almighty keep and preserve yee to his eternall kingdom.’[28]

One cannot be sure that Penn’s letter to Lady Conway is a direct response to the letter of Henry More to Penn. Whereas some sources indicate that Penn met More in person, this cannot be proven in the research undertaken. We do know that George Keith spent extended periods at Ragley with Lady Conway. We know that Henry More met with George Whitehead and John Whitehead in 1675 as More asked questions regarding ‘touching the soul of Christ’. George was ‘defensive’ but John was ‘agreeable’ as testified in a letter from More to Lady Conway, November 9, 1675: ‘John easily agreed with me in those questions, which only amounted to this; that Christ besides his body had also a soul, and a soul like ours in all thinges, sin onely excepted’ whereas George was ‘smug and plump’ and ‘more expert’.[29]

Penn’s letter, however, reflects a very different understanding than what More communicated to him. Even a spontaneous letter, written quickly, can give a good glimpse into what Penn’s emphasis was in November 1675. Penn’s letter speaks principally of three things; the significance of the ‘Light of Christ in the conscience’, the ‘pure light and spirit in Jesus’ and the sense of ‘the soul raised up beyond formality’. There is a sense of transcendence that offers a complex picture of Penn’s developing understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the Christ and the Word. More does not mention Jesus but instead the emphasis is on the person Christ and its link to Scripture. In Penn, there is a sense of a movement upward in his use of words such as ‘eternal life’, ‘divine power’, ‘raised up’, ‘heavenly fellowship’ and ‘resurrection’.

George Keith and Henry More, 1674-1677
Nicolson presents the Keith-More relationship as the central focus of her work in reviewing the Cambridge Platonists and Quaker link. It is clear that George Keith was deeply attached to both More and Lady Anne Conway. Keith’s letter written in prison to Robert Barclay in March 1676 speaks of his deep love of the pair: Give my best to Quakers and Conway and More, ‘If thou dost see her remember my dear love to her and show her that I am busie answering H. More’s papers unto me, and have near finished my answer…if thou happen to see Henry More remember my dear love to him and notwithstanding of his mistakes I would have Friends be very loving and tender to him, as indeed I find still a great love to him in my heart.’[30]

Nicolson calls ‘the meeting of Henry More and George Keith at Cambridge and at Ragley one of the significant episodes in the history of seventeenth century religion.’[31] Whereas I do not agree with Nicolson’s assessment that More as ‘older divine grew in tolerance and increased in understanding’[32] or that More ‘in that time of schism and hatred, (stood) alone upon a lofty height above all sects whatsoever as sects (and so could) gaze upon the naked Truth of Christianity’[33], I do agree that Lady Conway may have passed beyond to a deeper understanding. She wrote to More in February 1676, after a long bout of terrible suffering, while being attended to by Quaker caregivers prior to her convincement:
‘but I must profess that my converse with them is upon a contrary account, to receive health and nourishment from them (speaking of the Quaker company). They have been and are a suffering people…I find them so still, and very serious…the particular examples of great patience under sundry heavy exercises, I find begettes a more lively fayth and uninterrupted desire…than the most learned and Rhetorical discourses of resignation can doe…’[34]

Whereas Penn may understand this sense in transcending form and even reason to something higher, there is a sense that More, despite his passionate endeavor and endearing nature (as reflected in Conway’s and Keith’s attachment to him), cannot quite understand the ‘second dimension’ spoke of by Conway and understood by the Quakers.

Keith’s strong identification with and schismatic nature that runs parallel to More resulted in his special care and love toward the elder Henry More in 1676. The union between Keith and More is especially significant for Keith’s identification will be translated into a later event when Keith turns against Penn and the Quaker group in Philadelphia in 1690. Nicolson is correct in assessing that Keith’s ‘thinking on the meaning of terms which the Quakers constantly employed-reason and revelation and the light within-which began in long talks at Ragley, echoes through every sentence in his later attack on Quakerism in his The Deism of William Penn.’[35]

The Cambridge Platonists offered much to the early radical and universalist groups. In reviewing the lives and thought of More, Conway and Cudworth (and there are many more philosopher-theologians-mathematicians and scientists in this group), the general foundations for inquiry identified for the Cambridge Platonists are: the infallibility of intuition, the high place of reason, an attack on materialism and atheism, moral ideas as innate in man and introducing and integrating from a variety of thought-forms. Cudworth will be referenced in glowing terms in Penn’s The Christian Quaker (1699). In his works, ‘Cudworth attacks the materialist philosophy of Hobbes and maintains the belief that moral ideas are innate in man.’[36] Henry More formulated ‘moral axioms that could be recognized as self-evidently true. More, wanted to enlist reason to show how one could move beyond narrow egoism to a universal benevolence.’[37] Lady Anne Conway’s contribution is in her critique of Cartesian dualism that opposes More.[38] Part of her argument was on the ‘convertibility of matter and spirit…she indicates that matter and spirit are not totally different substances but are able to change into each other.’[39]

To America, 1682-1694
Lady Conway died in early 1679 two years after her Quaker convincement. Penn will travel to Penn Silvania to develop his ‘Holy Experiment’ in Philadelphia in 1682 and will stay for two short years before returning to London. Keith will move to East Jersey in 1685 to serve as a prominent Quaker leader. Keith is called to Philadelphia and accepts a gift of five hundred acres of land from William Penn in 1689. Keith is affected by what he witnesses as a waywardness in Quaker faith and practice and sets out to make changes. What results is the Keithian controversy that offered a real challenge to the thriving Philadelphia Quaker community. Whereas Keith had some valid concerns for improving Quaker structure (he was able to convince many to agree with his intent), his tactics and disrespect for tradition and protocol reflected a man set out to destroy and disrupt.

It was evident that the great George Keith had decided to align with a group that was more in line with his beliefs in what is essential to a rule for Christian faith and practice. After a trial in London in 1694, where his confrontational and disruptive stance continued, the Quakers and Keith decided to part company. Keith continued to speak strongly against the Quaker way, converted to the Anglican church in London and wrote his final treatise against Penn’s 1699 work The Christian Quaker and his divine testimony stated and vindicated from Scripture, reason and authority.

This final break, by once very close Friends who had shared so much and taken part in establishing the movement Quaker; William Penn and George Keith, who along with giants such as Fox, Barclay, Penington and Whitehead, to name just a few, came together in spirit for a moment, as the separatist Keith and his beloved William Penn, ready and poised in artistry, set out to battle wits again in their final definition of the rule of faith and practice for the (Quaker) Christian. What was Penn trying to communicate in his notice to ‘the Noble Bereans of this Age’ in his re-working of his 1674 version of the Christian Quaker in 1699? and what was Keith’s response? We will return to the same challenges discussed before as the relationship between matter and spirit, word and Word, Jesus and Christ…

London 1699: Penn and Keith
At the end of the seventeenth century in 1699, both Penn and Keith, in London, were busy immersed in London and in a sense global politics. Seven years before, on the 20th of April in 1692, George Keith was publicly disowned at a meeting of the Ministers of the Society in Philadelphia. The Declaration was confirmed at the next General Yearly Meeting, held in Burlington, on the 7th of July following.[40] The rift was torn asunder.

It is difficult to assess what Keith’s expectations were as he made the trans-Atlantic trip across the sea. His trial was set in London in 1694. In one account, his character and approach to defending his person is called ‘passion’ and his hope for reconciliation ‘hopeless’.[41] His rejection was confirmed. Sprague’s account in 1859 affirms: ‘From this time he denounced the Quakers in general, with both the tongue and the pen…in 1700, he formally joined the Church of England, and was ordained as Bishop of London…he returned to America in 1702 as the first Missionary to America of the Society for Propogating the Gospel in Foreign Parts.’[42]
Keith’s tract, the Deism of William Penn, and his Brethren, Destructive to the Christian Religion written in London in 1699, serves as his final break with the London and American Quakers (along with his work criticizing Robert Barclay’s An Apology written in 1702.)

Penn’s final word comes perhaps in reaction to Keith’s American group the ‘Christian Quakers’ who had separated from the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. Penn’s work, The Christian Quaker and his divine testimony stated and vindicated from Scripture, reason and authority, apparently sets out to set aright and define the true Christian Quaker Rule of Faith and Practice. His work is an extension on his previous work, the Christian Quaker, written in 1674.

The review here will principally look at Penn’s Epilogue ‘Of the General Rule of Faith and Practice’ contained in his 1699 edition. After doing this, the paper will shift to George Keith’s schismatic response which reflects his inability to embrace and understand or accept Penn’s universal vision.

Hugh Barbour ends his article ‘William Penn, Model of Protestant Liberalism’ with the following insight:
‘(Penn’s) books were rarely quoted by the Puritan liberals whose ideas became the mainstream of ‘the Kingdom of God in America’. In the nineteenth century, American liberal religion, especially the Unitarians and Transcendentalists, picked up many of the themes of the Cambridge Platonists…Today’s Quakers are still faced by Penn’s dilemma, how to recognize and affirm truth insofar as it may be shown in any man, and yet respond to man’s need for moral challenge and social transformation…For Quakers and all Protestants, both Penn’s teaching and the logos, the ‘Word-God’ is the Light of conscience as well as natural law, and his political practice and rough-sketched theories renew the challenge to unite reforming zeal with universal human understanding.’[43]

It is difficult to put a label on William Penn. We will find littered through Keith’s response many erroneous labels; Atheist (24), Antinomianism (25), Ranterism (25), Paganism (30), Moralist, Heathenism (34)[44]. Is William Penn a Latitudinarian? The Elwell Evangelical Dictionary defines Latitudinarianism as a label that became ‘attached to a group of Anglican divines in the late seventeenth century whose thought displayed a high regard for the authority of reason and a tolerant, anti-dogmatic temper…they reacted against the Calvinism of the Puritans and were broadly Arminian in outlook. They aligned themselves with progressive and liberal movements in the contemporary intellectual world.’[45]

The book, The Life of William Penn the Settler of Pennsylvania, includes a maxim of Penn’s which may apply: ‘And yet the latitudinarian that I love, is one that is only so in charity: for the freedom I recommend is no skepticism in judgment, and much less so in practice.’[46]

Whatever label one puts to the great William Penn will be limiting. It is clear that in Barbour’s words Penn was not a blender of ideas but he did seek a higher unifying scope from out of his intensely deep Christian roots and Biblical mastery. Whereas Keith used his Biblical mastery as a sword, we will see in Penn’s Christian Quaker that he is using the Bible in a unique way pointing to a new understanding of ‘Christian’ Faith and Practice. Penn’s valediction in his epistle introducing the 1699 version, ‘I am A Christian Quaker, and Your Christian Friend’ sets the tone.

Penn’s Christian Quaker, 1699
William Penn wrote his revision treatise in London before his return to America in 1699. Although there is a chance that the revision was completed on Penn’s cross-Atlantic voyage to America and then sent to London for printing, this cannot be substantiated. It is affirmed that Penn’s second version taken from the 1674 Christian Quaker work was printed in London by T. Sowle in 1699. His epistle to the work speaks of ‘the unweariedness of the unplacable Pharisee and subtile Scribe…(who) endeavour to Pervert the Right Way of the Lord.’[47]

The bulk of this presentation will be to review Penn’s Epilogue ‘of the General Rule of Faith and Practice’, ‘of the Judge of Controversie’ and ‘the Conclusion’ placed at the end of his twenty-three chapter work. He opens his 1699 epilogue with a call to the True Faith that overcometh the world in the context of ‘many Faiths in the world.’[48] His work will be about communicating and differentiating between a General Rule of Faith and Life (Scripture) versus the General Rule of Faith and Life for the Quaker Christian (Light of Christ).

The work reviewed is set up in a structure of objections and replies. Penn describes the General Rule: ‘the Constant Measure or Standard, by which Men in all Ages have been able to Judge of the Truth of Error or Darkness and the Good or Evil of Thoughts, Words and Actions.’[49] Faith is an ‘Assent of the Mind…as to resign up to God…the Great Creator and Saviour of his People.’[50] Penn, on page 206 writes: ‘the Creating Word that was with God, and was God, in whom was Life, and that Life was the Light of Men…was He[51], by whom God in all Ages hath revealed Himself; consequently, that Light or Spirit must have been the General Rule of Men’s Knowledge, Faith and Obedience, with respect to God.’[52]

Penn introduces diverse thinkers; Justin Martyr, Augustine, the Cambridge Platonist Dr. Cudworth, Pythagoras to show the universality of Light and Wisdom. At this juncture of Penn’s presentation, he presents the manifested Light as an inner knowing ‘for God (who is Light, 1 John 1.5) has shewn it to them.’[53] ‘The Light of Christ in the Conscience’ is the General Rule; the same Rule as given to Enoch, Noah, Abraham…Jethro &c’.

Penn focuses on the word ‘General’. Read closely: ‘that which was before, and since they were in being, must needs be More General than they; But that was this Light in the Conscience, the Law and Guide of those Patriarchs (for the Scriptures began long after, in the time of Moses) consequently must be the General Rule.’[54] Though Penn does not mention women, he would endorse the truth that this Light comes in the female Quaker Public Friend for example or in Miriam or Esther.

Another objection is set: ‘the Light within were so before Scripture was extant, yet since the Writings of holy Scripture, the Scripture and not the Light, hath been the General Rule.’[55] Penn directs the reader into a recognition that the Scripture the objector refers to was formed for a ‘limited’ group: ‘Palestine or Canaan and the Jews and not for All Mankind’. In Penn’s argument, God is defined in universalist terms. He writes of ‘God the overseer’, ‘the Living Rule, the Root of the Soul’ and the ‘Noble Precepts (writ in Man’s heart)’ to refer to the Gentiles and Socrates-Plato respectively. To these, Penn urges the readers to understand that ‘God is their Father, neither shall they ever be abrogated; for there is in them a Great God that never waxeth old.’[56]

Penn sets up another objection that points to the argument that Scripture has been the General Rule since they were created and remain so. Penn describes the ‘‘same Light’ that existed before Christ’s coming in the Flesh and since, where the Scriptures never reached...therefore still the Scriptures have not been, neither are the General Rule…where the word General implieth the Nature of the Thing itself, respecting Mankind from the Beginning of the World to this Day, and so to the End.’[57] Penn places the Scripture not as the Rule of Faith and Practice but as a Rule: ‘If the Rule, then The General Rule: For whatsoever is The Rule of Faith and Life, excludeth all other from being General, they being but particular in respect of it self; Therefore, not The, though A Rule of Faith and Life.’[58]

Penn addresses the Universal Faith in Man; Inward and Spiritual begotten in the Immortal Word:
‘If the Faith of God’s People in All Ages be of One Nature, then the Rule but of One Nature…And if the Faith be of One Nature, the Rule is of One Nature also. And since the Faith is Inward, Spiritual, begotten of the immortal Word, in which is Life, and that Life was the Light of Men, and that this Word of Life and Light was the Rule…therefore the Rule must be Inward and Spiritual.’[59]

Penn is using Reason and taking from Scripture to make his case that Scripture cannot be The Rule. His nine points in ‘Of the General Rule of Faith and Practice’ section argue against Scripture as the sole Rule of Faith and Practice. In Penn’s argument, Scripture has proven to be both imperfect and fallible. His argument is very modern touching upon contemporary questions and objections regarding the potential infallibility of Scripture.

One of his concerns and objections is to the distance between event and writing and the fact that the established canon is both imperfect and incomplete: ‘they were many Hundred Years in Writing, and are now Imperfect also as to Number.’[60] William defends the books outside of canon; ‘Enoch’s prophecy is mentioned by Jude, but not extant in the Bible, the book of Nathan…The book of Shemaiah, the book of Jebu, the epistle of the apostle Paul to the Laodiceans…’[61] are outside of canon. (How Penn would react to the Nag Hammadi finds would be interesting: their existence and unearthing certainly reinforces this picture of imperfection and incompletion).

Penn comments on the great complexity and sometimes contradictory evidence found in Scripture and difficulties inherent in discerning a clear ‘General Rule.’ He writes: ‘where to allude Aptly, and not wrong in the Sense, is Difficult, and requires a clear and certain Discerning…the doctrines are scattered throughout the Scriptures, those Societies given forth verbal Confessions of their Faith, have been necessitated to toss them to and from, search here and search there…’[62] Penn calls for a ‘clear’ and ‘certain’ discerning which he infers comes from the ‘Light’.

Penn addresses the modern question regarding the question of original and copy and the multitude of translations: ‘If the Scriptures are the Rule, they must be so in the Original…If the copies must be the Rule, it were to be wished we knew which were the nighest to the Original, there being above Thirty in Number…the Variety of the Readings which we find among those Copies, amounting to Several Thousands; And if the Copies cannot, how can the Translations be the Rule?’[63]

Penn challenges the reader who holds to Scriptures as The Rule of Faith and Practice in Opposition to the Spirit and challenges those ‘Professors of Religion’ to how they find themselves in such position: ‘Is it by Tradition or Revelation? I mean, the Internal Testimony of the Spirit; or the External Award and Determination of Men: If the former, they must unavoidably come over to us; for then the Spirit will, and must be both Rule and Judge: If the latter, I ask how are they assured that they are not miserably Abused by Carelessness or Design: since we see, that using utmost diligence, both Translation, Transcription and Printing are subject to numerous Mistakes.’[64]

The case that Penn is making is important and challenges the ideas deeply held on the infallibility of Scripture as a closed canon. He discusses the Council held ‘360 Years After Christ’ and how the Original was altered through being ‘tossed and tumbled through many Hands, and of many Judgments and Opinions…Some were received, and some rejected, and it is not improbable that they were also abused.’[65] He discusses the fact that ‘some of the Scriptures taken in by one Council for Canonical, were rejected by Another as Apocryphal…how visible it is that they contradicted each other, and as true that they both erred.’[66] Penn makes his case that these inconsistencies point to the truth that ‘If the Scriptures were the Rule of Faith and Life, then because they cannot be the Rule in their Translations, it cannot be the Rule for the Greatest Part of Mankind; indeed to none but Learned Men: Which neither answers the Promise relating to Gospel-times which is universal; nor the Necessity of all Mankind for a Rule of Faith and Life.’[67]

An important matter to hold in one’s heart, and especially as it relates to Keith’s response, is that Penn is not advocating a turning away from Scriptures as a Rule of Faith and Practice-Life. Penn is speaking to an opening up of the Spirit that is universal and in all men and cannot be contained within any one system. He will speak of the Light that brings peace and guidance to the unlearned, a unifying Spirit, that also allows people to critique their own systems as limiting and imperfect. Penn writes: ‘there are a Thousand Cases, and not a few occurring almost daily, in which the Scripture cannot be a plain and distinct Rule and Guide: Yet has not God left himself without a Witness in any Bosom; for his grace that brings Salvation has appeared unto all Men, teaching them that believe in it, to deny ungodliness and worldly Lusts, and to live soberly, righteously and godly in this present World. And Christ Jesus the Eternal Word has for that End lighted every Man coming into the world to Discover, Reprove, and Instruct about Faith and Practice.’[68]

One could bring together Penn’s uses of ‘Law and Light in the Conscience’ with ‘God, Christ, his Spirit and Grace’ as he takes it backward to ‘God’s mercy with the Jews, according to his Covenant with faithful Abraham.’[69] Penn draws a similarity between the ‘Rebellion to the Law and the Light within.’ Penn challenges those who may wish to ‘lay down Instituted Religion’ for ‘Scripture is but the Mind and Teachings of the Divine Light in others, declared or recorded’[70] and urges our ‘Self-denial and walking in the Spirit’.[71] Penn refers to these works as ‘External Mediums’ and questions whether they shall ‘turn the Light and Spirit out of the Office of Rule and Judge?’[72] The Lord said that he will write the Law on People’s hearts: ‘There is nothing more clearly laid down in it, from Beginning to End, than the Rule and Reign of the Spirit. My Kingdom, said Christ, is not of this World.’[73]

Penn’s use of ‘Christ’ in his language is not made to overshadow the significance of Jesus or the Holy Spirit but to include them. He answers the objection regarding Moses and the law with the following statement: ‘For admitting the Law written by Moses were The Rule (a Rule I grant it was) to the Jew outward, yet Christ, the Spiritual Leader of a Spiritual Israel, writeth his spiritual Law in the Heart, as Moses, the Outward Israel’s Leader writ the Law upon Tables of Stone.’[74] Penn enters into support from Scripture (Malachi, Hebrews, Isaiah, Luke, Revelations, Joel, Job, Romans, Galatians, 1 John) to reinforce the point that the Kingdom, the Law, the Rule, the Temple are all Spiritual for Christ said, ‘My Kingdom is not of this World, but within.’ This is the light that is in all men, Christ, the Lord. Penn writes: ‘As many as walk according to the Rule, Peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.’[75]

Penn places the Scriptures in a Quaker frame. The Scriptures are to be reverently studied and fulfilled in Christ. The search for Penn is in ‘the Spirit’s testimony and Evidence which gave them forth…they are to be reverently Read, Believed and Fulfilled.’ Penn speaks to the direction that rational activity may take one as found in Lady Conway's late revelation: ‘They that come to be led of the Spirit, arrive at the End for which the Scriptures was given forth.’[76] Penn: ‘It is the Testimony of the Spirit which is The True Rule for believing and understanding the Scripture, but the Spirit of Truth must be The Rule for our believing and understanding Them.’[77] Later, Penn labels the ‘Rule for Reading, Understanding and Believing’ to be ‘the Divine Light and Spirit of Christ.’[78]

Penn defines his understanding of the difference between A Rule and the Rule of Faith and Practice: ‘By The Rule of Faith and Practice, I understand, the Living, Spiritual, Immediate, Omnipresent, Discovering, Ordering Spirit of God; And by A Rule, I apprehend some Instrument, by and through which this Great and Universal Rule may convey its Directions.’[79]

Time does not allow for the author to compare the texts of William Penn’s 1674 Quaker Christian and his revised version in 1699. Upon a short glance, the two works appear to be almost completely identical. Penn’s decision to re-publish his words some twenty-five years later point to his prophetic vision and to the consistency of his universality. It is as if he is placing the words in front of his hearers as Jesus did and the Pharisees and those hard of heart cannot grasp their significance once again. We will see this in Keith’s penetration into Penn’s words (for we can assume he read Penn’s 1674 version); Keith simply cannot agree with Penn’s universal vision and reacts with division and disdain.

Penn concludes his work: ‘Turn one’s mind inward that one may know and do his will, that one may come to be Experienced and Expert in the School of Christ…which is so far from lessening the Authority of the Scriptures of Truth, that unless This be Man’s Rule (circumcision in the Heart, of the Spirit) and Judge in the Reading and Believing of them, he can never understand them Rightly, or keep their sayings Faithfully.’[80]

George Keith’s Reaction
We find George Keith’s response to Penn’s Christian Quaker in his work, The deism of William Penn and his brethren destructive to the Christian religion, exposed plainly laid open (1699). The intention is not to write off Keith’s ‘concern’ as solely schismatic although Keith, like More, was quite divisive and oppressively opinionated (in contrast to Penn’s emphasis on self-denial and openness to ideas). Keith had a passion for a Christian form in which Scripture, baptism and communion were The Rule of Faith and Practice. Keith had witnessed the dangers inherent in a Christian Faith and Practice that held to an inner Light without Scriptural inquiry. Whereas he ranted against one extreme of a purely Spiritual focus that sought no division, Keith’s reaction went to an opposite extreme that sought a material universality in imposed Anglican doctrine and belief. Penn was able to bridge both worlds of material and spiritual and Keith was unwilling to accept Penn’s broad scope. We see Keith’s More-esque reaction in distorting Penn’s words, and as his inclination was in Philadelphia, rather than lifting up the thoughts of others and seeking inclusion in a grander story, he used Scripture as a Pharisee to attack the ideas of Penn.

The Deism of William Penn
Deism is defined as ‘a belief in a god of nature -- a noninterventionist creator -- who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws’.[81] Given the fact that the review of Penn’s work shows his deep allegiance to God, Christ and Scripture, Penn’s ‘deist’ strand may relate to his concern that man needs to intervene in critiquing his own forms and allow new revelation with a more tolerant and inclusive view.
Keith sets out to ‘refute the grand Error of William Penn and his Brethren.’[82] His consistent phrase of contention is with Penn’s ‘the Light Within…to all Mankind, to Christians, Jews, Mahometans and Heathens of all sorts, Protestants and Papists, is the general Rule of Faith and Life to them all.’[83] Keith criticizes Penn’s understanding that ‘these…are true and good Christians, and ought to own and acknowledge one another as Christian Brethren and Members of one Universal Church.’[84]

Keith is adding some input into Penn’s ideas here; for the research done cannot find the phrase of inclusion putting together ‘Deist’ with ‘Jew and Muslim’ in Penn’s writings. Either Keith is completing Penn’s ideas through his long hours of discussion with his good Friend or the Information regarding Jew and Muslim is either Keith’s construction or an idea somewhere reflected in Penn’s work not found in this research.
Keith cannot understand how Penn and his Brethren can be both ‘Deists and true Christians at once.’[85] According to an Internet source, those who hold to a deist affiliation believe in some form:
‘Laws reveal themselves through ‘the light of reason and nature’…Reliance on the power of reasoning exchanges faith for human logic…few Deists follow practices of Christianity, Judaism…The Bible is not accepted as the infallible word of God…Deists refute evidence of Jesus’ incarnation…Deism has no creed, articles or faith, no holy book…man is qualified what reasonable path to follow regarding morals…’[86]Keith insists again that Penn’s group ‘lay themselves so open as to be rank Deists while they at the same time pretend to hold the Christian Doctrine…which is as great a Chimera or Impossibility…as to be a Horse and Man at once.’[87]

Keith’s Objections
It is very complicated to get at the core of Keith’s objections in the Deism of William Penn for he is prone to great shifts and alterations of terms. He claims that ‘His Mistake’ was in ‘confounding the Term Rule of Faith with the Term Inward Objective Medium…’but the material Objects of Faith, all the things in Scripture that ought to be believed, are the Rule of Faith (this is his Objective Medium of Credibility).’[88] Keith states: ‘That which is only, strictly and properly speaking, the Rule of the Christian Faith, is the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures; especially respecting the great Fundamentals and Essentials thereof.’[89]
He erroneously indicates that if ‘Penn can prove that there is but one General Rule of Faith and Life to all Mankind, the next step is, by good Consequence, that all Mankind ought to have but one Faith, one Religion.’[90] This was not Penn’s argument. Penn was not calling for one religion but a unifying Assent. Keith calls Penn ‘Unsuccessful and Fallacious’ in Penn’s statement that Faith is ‘an Assent of the Mind…as to resign up to God…as the great Creator and Saviour of his People.’[91] Keith indicates that this is not the ‘Faith of God’s Elect, and of the Heirs of Eternal Salvation, that is grounded upon the Faithful Word of God.’[92]

Keith cites 1 Timothy and the book of Acts to bring together ‘the Light within’ with ‘God, or the Word or the Spirit’. This allows him to equate God’s love with ‘the Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ God-man, as he died for our sins.’[93] In contrast to Keith’s emphasis on death and the Man Christ as atoning for man’s sins (crucifixion), Penn emphasizes the Assent-resurrection, the Word Christ as a point of greater unification.

The argument of Keith turns to the book of Micah. Penn concentrated on Micah 6.8 (‘He has showed you, man, what is good; and what the Lord requires from you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God’) as relating to ‘the light of Christ in the conscience’ for All Men and All Times. Keith points his reader to verse 6.7: ‘shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of the body for the sin of the world?’ Keith works the passage into a testimony that ‘Justice, Mercy and Humility are more acceptable to God and the greater things of God’s laws, than all outward sacrifices…Faith was required in the people Israel which came, not by the common dictates of the light in every conscience but by special revelation.[94] Keith follows that it can be proved that ‘the Faith of Christ the great Sacrifice, as he was outwardly to be offered up…as remission for sin.’[95] Therefore, Keith works his argument out that ‘the Light within every Man gives them not this Faith (so) the Light within every Man is not the Rule of the Christian Faith.’[96]

Keith certainly does not agree with Penn’s definition that ‘a Christian is one that by the knowledge and Doctrine of Christ excels in Moderation’ and that ‘Abraham, and the Ancient Fathers were Christians’.[97] Keith again shifts Penn’s ‘Doctrine of Christ’ to ‘the Doctrine of Faith in Christ, as God-man, for remission of Sin, and Eternal Salvation.’[98] Keith insists that this general Law or Rule of Faith is ‘Salvation of Christ Crucified.’[99]

Penn’s emphasis is on ‘the new creature’ in ‘Jesus Christ’, an ‘assent of the mind as to resign up to God, and have dependence on him, as the great Creator and Saviour of his people.’[100] Keith insists that this discovery must be through ‘certain propositions’, in ‘some form of Words mentally conceived and apprehended’ and it follows in this strand (in Keith’s mind) that therefore that the ‘Rule of Faith must be in certain propositions consisting of words and sentences, such as God delivered to the Prophets, and which were recorded in Scripture, such are, That the Word was made Flesh, that a Virgin should Conceive and Bear a Son, and that the Son should be Saviour of the World; that by his Death he should reconcile us unto God; that he should rise again from the Dead, and on the Third Day, and ascend into Heaven….’[101] Penn would argue that this is not The Rule but A Rule and not General to All People.

Keith continues misquoting Penn: ‘his primary Rule, and nothing from the Scriptures, which he calls secondary…if WP have such a perfect complete Primary Rule that teacheth him, without Scripture, all what he ought to know, believe or practice, I cannot understand of what great use the Scripture can be unto him, this primary Rule hath taught him all before-hand, otherwise it is not primary.’[102] Penn was clear in his comments regarding the importance of Scripture; he wrote about the importance of ‘Reading and Believing’ the Scriptures. He emphasized that they are to be studied and read in the Spirit of Christ.

Of special interest are Keith’s continual comments regarding Jews and Muslims. Over six times he attacks Penn’s understanding of God’s-favor for other groups in statements inclusive of ‘Jew and Mahometan’. In his response to Penn’s point that Scriptures flow out of separate Societies and are therefore not General, Keith lashes out: ‘And if he hath no other Principles of Precepts taught to him by the Light within, but what every Deist, Mahometan or Jew, who are enemies to the Christian Faith have, then let him speak out more plainly, though I think he has spoke very plain already: If the Light within him has taught him any other Principles or Precepts, than what Deists, Jews and Mahometans have, let him tell us, that he may convince us, that the Light within every Man is the Rule of Faith.’[103]

Penn saw the ‘Gospell times’ as universal. Keith questions how the Books and Tracts of the Quakers can vindicate ‘both the Sufficiency of the Spirit, and true Light within, in all the Faithful; and also the Sufficiency of Scriptures without’ while also ‘excluding the Lord Jesus Christ God-Man without us, from being our All Sufficient Saviour.’[104] Penn places the Saviour label on God as the ‘Great Creator and Saviour of his People’[105] in Christian Quaker.

Keith clearly struggles with the question of the inter-relationship in Penn’s statement: ‘the outward Israel had it as well as the inward Israel.’ This seems to present the crux of the matter, for Keith asks: ‘where then is the distinction, and difference between the one and the other?’[106] Keith calls ‘the true State of the Controversie between Quakers and their Opponents’ to be ‘whither the inner teachings of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit come to believers without all outward means.’[107] Penn’s emphasis is on ‘the Immortal Word, in which was Life the Light of Men.’[108] Penn stated, ‘This was God’s Promise, and the Privilege and Blessing of the New Covenant, that as the Outward Jew had an Outward Law, the Inward Jew should have an Inward Law.’[109]

Keith is so combative and Pharisaic-schismatic in his delivery that it is clear that there will be no reconciliation between Keith and Penn, and Anglican and Quaker. Keith calls the reader to John 10.3: ‘To him, the gatekeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice: and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.’ The Keithian Rift with ‘Penn and His Brethren’ offers sharp distinction. In tangible ways, perhaps the Anglican group won through their attack. But in the long run, the author goes for Penn and the Quaker challenge in finding an Assent that takes in All. Indeed, both are of supplementary movement; ‘integral parts of the same movement; two inevitable aspects of a whole’[110] as indicated by Nicolson. Unfortunately, the failure to reconcile the two is in the inability to understand Penn’s unique vision.

Penn’s Message in Part
William Penn called for a New Creation for Mankind and a Complete Universality and Inclusivity. Although the author cannot speak to Penn’s complete vision, there is a sense in the research that Penn’s emphasis on the Word Christ and the Assent of Mind with God the Creator and Saviour pointed to a redefinition of ‘Christian’. Penn did not discount the importance of Scripture in ‘Christian’ (nor in his own) development. He did point to a higher Assent, however; one that broke down the divisions of man, created a Lens in which to Read and Study-Profess Scripture properly and one that saw the Christ light in all people found in the man Jesus’ journey to his resurrected glory as Christ.

Keith’s grounding was in the Man Christ and in the doctrines of the Church. This passion makes him worthy of veneration but he never quite understood the Assent to the Resurrected Christ as his Friends Conway and Penn. Nor did he grasp the teaching of Penn that the reading of Scripture should be done in the open and inclusive spirit of Christ. Unfortunately, Keith’s knowledge of Scripture was used as a sword to those who thought differently whereas Penn embraced different thought, sought no blending of ideas, yet was unique in finding a corrective and unifying Light in Christ.

endnotes:
[1]Hugh Barbour, ‘William Penn, Model of Protestant Liberalism’, Church History, Vol. 48, No. 2, (June, 1979), 156.
[2] Ibid, 156.
[3] Ibid, 156.
[4] Ibid, 156.
[5] Ibid, 157.
[6] Martin Ignatius, Latitudarianism in the 17th century Church of England, 4.
[7] M. Kaufmann, Latitudinarianism and Pietism, Chapter XXIV, Trinity College, Dublin, (1908), 763. found at: http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/cmh/cmh524.html#763
[8] Barbour, 160.
[9] Barbour, 172.
[10] Mary Maples Dunn and Richard S. Dunn, The Papers of William Penn, Vol. I, University of Pennsylvania, 1981, 6. Beyond the correspondence with Penn, More is visited by ‘Robert Barclay, John and George Whitehead and George Keith…Keith, Isaac Penington as well as many unnamed Quaker women were frequent visitors at Ragley between 1675-1677.’ www.oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/conway.htm.
[11] Majorie Hope Nicolson, Conway Letters: The Correspondence of Anne, Viscountess of Conway, Henry More and their Friends, 1642 to 1684, London: University Oxford University Press, 1930, 379.
[12] Ibid, 381.
[13] Ibid, 383.
[14] Ibid, 391.
[15] Ibid, 391.
[16] Dunn and Dunn, 304.
[17] Ibid, 324.
[18] Ibid, 306.
[19] Ibid, 308.
[20] Ibid, 309.
[21] Ibid, 312.
[22] Ibid, 313.
[23] Ibid, 314.
[24] Ibid, 314.
[25] Ibid 315.
[26] Ibid, 317.
[27] Nicolson, 402.
[28] Ibid, 402-403.
[29] Ibid, 404.
[30] Ibid, 427-428.
[31] Ibid, 413-414.
[32] Ibid, 413.
[33] Ibid 412.
[34] Ibid 422.
[35] Ibid, 380.
[36] www.alcott.net/alcott/home/champions/Cudworth.htm. ‘Cudworth is seen as influential among the New England Transcendalists and provided critical support for Waldo Ralph Emerson’s belief in the infallibility of intuition.’
[37] Ibid, .
[38] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conway/
[39] Louise D. Derksen, ‘Anne Conway’s Critique of Cartesian Dualism’, internet.
[40] William B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1859), 25.
[41] Ibid, 26.
[42] Ibid, 27.
[43] Barbour, 175.
[44] As printed out copy on EEBO of George Keith’s The Deism of William Penn and his brethren destructive to the Christian Religion, exposed and plainly laid open, London: printed for Brab. Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill, 1699.
[45] D. F. Wright, Elwell Evangelical Dictionary, www.mb-soft.com/believe/txn/latitudi.htm
[46] W.L. Weems, The Life of William Penn, the Settler of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Uriah Hunt and Sons, 1852, 95.
[47] William Penn, The Christian Quaker and his divine testimony stated and vindicated from Scripture, reason and authority, London: T Sowle, 1699, A2.
[48] Ibid, 205.
[49] Ibid, 205.
[50] Ibid, 206.
[51] Penn’s use of ‘He’ shows his universalist intent.
[52] Ibid, 206.
[53] Ibid,207.
[54] Ibid,207.
[55] Ibid,208.
[56] Ibid,208.
[57] Ibid,209.
[58] Ibid,209-210.
[59] Ibid,211.
[60] Ibid,211.
[61] Ibid,212.
[62] Ibid,213.
[63] Ibid,216.
[64] Ibid,216
[65] Ibid,216.
[66] Ibid,217.
[67] Ibid,218.
[68] Ibid,219.
[69] Ibid,220.
[70] Ibid,221.
[71] Ibid,253.
[72] Ibid,221.
[73] Ibid,221.
[74] Ibid,222.
[75] Ibid,224.
[76] Ibid,226.
[77] Ibid,227.
[78] Ibid,237.
[79] Ibid,227.
[80] Ibid,250.
[81] www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm
[82] George Keith, Deism of William Penn and His Brethren, London, 1699. Page 1 of 35 on EEBO.
[83] Ibid,1.
[84] Ibid,1.
[85] Ibid,2.
[86] www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm.
[87] Ibid,2. It may be worth investigating Lady Conway’s Critique of Dualism that went against Henry More’s theory.
[88] Ibid,3.
[89] Ibid,3.
[90] Ibid,5.
[91] Ibid,5.
[92] Ibid,5.
[93] Ibid,6.
[94] Ibid,7.
[95] Ibid,7.
[96] Ibid,7.
[97] Ibid,9.
[98] Ibid,10.
[99] Ibid,11.
[100] Ibid,13.
[101] Ibid,13.
[102] Ibid,14.
[103] Ibid,16.
[104] Ibid,18.
[105] Penn, 206.
[106] Keith, 20.
[107] Ibid, 21.
[108] Penn, 211.
[109] Ibid, 222-223.
[110] Nicolson, 379.

****************************************

Religious Education and Global Praxis : Engagement and Enhancement
by Blair Weaver, Earlham School of Religion, 2007

Creating my own philosophy of Christian religious education is an exciting task. Paraphrasing the words of one religious education philosopher[1], one can best speak out of personal experience and that I shall try to do. I come to the rich endeavor from outside any particular Christian denomination but find strong affiliation to and with the Christian Story and Vision. I ask the reader to be open to what I will attempt to communicate; it is a creative comprehensive sense that I have in mind. Addressing the complexities of the religious education dilemma will be at the heart and my own tendency to a more monastic way and ecumenical Spirit will be exposed as I integrate a new vision. It mirrors my own experience; that of building a strong Christian foundation and then moving outward into other traditions and ways of thinking and then returning home to the Word and Christ renewed and excited for new possibilities.

There is something inherently awkward in attempting to propose a new model; brought on by reaching for the new and also in my own struggle in writing. I am hopeful that the reader will show some leniency and recognize that this is a reach; and somewhere the multiple leaves on the tree of suggestion brought on by my idealism will be blown by the wind of correction. Something will stick as the vision comes toward one in tandem with something unknown.

I will include in my philosophy three general concentric circles: 1. the individual is at the core and then 2. the group and 3. the larger world. We will be working on the internal outward within the ‘sacred place’ of the church or meeting and ‘Sabbath’. At center are the two circles of transformation; the individual-in-community within the Christian Story and Vision. Taking from Thomas Groome’s philosophy, it is the Christian Story and Vision as reflected in the Bible and the smaller story and vision of the community gathered (for this example I will use the Quaker tradition) that present the ground from which to work out of. It is my leaning to import the following at the beginning; the first is the importance of a continual remembrance of and return to the end of ‘loving God and neighbor[2] as self’ and secondly, the criticalness of sacred Scripture[3] (the Bible and in this example, the writings of Fox, Penn, Penington, Woolman, Barclay….) in gaining our bearings and in building our foundation.

And so the vision will work outward and then like a Light shoot back at the core. Not every one in the group will want to venture out but like traditional aboriginal cultures there is a place for everyone in the group. Some can stay and relish in the depths of Christ and/or hold to a final realization such as ‘the Spirit of God is within you’. But the religious experience should be for the community, and my philosophy of religious education speaks to the differences and today’s necessity for seeing Christ as solution on a ‘global’ scale in the long run.

Table 1 (on Mars) gives a graphical representation of the Christian religious education model that will be proposed in this paper. We will begin with the Christian foundation (the Worship Sabbath and peripheral Christian Religious Education) and then work our way outward:

Worship Sabbath and Building Christian Foundational Community
The foundation for the Christian community is in its worship and Sabbath. In my view, the central aim of the Christian religious endeavor is in creating sacred place in Jesus’ name (‘Love God and neighbor as self’), celebrating in Holy Spirit community with an emphasis on God in neighbor-‘Other’ and in moving outward in a form of global praxis that engages with ‘Other’ through conversion to Other rather than conversion of Other.

Worship Sabbath is the core ‘home’ where the growing Christian community gathers to celebrate the Christian Story and Vision with a multi-creative engagement with sacred Word. The content for Worship Sabbath is the sacred Word (both Scriptural and tradition-selection) and the environment is contemplative and free from restrictions.

Whereas the form of creative ideas in linking content in comprehensive fashion (the whole educative experience as link to Sabbath) is managed, the integrative linking of Sabbath discovery is left to participants and worship coordinators.

My own view is that the Sabbath environment is composed of three pods; contemplative, dialogue and art (three separate areas). All three activities are centered on the text of the day only to come together toward the end of worship to share (if they wish, can be unspoken). The art activity will be focused on the young and those who wish to join to create something of meaning.

The aim of Sabbath environment is to create space of rest where people can come ‘as they are’ and thus choose to be involved in whatever way the Spirit leads them. The aim of Sabbath Worship is to strengthen Christian foundation in a contemplative, other-focused (God and Other) sacred place and to allow Others outside tradition to participate in Sabbath restful celebration-worship.

Sabbath Worship is the center into which all religious education realizations flow (re-languaging); a time for rest for a group of people who share a striving spirit to move into greater Christian understanding in two ways. To handle this, my philosophy of CRE speaks to the two groups; those who wish to hold to the traditional view which is a form of Christian exclusion and those who seek a more comprehensive-post modern and global view. It is my thought that both can thrive in singular Christian community; the transformation of individual in Christian community (circles one and two) and those who seek to be involved in circles one and two yet increasingly engage with Others of difference ecumenically.

Peripheral Christian Religious Education
Peripheral Christian religious education supports Worship Sabbath in developing richer Christian foundations that focus on Tradition (the Bible Text and story) and tradition (i.e. the Quaker heritage and texts of selected Quakers). There are a wide variety of various alternatives (traditional Bible study class, testimonies, telling the Jesus story, art) that may serve the PCRE (surrounding Sabbath) educational process. The emphasis is on the Scriptural text, the power of the Holy Spirit and an artistic sense of the sacred. For Christian foundational community, it is important that the whole Bible is studied (Cully).

The aim of PCRE is to strengthen the Christian foundation as it relates to Tradition and tradition. I identify with Groome’s ‘shared praxis’ approach where the community comes together to reflect on experience and guide their actions within the Christian story. In this way, Scripture breeds theory and theory meets experience and in the process theory is shaped and altered, deepened. We return to Scripture with new eyes excited to what it has for us. The community in PCRE relies on both nurture and frank speech. Whereas I can appreciate Iris Cully’s nurturing stance in teacher-student relationship, I can also see a necessity to use a ‘frank speech’ approach in authenticity to prune one another collectively and in small-group.[4] The environment in Peripheral Christian Religious Education and Worship Sabbath should be as egalitarian as possible. The community is a body and the members as ‘children of Christ’ strive to grow in the knowledge and love of Christ. I do not believe in a strong separation based on stages and age (child and adult). Because we are copying beings (and especially children), I think that learning in group can prove beneficial and that all should share in teaching and learning.

Global Praxis : Engaging with Other Religions : West Meets East[5] Threat and Necessity
The greatest threat to the world species is in religious division and institutional structures-dogma that both perpetuate division and claim exclusive truth. While not discounting the various dangers and evils inherent in the modern world, it is clear that we are at the end of a long linear landscape. Either we will find more positive ways of engaging with others of difference or we will find ourselves approaching the end of eschatological narratives and toward world catastrophe. Jesus himself was an outgoing One; increasingly engaging with others of difference and simplifying the criteria for entry (‘spirit and truth’) preaching a gospel of inclusion. Therefore we must do the same.

Radical Otherness : Kenotic Christology in Post-Modern Revolution
In his book, In the Company of Others, David Jensen explains: ‘The church, must empty itself of the facile claim that it alone has all the answers: it must cease viewing the Christian life upon a narrow path that leads directly to its own sanctuary and instead travel a road that harkens to the presence of God in the midst of a pluralistic world.’ (DJ, 150) Ken Wilber contributes in his call for a global vision; a series of ‘transcend and include’ stages of self-transcendence calling for ‘de-centering, transcendence, decreasing egocentrism’. Wilber discusses the different paradigm in post-modernism where ‘different worldviews create different worlds, they aren’t just the same world seen differently.’ (KW, 52)

This fact points to the need to extend Jesus outward and engage with the world in a different way. Jensen insists that ‘in order to become more faithful disciples, Christians need the insights of persons who profess distinctly different religious commitments.’ (DJ, x) My philosophy of Christian religious education attempts to find a balance and integration between ‘the moralism of following Jesus (insiders) to the ethical claim of others and the demand of difference in the Christian life (outgoing ecumenists)’. (DJ, xiv.) But what might this going-outward ecumenically, in recognition ‘of the beauty and sacredness of others as unique persons of difference’ (DJ, xiv.), look like?

John Cobb and David Jensen can assist us in understanding the process of engagement-enrichment in global praxis. The process is not to create a new synthesis but to ‘radically open’ to Other while ‘grounded in our own tradition’. In my own understanding, I see the global praxis exercise (engaging with increasing layers of difference) as seeing Christ in all and reflected in their tradition. There is some tension. Wilber speaks on ‘transcend and include…(where) the greater the degree of development, the greater the burden of inclusion.’ (KW, 297) Jensen speaks of ‘confessing Christ and confronting the Other as two prongs of the same religious commitment.’ (DJ, 2) We enter into the dialogue with the joy of the mystery of Christ and his inclusion for all of humanity. Jensen: ‘Recognition of Jesus as the Christ evokes a multiplicity of voices and a constellation of images…Total harmonization between them all is neither possible nor desirable, for the words we use will never exhaust the images or meanings of the One whom we proclaim.’ (DJ, 32)

The Process : Table 2
Jensen speaks of a kenotic approach to engagement: ‘Only by ‘emptying’ the imperialized, individual subject can one take seriously the reality and subject-hood of the Other, only then is the door to mutual relation with another opened.’ (DJ, 82) Later in this paper I will address the Buddhist contribution to this portion of the dialogue. The call is to engage with Other ‘not in the frozen absolutes of the past, but in the imaginative and mysterious possibilities of today.’ (DJ, 91) I do not think that this call is inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings: Jesus went to the Samaritan woman, told her that the Father is to be worshipped in ‘spirit and truth’ and stayed two days with the Samaritan people (considered the greatest form of ‘Other’). Jensen suggests a new vision for understanding Christian discipleship: ‘the Christian life is not marked by others conversion to Christianity (my way of belief), but my conversion to others.’ (DJ, 144)

Engagement and Practice
Therefore the aim of Christian religious education calls the community and its individuals outward in kenosis to engage with other ‘religious’ traditions (and hence non-violently). Beyond studying the sacred texts of ‘religious Other’ and learning from guest teachers, Jensen suggests that the apex or core of engagement should be in ‘shared practice’: ‘The kenotic approach suggests that transformative understanding occurs wherever persons partake in one another’s religious practice, whenever they share them with conviction. I learn from an Other when I empty myself of my own customary practice and am drawn by another’s text or ritual.’ (DJ, 163) His suggestion is that this engagement is done with a ‘core confession’ using the following examples: for Christians; Jesus Christ as the incarnate One, for Jews; God’s covenant with Israel and for Buddhists; teaching on Enlightenment. He adds: ‘we need others not so we can be religiously eclectic, but so that we might become better (Christians), better respondents to the new life in Christ.’ (DJ, 183)

John Cobb calls for a ‘deep commitment to one’s own tradition, when understood as requiring dialogical openness to other traditions, can lead to a surprising transformation of everyone involved.’ (JC, 2) Can we not admit that we have a ‘piece of the truth’ and need others in order to both make for peace and enrich our own understandings? Are we as a church in possession of all needed knowledge?

Dialogue and Appropriation
Cobb is an advocate for ‘dialogue among religious traditions centering on the practical needs of the world.’ (JC, 11) Cobb holds that there are ‘real differences among the religions but each of them contains something special that can contribute to the general well-being of humanity.’ (JC, 49)
Therefore from out of dialogue and realization of a need for a ‘globalized theology’ (JC, 59) comes the necessity for a ‘mutual effort to transform and save the world.’ (JC, 95) Out of shared dialogue and global praxis, Cobb presents the challenge to a Christianity willing to be transformed: ‘as a Christian I am challenged to learn as much as I can, and to appropriate as richly as I can, from these other traditions.’ (JC, 46)

Buddhism as Transformer of Christianity
Cobb suggests a ‘transformation of Christianity through the appropriation of Buddhist wisdom.’ (JC, 179) He writes: ‘The Buddhization of Christianity will transform Christianity in the direction of a greater and deeper truth, a new and better quality of life, and a fuller ability to serve Christ in the political sphere.’ (JC, 46) Therefore, one of the areas of potential study in global praxis for the CRE endeavor could be in engaged Buddhism.

Eastern religions, such as the multiple strands of Buddhism, not only help to enrich the picture of Jesus and bring to the fore His aspects lost out to the West but present interesting forms of practice centered on mindfulness, wisdom and universal compassion. There are many potential entries into Buddhism[6] that could serve as global praxis content in study and engagement:
Shantideva’s Way of the Bodhisattva: Mahayana Emptiness and the Bodhisattva.
Thich Nhat Hanh’s Mindfulness: Lessons on being mindful and present.
Dalai Lama on Lojong Meditation: A meditation exercise on ‘Other’.
Shunryu Suzuki’s Zen Mind, Beginners Mind: Meditation postures and following mind content.
D. T. Suzuki’s Essays on Zen Buddhism: essays on Zen Buddhism schools and the varieties of Zen practice.

What Buddhism offers the world is in its rich differences. The Bodhisattva waits as enlightened being devoted to serve until all beings reach enlightenment. Lojong meditation is a prayer for all sentient beings with an emphasis on self-lessening and compassion for those who suffer in a world that pulls them in every direction of desire. Zen brings satori or enlightenment, a flash of insight in which one ‘judges things from a new point of view…upsetting artificially constructed frameworks.’ (DT, 261) Suzuki calls for a satori: ‘a new birth…the re-valuation of one’s relationship to the world.’ (DT, 261) Suzuki’s description of satori sounds much like Jesus’ ‘Come and see’: ‘a general mental upheaval which destroys all the old accumulations of intellectuality and lays down a foundation for a new faith…the awakening of a new sense which will review the old things from an angle of perception entirely and most refreshingly new.’ (DT, 262)

The aim of Christian religious education should be to enact a ‘great upheaval’ in vision: a vision that seeks to find solution to the ‘global crisis’ and ‘the healing of the Earth’ that can happen only outside of ‘foundation’. For this, a foundation is needed; a foundation deeply grounded in (T)tradition. A foundation that will allow for global spiritual explorers to ‘transcend and include’, to experientially engage with Others of difference and to thereby enrich all participants (including the foundation).

Ken Wilber : Global Consciousness
Ken Wilber speaks of the necessity for a ‘global consciousness’. He says that one cannot simply step into a new formation or a new Utopian view. What is called for, according to Wilber, are ‘interior stages of growth’: ‘Global problems demand global consciousness for their solution, and global consciousness is the product of at least a half dozen interior stages of growth.’ (KW, 300) I am not quite sure how to take Wilber’s matrices and integral efforts. I do know that there will be no new World religion (unless imposed) and that what is needed is similar to what I have been attempting to frame: foundations open to Others and each enhanced in dialogue and shared practice focused on the common good. Wilber maps out the progression to World Soul Intuition: ‘precisely developing from sensory-biocentric to ego-centric to socio-centric to world-centric to World Soul…a worldcentric locus of moral awareness that insists on universal compassion.’ (KW, 258) He goes on: ‘moved away from, or differentiated from, an exclusive identity with your sociocentric roles, and you particularly begin to scrutinize the rightness or appropriateness of your sociocentric and ethnocentric positions, which previously you would not – and could not even question.’ (KW, 170) And so comes ‘a capacity to take the role of other…a shift, a continuing decrease in egocentrism…the overall direction of development in humans – the telos of human development – is toward less and less egocentric states.’ (KW, 164) I will go on because I find his ideas interesting.

Wilber speaks of Flatland Paradigms which ‘do not demand actual transformation, just this ‘one-step’ learning of the new paradigm.’ (KW, 140) He adds: ‘the aim here is mutual understanding. Not that we necessarily agree with each other, but can we at least understand each other?’ (KW, 103) And again: ‘it is not that the earlier view is totally wrong and the new worldview is totally right. The earlier one was adequate, the new one is more adequate.’ (KW, 61) What I am attempting to do is to reinforce the two ‘divisions’ in the church-meeting and show that both have a place. The traditional Christian view builds and rests in foundation. The global post-modern view seeks to take Christ out into the world in non-traditional ways to integrate and lift up the beauty and sacredness of other. It seeks new creative interpretations of Scripture. Wilber calls this the ‘self-transcending drive of the Kosmos’: ‘to go beyond what went before, and yet include what went before, and thus increase its own depth…as depth increases, consciousness increasingly awakens, Spirit increasingly unfolds. To say that evolution produces greater depth is simply to say that it unfolds greater consciousness.’ (KW, 37) And so the great importance of art and expression in the Christian endeavor: ‘The Kosmos, it seems, unfolds in quantum leaps of creative emergence…what is creativity but another name for Spirit?’ (KW, 22) What is holding us back from the potential?

Re-Languaging : Dewey and Boff
Many will say that engaging with Buddhism is not correct because Buddhism is non-theistic. Jensen presents Lindbeck in his book and the ‘language dilemma.’ To Lindbeck, ‘religions are self-enclosed linguistic systems and like languages, they can be understood only in their own terms, not by transporting them into an alien speech.’ (DJ, 12)

John Dewey calls for religion to be languaged in ‘adjectival form’ ‘denoting attitudes that may be taken toward every object and every proposed end or ideal.’ (JCA, 276) Faith, to Dewey, ‘signifies being conquered, vanquished in our active nature by an ideal end and then working to bring that ideal end (God)[7] into existence as far as it lies in our power.’ (JCA, 277) Language takes us somewhere like a boat to the Other side. Language takes us to a core realization. And it is important that we emerge outside of the ‘linguistic systems’ and move in ‘the spirit and truth’. Leonardo Boff spoke of the core realization and perhaps what Christ can mean in the multi-overlapping identity and linguistically pluralistic world: ‘Every time a human being opens to God and other, wherever true love exists and egoism is surpassed, when human beings seek justice, reconciliation, and forgiveness, there we have true Christianity and the Christic structure emerges within human history…Christianity not only exists where it is explicitly professed and lived in an orthodox manner but emerges whenever a human being says ‘Yes’ to goodness, truth and love.’ (LB, 248-249)

The content of Christian religious education therefore includes the beneficial texts of other religions and interaction with Others of difference. Those texts can help us in our understanding of Others and strengthen our own Christian foundation in Jesus Christ. The environment of the world and ‘Others of difference’ can be our teacher as we seek what is good, true and reflects love.

Global Praxis : Abrahamic Faiths
In Genesis 12.1-3, God told Abraham: ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you…and in all you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ (RSV)

Part of my philosophy of Christian religious education content includes the study of Genesis and the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) to a goal of inter-religious dialogue and shared practice among Abrahamic faith communities..

Lewis Mudge is a leading proponent of a ‘greater ecumenism’. Whereas he acknowledges the riches that Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian and many other religious cultures offer, his motivation is to search for peace among the Abrahamic faiths. He states: ‘These (Abrahamic) faiths have been among the worst religious troublemakers through the centuries. Just to achieve a world without their involvements in religio-political violence would be more than well worth doing.’ (LM, 18) Therefore, Mudge places ‘inter-Abrahamic relationships’ as ‘the central issue’ of Christian inter-religious dialogue. His concern is for a ‘next ecumenism’; an ‘approach to what Christian theology in a pluralistic world now needs to be and seems at present so ill-equipped to become.’ (LM, 2)

For this movement to take place, he follows what we have been discussing; the necessity for ‘enlarging categories’ and ‘taking in new horizons’ in a ‘common theological project’.
Mudge’s emphasis is on ‘the gift of responsibility for Abrahamic blessing as a pivotal category’ (LM, 7). God offered Abraham and Sarah and Hagar and Ishmael to ‘bring through their descendents a covenantal blessing.’ (LM, 9) He states: ‘loyalty to the scriptural promises gives us a way to not let ourselves be used by political, economic or ideological forces.’ (LM, 9) Our call, according to Mudge, is to: ‘bring life to humankind…the gift of responsibility for interpretation – in the presence of, before the face of, the Other—that is intrinsic to the covenant Promise. And in turn, such responsible-to-Promise interpretation by Jews, Christians, Muslims – not to speak of other religious communities – is a ‘gift of responsibility’ to humankind in another sense: a gift of the presence of people whose behavior brings ‘blessing’ rather than ‘curse’’. (LM, 9)

Mudge is an advocate for a shared practice of ‘reading related scriptures together’ in inter-religious dialogue. Jews, Muslims and Christians share stories as it relates to Abrahamic blessing. Through an analysis of New Testament passages, Mudge points out that ‘the people of God have a responsibility not only for inheriting blessings (salvation, grace, well-being) for themselves, but for seeing to it that God’s intention that all the earth’s families are blessed is carried out.’ (LM, 15)

Following Mudge’s lead, the aim of Christian religious education should be to familiarize the Christian community with the shared responsibility of the Abrahamic faiths in building peace in cooperation with other ‘faith’ traditions. Mudge, in addressing the Faith and Order Commission at the National Council of Churches Ecumenical Conference at Oberlin in 2007, suggests ‘a program of shared reading of passages and others, including Qur’anic parallels, by representatives of the different faiths.’ (LM, 15) He gives examples of inter-religious dialogue models that are being experimented with in the United States and the Middle East that bring together Jewish, Christian and Muslims in the challenging task of ‘weaving a network of trust, solidarity and responsibility…to resist all ideological and political forces that seek to tear it apart.’ (LM, 17)

Table 3 (will somebody ever read this?) is a graphic representation of a global praxis aim of this Christian Religious education model. I propose that a thorough study of the book of Genesis by the Christian community is a good entry point in understanding the Abrahamic faith challenge (Mudge’s entry into New Testament passages as they relate to the Abrahamic covenant is also helpful).

The Abrahamic faith initiative is in its early stages and there are an increasing number of books of inter-textual analysis as it relates to the topic. A second movement for the Christian community would be to find ways of engaging with both the Judaic and Muslim community and search for means of fellowship. Suggesting a shared common good cause and working together in social action service could prove an excellent way of building community of Others-in-solidarity.

Conclusion
The aim of this effort has been to offer a view on what an expansive Christian education model might look like. The focus has been on creating a model that blends both a traditional Christian base with a more modern and global view. At center has been a worship-focus that seeks the sacred in place, in text and in ‘Other’. Engaging with an increasing level of ‘Others of difference’ is a luxury that we cannot ignore as concerned Christians. The principal concern is to create sound and vibrant Christian community foundation. With this, we must ‘extend our categories’ and see Christ in other traditions and thereby enrich our own endeavor in realizing a greater human fellowship; a fellowship that seeks a ‘radical openness’ to the diverse manifestations of the ‘Christic structure’ in the world and builds solidarity to bring greater peace and justice to Earth.

Bibliography: (LB): Boff, Leonardo. Christ the Liberator. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. 1972. (JCA): Campbell, James. Understanding John Dewey. Chicago, IL: Open Court. 1995. (JC): Cobb, John. Paul Knitter, ed. Transforming Christianity and the World. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. 1999. (DJ): Jensen, David. In the Company of Others. Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press. 2001. (LM): Mudge, Lewis. Abrahamic Faith Tradition Paper. NCC Ecumenical Conference. Oberlin, OH. 2007. (DT): Suzuki, D.T. Essays in Zen Buddhism: First Series. New York, NY: Grove Press. 1961. (KW): Wilber, Ken. A Brief History of Everything. Boston, MA: Shambala. 2000.

endnotes:
[1] Thomas Groome: ‘the only religious education I know sufficiently to share reflections on is the one I know from my own practice.’ Groome, Thomas, Christian Religious Education, (1980), 3. [2] In a Samaritan sense. [3] There is a Holy Spirit mystery and power that lies where ‘two or three are gathered in (Jesus’) name.’ This name of Jesus is contained in the spiritual-situational ethic of ‘loving God and neighbor as self.’ As I explore, the name of Jesus, in engaging with Others (of different traditions) moves further toward a spiritual ethic. Nonetheless, my own understanding is that within the Christian community (circles one and two), the complete story (both t and T) and Word hold within them a Spirit that directs both the community and the individual to the Truth in Jesus that suggests increasing layers of engagement with Others of difference. [4] My understanding of teacher-student-community relationship pulls from the letters of Paul and understanding Paul as ‘psychagogue’ using Hellenistic Stoic-Epicurean models. Each student is unique flowing out of conditions and experiences and carry with them unique mental dispositions and defenses (a radical change of commitment away from the ‘world and its inputs’ is needed). Therefore, the teacher, as ‘physician for the soul’, understands the uniqueness of his or her students and setting and uses appropriate ‘medicine’ for enacting a conversion and strong commitment to the aim of community. [5] Whereas traditionally much of the scholarship of CRE has been within the philosophies of the West, the global expansion that has brought the world to our current state calls for a greater merging of West-East philosophies. [6] And also interesting inter-religious topics of sharing. i.e. General 4 Noble Truths/8-Fold Path and Original Sin/10 Commandments, Buddhist Emptiness and Kenosis, the Bodhisattva and Christ. [7] To Dewey, God can be redefined as ‘the unity of all ideal ends arousing us to desires and actions…rejecting the pride of the elect.’ (JCA, 280). Common experience links mankind; ‘the flow of experience is the flow of experience that all humans face.’ (JCA, 282)

hope you enjoyed and got this far. comment and suggestion are welcome, peace. BW