Inner Christianity

[Robyn Banks]

The editor of the now discontinued 'Gnosis' Magazine has written a good introduction to the 'inner', 'esoteric' or 'mystical' traditions of Christianity. It provides good information about 'inner Christianity', with a practical outlook. Here's an excerpt from the Introduction.

"If one single theme has dominated the history of the past century, it is loss of faith. The implacable course of events has cast doubt upon progress, civilization, political and economic systems, even the essential decency of human nature. Christianity has not been spared. Starting in the nineteenth century, science began to show that the earth had been born not six thousand years in the past, as the Bible seemed to suggest, but billions of years ago. Even the Gospels themselves no longer seemed like Gospel truth, as historical and critical methods revealed that much in the life of Christ was not historical fact but myths and legends that attached themselves to him after his time.

These developments have drawn forth a complex array of reactions from clergy and laity alike. Some have actively rejected this knowledge, taking refuge in traditionalism and fundamentalism. Others have tried to integrate the new perspectives into their religious life, only to be left with a vague and unsatisfying liberal faith. Still others are disaffected from religion in general or simply bewildered.

Whatever course we choose, one thing becomes obvious: it is now next to impossible to take faith unreflectively. We no longer live in a conceptual world framed by the comforting certainties of church doctrine and the literal truth of the Bible. And yet, as disorienting and disillusioning as the process of modern inquiry has been, it has not destroyed the religious search but has invigorated it. Rather than contenting themselves with secondhand truths, people have begun to ask how they themselves can know the presence of the divine...

Knowledge that liberates consciousness is often described as _esoteric_. The word 'esoteric' is somewhat forbidding, usually connoting something obscure, exotic, and irrelevant to daily life - in short, something 'far out'. But etymologically the word means exactly the opposite: it comes from the Greek _esotero_, which means 'further in'. You have to go 'further in' yourself to understand what this knowledge is about...

While there are a number of extremely powerful works written about this tradition (which I will refer to in the course of this book), they are all dense and demanding; they also tend to overcomplicate the subject to a certain degree. I found that people to whom I had recommended these texts tended to find them archaic, impenetrable, or off-putting. This book is an attempt to create something more accessible. Much of it is gleaned from classic texts, both obscure and well known; I have given references for these when possible...

In current Christian discourse, I see an enormous interest in the devotional side of the tradition, in prayer, contemplation, and mysticism. Indeed, Christianity has always laid great emphasis on the heart, the emotional life of the soul as it is lived in communion with God. No one could deny that this dimension is necessary on the spiritual path, but it is not sufficient. For the spirit to develop in a harmonious and integrated fashion, the pole of love must be counterbalanced by the pole of knowledge. It is this aspect that I see as most lacking in Christianity today. While there is no scarcity of theology and biblical scholarship - which has tremendous value in its place - almost all of it is at the outer rim of Dorotheus's circle, grappling with the details of the literal level and with truth in its most superficial form. Knowledge of the inner levels of experience has been for the most part forgotten. It is primarily this need that this book is meant to fill.

Of course, the polarity between love and knowledge is not a rivalry. These two opposites are like the sexes; they are differentiated to create not strife, but dynamism. Left to its own, devotion becomes sentimental and even fanatical, while knowledge becomes dry and pedantic. When the two are connected and integrated, knowledge - which after all arises from a love of truth - begins to feed and delight the heart, which in its turn warms and stimulates the energy for further exploration. A seventeenth century Englishman named John Pordage expressed this truth by saying that the essence of the esoteric Christian path could be symbolized by the image of an eye in a flaming heart. I hope that this book will point toward such an integration."

Richard Smoley, "Inner Christianity" (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2002)

[ACFaith.Com]

Sounds very appealing to me :)

[Blake Reas]

03-11-2003 @ 09:28 AM
Robyn Banks:


The editor of the now discontinued 'Gnosis' Magazine has written a good introduction to the 'inner', 'esoteric' or 'mystical' traditions of Christianity. It provides good information about 'inner Christianity', with a practical outlook. Here's an excerpt from the Introduction.

"If one single theme has dominated the history of the past century, it is loss of faith. The implacable course of events has cast doubt upon progress, civilization, political and economic systems, even the essential decency of human nature. Christianity has not been spared. Starting in the nineteenth century, science began to show that the earth had been born not six thousand years in the past, as the Bible seemed to suggest, but billions of years ago. Even the Gospels themselves no longer seemed like Gospel truth, as historical and critical methods revealed that much in the life of Christ was not historical fact but myths and legends that attached themselves to him after his time.

These developments have drawn forth a complex array of reactions from clergy and laity alike. Some have actively rejected this knowledge, taking refuge in traditionalism and fundamentalism. Others have tried to integrate the new perspectives into their religious life, only to be left with a vague and unsatisfying liberal faith. Still others are disaffected from religion in general or simply bewildered.

Whatever course we choose, one thing becomes obvious: it is now next to impossible to take faith unreflectively. We no longer live in a conceptual world framed by the comforting certainties of church doctrine and the literal truth of the Bible. And yet, as disorienting and disillusioning as the process of modern inquiry has been, it has not destroyed the religious search but has invigorated it. Rather than contenting themselves with secondhand truths, people have begun to ask how they themselves can know the presence of the divine...

Knowledge that liberates consciousness is often described as _esoteric_. The word 'esoteric' is somewhat forbidding, usually connoting something obscure, exotic, and irrelevant to daily life - in short, something 'far out'. But etymologically the word means exactly the opposite: it comes from the Greek _esotero_, which means 'further in'. You have to go 'further in' yourself to understand what this knowledge is about...

While there are a number of extremely powerful works written about this tradition (which I will refer to in the course of this book), they are all dense and demanding; they also tend to overcomplicate the subject to a certain degree. I found that people to whom I had recommended these texts tended to find them archaic, impenetrable, or off-putting. This book is an attempt to create something more accessible. Much of it is gleaned from classic texts, both obscure and well known; I have given references for these when possible...

In current Christian discourse, I see an enormous interest in the devotional side of the tradition, in prayer, contemplation, and mysticism. Indeed, Christianity has always laid great emphasis on the heart, the emotional life of the soul as it is lived in communion with God. No one could deny that this dimension is necessary on the spiritual path, but it is not sufficient. For the spirit to develop in a harmonious and integrated fashion, the pole of love must be counterbalanced by the pole of knowledge. It is this aspect that I see as most lacking in Christianity today. While there is no scarcity of theology and biblical scholarship - which has tremendous value in its place - almost all of it is at the outer rim of Dorotheus's circle, grappling with the details of the literal level and with truth in its most superficial form. Knowledge of the inner levels of experience has been for the most part forgotten. It is primarily this need that this book is meant to fill.

Of course, the polarity between love and knowledge is not a rivalry. These two opposites are like the sexes; they are differentiated to create not strife, but dynamism. Left to its own, devotion becomes sentimental and even fanatical, while knowledge becomes dry and pedantic. When the two are connected and integrated, knowledge - which after all arises from a love of truth - begins to feed and delight the heart, which in its turn warms and stimulates the energy for further exploration. A seventeenth century Englishman named John Pordage expressed this truth by saying that the essence of the esoteric Christian path could be symbolized by the image of an eye in a flaming heart. I hope that this book will point toward such an integration."

Richard Smoley, "Inner Christianity" (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2002)


Why read this? If this is true it sounds like someone who cannot admit that God does not exist and Christianity if false! If I was not a conservative I could never go to this kind of "Christian"Liberalism. It sounds like people who have lost faith but want to have "faith" I would rather curl up next to the fire and read a book that tells me how pointless life is. People like this, chide evangelicals for being "detached" from reality! This is detached from reality, Sounds like Atheistic existentialism redressed and called Christianity!

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake Reas

[ACFaith.Com]

As far as realtiy is concerned, it seems more consistent with cross-cultural religious experiences with God.

Many former conservative Christians retain their faith and love for God even when they decide that many of the tenets of their former view are no longer tenable. The touch of God in one's life does not always go away as easily as doctrinal beliefs.

Vinnie

[Blake Reas]

03-12-2003 @ 06:38 AM
ACFaith.Com:

As far as realtiy is concerned, it seems more consistent with cross-cultural religious experiences with God.

Many former conservative Christians retain their faith and love for God even when they decide that many of the tenets of their former view are no longer tenable. The touch of God in one's life does not always go away as easily as doctrinal beliefs.

Vinnie

So we can have Idols? To me to accept this view of "Christianity" (which isn't Christianity at all) I would have to reject the bible. If you reject the Bible you know longer hold to the faith of the Apostles or of Christ himself therefore you are not a Christian. The Scriptures speak against Idol worship or making a god in YOUR image.
A good book that has never been refuted showing that Liberalism is not Christianity but another religion in and of itself if John Gresham Machean book Christianity and Liberalism

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

[Robyn Banks]

03-13-2003 @ 07:56 AM
Blake Reas:
to accept this view of "Christianity" (which isn't Christianity at all) I would have to reject the bible.
All Christians "reject the Bible".

Blake Reas:
If you reject the Bible you know longer hold to the faith of the Apostles or of Christ himself
What Jesus believed is extremely difficult to tell. He didn't write anything, after all.

What the Apostles believed is a generalisation. Some, like James, believed in the continuation of Jewish laws. Others, like Paul, did not believe in the continuation of Jewish laws in the literal sense.


Blake Reas:
therefore you are not a Christian.
"Christian" = follower of Christ.

Most Christianity since AD400 has been Paulian, not Christian.


Blake Reas:
The Scriptures speak against Idol worship or making a god in YOUR image.
Like what Paul did?


Blake Reas:
A good book that has never been refuted showing that Liberalism is not Christianity but another religion in and of itself if John Gresham Machean book Christianity and Liberalism
There is no "Christianity". Only Christianities.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[ACFaith.Com]

The Scriptures speak against Idol worship or making a god in YOUR image.

It also speaks about not eating shellfish and pork and I have yet to see a convincing argument that Jesus nullified the food laws. Mark's gloss that he declared all foods clean does not demonstrate this. If Jesus ended the issue during his ministy Peter's vision in Acts on this and the struggles in Galatians can hardly be explained.

All Christians pick and choose. How many Christian woman pray with their head uncovered?

What exactly are you referring to by idol worship?

Vinnie

[Ryokan]

Christianity itself has many definitions. I would say it makes the most since for a christian to be someone who tries to follow jesus christ, NOT someone who follows the stuff written about him.

[Socrates]

Ryokan:Christianity itself has many definitions. I would say it makes the most since for a christian to be someone who tries to follow jesus christ, NOT someone who follows the stuff written about him.But the only source for what Jesus taught is the New Testament. And there is every reason to believe that the authors were both competent and trustworthy, so Christianity must be based on what the New Testament teaches. And this is consistent, despite the village-atheist-type "contradictions" that Banx asserts, in ignorance of such things as the Semitic Totality Concept. :dufus:

My fellow countryman Rev. Dr. Peter Barnes has written and excellent book The Gospel: Did Peter and Paul agree showing that Paul was faithful to Jesus's teachings. This refutes the crass liberalism by the likes of Banx that somehow Paul invented Christianity. :duh:

Blake is 100% right that Gresham Machen conclusively showed that liberalism is not a type of Christianity but a totally different religion. :thumb:

[Vorkosigan]

But the only source for what Jesus taught is the New Testament.

Well, there are about 30 or 40 gospels out there, forget the exact number, and of course, sayings attributed to Jesus and mentioned by early writers, but not collected in any document, and later traditions that surface elsewhere in the Middle East. If you wish to pick the NT writings and believe only they count; that is fine, but it is simply wrong to assert that it is the only source for Jesus.

And there is every reason to believe that the authors were both competent and trustworthy, so Christianity must be based on what the New Testament teaches.

Again, this is simply your opinion. Some Christians take that view, others take other views. All pick and choose among the available data.

Blake is 100% right that Gresham Machen conclusively showed that liberalism is not a type of Christianity but a totally different religion.

Well, it is certainly true that liberal and conservative Christianity are different. No need to write a book to prove that!

Vorkosigan

[Socrates]

I wrote:

But the only source for what Jesus taught is the New Testament.
Vork hurls an elephant:
Well, there are about 30 or 40 gospels out there, forget the exact number,Why don't you tell us more, instead of making this a-s-s-ertion. I'm not interested in counterfeit "gospels" of the 2nd and third centuries.

And there is every reason to believe that the authors were both competent and trustworthy, so Christianity must be based on what the New Testament teaches.

Again, this is simply your opinion.It is based on normal criteria used by historians and experts in legal evidence. All YOU have is your own opinions. Some Christians take that view, others take other views.I can't think of any Christians. Liberals don't count, since they use the same vocabulary but dishonestly twist it to mean things contrary to what the words meant to the authors and original audience.


Blake is 100% right that Gresham Machen conclusively showed that liberalism is not a type of Christianity but a totally different religion.
Well, it is certainly true that liberal and conservative Christianity are different. No need to write a book to prove that!Read what I said. Machen did NOT just say that "liberal and conservative Christianity are different" but that liberalism is not Christianity at all! Honest atheists also despise liberalism for their dishonesty in the way they use words.

[Socrates]

Inauthentic Worldly Faith wrote:
It also speaks about not eating shellfish and pork and I have yet to see a convincing argument that Jesus nullified the food laws. Mark's gloss that he declared all foods clean does not demonstrate this.How clear does Mark 7:19 have to be: "Thus he declared all foods clean". I'd rather believe Mark, who wrote what Peter told him, than some 21st-century non-scholarly revisionist.If Jesus ended the issue during his ministy Peter's vision in Acts on this and the struggles in Galatians can hardly be explained. How about being slow to learn, but he got the message in time to see Cornelius. That would also explain why he would tell Mark about Gen. 7:19, to make sure everyone else got the message too!

In any case, Christ gave authority to His apostles, therefore what they wrote in the rest of the New Testament is binding or loosing too.
All Christians pick and choose. More likely, they read things in CONTEXT to decide whether a law was cultural or trans-cultural, given to the Mosaic theocracy in preparation for the coming Messiah, part of the Law of Christ, etc.

[ACFaith.Com]

Inauthentic Worldly Faith? I take it that is me.

If your were to pick up a book by a scholar discissing Mark 7:19 you might actually learn something they "forgot" to teach you in sunday school. Until you do that or change your tone to a more pleasant one, I will not stand here and listen to your insults or promotion of "flat earth" type views. If you want to argue nonesense as true at least have the common decency to argue it in a respectable manner.

Vinnie

[Socrates]

Inauthentic Worldly Faith? I take it that is me.Give the guy 10/10 :doh:

If your were to pick up a book by a scholar discissing Mark 7:19 you might actually learn something they "forgot" to teach you in sunday school. Until you do that or change your tone to a more pleasant one, I will not stand here and listen to your insults or promotion of "flat earth" type views. If you want to argue nonesense as true at least have the common decency to argue it in a respectable manner.Like most liberals, IWF is quite happy to insult conservatives (e.g. comparing the views ably defended by scholars with "flat earth" here and in other places), but is a crybaby when conservatives give him a taste of his own medicine.

[ACFaith.Com]

Today @ 04:15 AM
Socrates:

Inauthentic Worldly Faith? I take it that is me.Give the guy 10/10 :doh:

If your were to pick up a book by a scholar discissing Mark 7:19 you might actually learn something they "forgot" to teach you in sunday school. Until you do that or change your tone to a more pleasant one, I will not stand here and listen to your insults or promotion of "flat earth" type views. If you want to argue nonesense as true at least have the common decency to argue it in a respectable manner.Like most liberals, IWF is quite happy to insult conservatives (e.g. comparing the views ably defended by scholars with "flat earth" here and in other places), but is a crybaby when conservatives give him a taste of his own medicine.

You have your chronolgy mixed up and there aren't any adequate defenses of that passage regardless of the "abilities" or "credentials" of anyone who will attempt to defend it. But you don't do history, you do apologetics and force fit eveything together under the assumption that it is all truth as you did in this thread with Mark 7:19. Any defense of this must engage in "special pleading" as real historians (tm) do not treat the text under the conservative rubric of inerrancy. Better luck next time.

Vinnie

[Carl Smuda]

I'm siding with Socrates on this. Gnostics had their chance and they blew it! Why? because they such a motely bunch of esoteric experiences that they had no cohesion. Aside from the fact that we don't seem to have any evidence that they were even trying to maintain the traditions of the Apostles. I'm going to quote from my favorite again, 'the Chicago Call: An Appeal to Evangelicals" 1977We need to rediscover the devotional resources of the whole church, including the evanelical traditions of Pietism and Puritanism. We call for an exploration of devotional practice in all traditions within the church in order to deepen our relationship both with Christ and with other Christians. Among these resources are such spiritual disciplines as prayer, meditation, silence, fasting, Bible study and spiritual diaries. A call to spirituality need not include questioning the traditions of our church fathers or the canon of scripture. A call to deeper Christian experience need not be some kind of heretical free-for-all.

[HemofHisGarment]

~"Christianities" - that's a nice term... I definitely can appreciate your original post regarding 'inner Christianity' which I think may have gotten lost along the way... Mr. Smoley made a good point ...without "conceptual framing" by church doctrine and with "the process of modern inquiry"...the religious search surely has been "invigorated". . . Regardless of one's personal beliefs, this website is proof of that.

[Carl Smuda]

Yesterday @ 09:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46693#post46693)
HemofHisGarment:

~"Christianities" - that's a nice term... I definitely can appreciate your original post regarding 'inner Christianity' which I think may have gotten lost along the way... Mr. Smoley made a good point ...without "conceptual framing" by church doctrine and with "the process of modern inquiry"...the religious search surely has been "invigorated". . . Regardless of one's personal beliefs, this website is proof of that. Greetings HemofHisGarment, God Bless you in the name of Jesus Christ. Nothing gnostic will ever come close to the potency in the Church Epistles. Mr. Smoley is lightyears behind Albert Schweitzer on inner Christianity. Everyone should read Dr.Schweitzer's book, "The mysticism of Paul the Apostle." One might get some help from the Apostle John's Gospel and letters. But Paul never even uses the term "born again." The revelation that Paul wrote (that he received from the Lord Jesus Christ -as we know) centers around our dying and rising with the Lord. We always return to that. The Church epistles are about the presence of the Divine through Christ. Always through Christ. Christ-in being always, never God-in being until the restoration of all things. Paul's mysticism works because it has a literalness to it in our experiences. e.g. suffering in growth. There doesn't need to be any esoteric knowledge in the Chritianity of the Bible because as many charismatic/pentecostals might confirm, there is a very literal application to the development of the spiritual.

Please don't underestimate the Church Epistles. they alone define Christianity and they are revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ.

respectfully,
Carl

[HemofHisGarment]

03-28-2003 @ 12:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47127#post47127)
Carl Smuda:

...Nothing gnostic will ever come close to the potency in the Church Epistles. Mr. Smoley is lightyears behind Albert Schweitzer on inner Christianity. Everyone should read Dr.Schweitzer's book, "The mysticism of Paul the Apostle." One might get some help from the Apostle John's Gospel and letters. But Paul never even uses the term "born again." The revelation that Paul wrote (that he received from the Lord Jesus Christ -as we know) centers around our dying and rising with the Lord. We always return to that. The Church epistles are about the presence of the Divine through Christ. Always through Christ. Christ-in being always, never God-in being until the restoration of all things. Paul's mysticism works because it has a literalness to it in our experiences. e.g. suffering in growth. There doesn't need to be any esoteric knowledge in the Chritianity of the Bible because as many charismatic/pentecostals might confirm, there is a very literal application to the development of the spiritual... Please don't underestimate the Church Epistles. they alone define Christianity and they are revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ.


I appreciate the warning, but I do not think that there is anything to fear in another viewpoint. We must seek after all that is good; but yes, I agree that we have to be careful not to look beyond the mark! There is a powerful book called The Unknown Sayings of Jesus which includes some fresh perspectives with statements (including some Gnostic sources) such as:

"One who seeks after the world is one who drinks sea water; the more he drinks, the more his thirst increases until it kills him."

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2VYGKC6MBP&isbn=0060655887&itm=1

.

[Carl Smuda]

I agree. All these things are good for the grid. I've read the Gospel of Thomas several times. The one, I guess, that came from the Nag Hammadi find? That is interesting. I've been reading off-and-on the book "Honest to Jesus" by the guy who started that Jesus-Seminar? And it seems reasonable to me that the oldest gospels were the 'sayings' gospels. Like Thomas'. And it seems reasonable that Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John came after, after sayings gospels and then adding to them narratives. But I'm no expert on that sort of thing. I really enjoy reading Elaine Pagels. Although some don't. She is some kind of expert in her field on the Nag Hammadi/Gnostic stuff?