Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues The Eternal Now - and how to be there!Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| The Eternal Now - and how to be there! | Login/Join |
I really don't think John of the Cross taught anything remotely similar to what CP does about "returning to the sacred word." And pulling quotes from different parts of the tradition is impressive, but doesn't change the fact that there's nothing else in the tradition quite like CP. So when he says "it's a blending . . .," that's correct; it is an innovation. As I noted on the CP thread (which this one is starting to parallel), Fr. Thomas does a wonderful job teaching on Christian spirituality, but his attempt to link things to CP as he does isn't really convincing. I'm sure you can see the logical fallacies involved in some of this approach. E.g. A. Theresa of Avila said xyx. B. CP emphasizes xyz. C. Theresa of Avila implicitly endorses CP. Well, not really. She endorsed the prayer of simplicity, which, as we noted on the CP thread, is really different from CP in many ways. Sorry to sound so negative, but if I hadn't received yet another email today from someone who's been practicing cp and is being eaten alive by kundalini issues, I might be different. The counsel given him by a cp teacher: treat it all as a distraction and return to the sacred word!  | ||||
|
Here's what it does say: STANZA 3 (25-46) Innovation. Yes. Truly. There do seem to be many different assessments of this, to be sure. Yes, I generally detect some of those in some of most approaches. Oh, Phil, you always have a most irenic spirit and the way you express your lingering doubts and raise what you see as legitmate concerns doesn't have near the pejorative force or antagonistic spirit that afflicts so much of this type of "dialogue"! I think that Fr. Richard would say that more of the world's problems issue forth from uncritical acceptance of teachings than from deliberative, critical reflection! especially when conducted here, now, in love.  Perhaps enough time has passed since the advent of CP and also since the New Pentecost of the Charistmatic Renewal and many other movements --- that scientific sociological and psychological studies can be conducted? to help all of you spiritual directors better come to grips (statistically and otherwise) with all of these intriguing and important issues, moving beyond the merely anecdotal to identify the rules and their exceptions, the essentials and their accidentals, general norms and specific guidelines and such. It is an awesome responsibility y'all take on in companioning folks through transformation! I am grateful to you and Fr. Thomas and Richard Rohr and the tremendous good y'all accomplish in soulwork and am certain it has untold ripple effects through the far corners of the Kingdom! If you want to just append this thread to the other one, where it can illuminate any future passers-by, then feel free to do so (and just delete it from here). I've finished listening to the whole series of audio CDs and have no more to contribute than what I already have. I do very much appreciate all of the points and counterpoints all of y'all offer but am not in a position to arbitrate between them from what is strictly an armchair perspective. That arbitration or reconciliation of disparate views will ultimately be accomplished by those of you who actually are spiritual directors and by the psychologists and sociologists and theologians with whom you work in concert. And this dialogue is important and critical because it affects real live souls and real soul lives! Carry on and many thanks from many of us, pax! jb | ||||
|
Hi everyone, I've just spent 2 hours reading all the replies on Christian Spirituality and CP. I may be being simplistic here but it seems to me that one must always ask for tue Guidance and use a critical eye and ear w/ any type of Spirituality... We lose focus on how God works through all things and that we have to remain true to ourselves in our relationship to God.... I have difficulty worrying about what is right and wrong for if it is truly effacious and trickles down into all you do and how you live in God's world isn't that all that matters.... I have always had to remember to sort out all things and that is what we need to be concerned about... It's like anything new creates a fad and everyone jumps on the Badwagon as it is the be all and end all of everting..... Tradition does play and inordinate role here and Semantics gets us nowhere... If someone is turned to CP i would recommend to expand their Spiritual reading beyond the Cloud of Unknowing.... and to check out the Classics.... They have been proven and tried for cneturies and have so much to offer..... CP frightens me in that it is very easy to get wrapped up in self and lose site of God... instead of the Merging of the 2..... Tell me if I;m wrong Phil but this is how this Simple Irish gal w/ 4 children and 9 grandchildren sees it... CathyDot | ||||
|
Above is a clear example of prudence, learning and experience, of knowledge coupled with love ... or ... succinctly put wisdom. pax, Cathy jb | ||||
|
Some miscellany that are at least tangentially related to true self and prayer are below. One of the richest reflections on this I have ever come across is in Merton's __New Seeds of Contemplation__, especially in the preface and first three chapters, which reflect on what contemplation is and is not and what the true self and false self are. The most concise summary I could come up with would be that, 1)for our true self, our joy is found in God's glory; 2) our will is oriented to God's love; 3)the work of our journey is to co-create with God our identity through and with and in God; 4) that we may become wholly in His image, holy in His image; 5) when we do have our memory, understanding and will integrated and holistically operative, we experience our true self but 6) this co-creation of our identity and this surrender of our meory, understanding and will to faith, hope and love are effected through theological virtue gifted by the Spirit by an elevation of nature through grace and trasmutation of experience through grace and not by a perfection of the natural order by our natural efforts, which is to say 7) we are in need of salvation to overcome both death and sin and the most fundamental vocational call we answer is 8) to be saved and then 9) transformed. In other words, we don't enter the monastery or undertake a life of prayer to make us better human beings -- rather, we urgently and in crisis and seriously and radically place the utter dependency and abject poverty of our selves (which are nevertheless good) at God's disposal in order to be dramatically rescued. end of that thought now pertaining to how good we are and are not: One thing about Benedict that differs from JPII is his augustinian versus thomistic thought. This makes for a distinctively different theological anthropology, among other things, one that is moreso pessimistic vs thomism's optimism and much more pessimistic than the transcendental thomism of Rahner and Lonergan (which WAS too optimistic). This has practical implications for any theories of how grace builds on nature insofar as it describes, in terms of goodness, how much nature brings to the table before grace does its thing, how much humankind can accomplish, for instance, in discerning natural law, before being apprised of divine revelation. Reflecting on the augustinian perspective reminded me of its account of the Trinity, which, analogously, exhibits faculties of memory, understanding and will, which is reflected in humanity. These faculties are fully and perfectly integrated in the Trinity but humankind experiences them as sometimes attempting to operate autonomously or, as I would say, in a dis-integrated manner, which is to say, not holistically. Now, to the extent these comprise, in part, the human evaluative continuum or knowledge manifold, perhaps it would be fair to say that they try to operate autonomously and disintegratedly in our false self but then, through ongoing transformation into the imago Dei, are re-integrated and begin to more often operate holistically and in a more fully integrated fashion, like the Trinity, in our True Self. What would be the implications for prayer? Prayer, in the false self, would be as noisy as a churning cement truck but as powerful (transformatively efficacious) as a sewing machine. Prayer, in the True Self, would be as quiet as a sewing machine but as powerful (transformatively efficacious) as a cement truck (or Sherman Tank, choose your own metaphor). In the false self, prayer would variously employ this or that aspect of the human evaluative continuum willy-nilly and based on temperament and human biases, such continuum not holistically engaged, not fully integrated. In the True Self, prayer would employ such a human evaluative continuum as mirrors the fully integrated memory, understanding and will of the Trinity and, as such, it would be holistic and, hence, simplified. Here we are talking about simplicity in its most superlative sense. It means the whole person is pray-ing and at the disposal of the sovereign Spirit, Who will guide it in all manner of consolation, desolation and therapy, all such movements to be interpreted through traditional discernment exercises and helping to direct our next good step. [The next paragraph is my embellishment of what I heard Fr. Rohr saying.] So, we pray in that manner that best silences the false self, quieting it and its faculties, however discursive or nondiscursive, and this manner may be for some the rosary, for others the Eucharist, for others walking meditation or this or that practice coupled with this or that discipline. And we thus pray in a manner that most fully engages the True Self, allowing it to commune with God in utter simplicity and most holistically and integratively --- as quietly as a sewing machine but as powerfully as a cement truck. Being quiet and simple and powerful results from being holistic, single-minded and whole-hearted - praying the True Self. Being noisy and complex and inefficacious results from being disintegrated, monkey-minded and divided in one's affections - praying the false self. It is not so much what temperament or which faculties we bring to prayer or not but, rather, which s/Self. Now, some have called any prayer from the True Self contemplation. Others more narrowly conceive it, differentiating contemplation from other prayer in many different ways (such as charisms differentiated from infused gifts of the Spirit, etc). Those conceptualizations and usages are not my concern here. As we consider prayer from lectio, oratio, meditatio, contemplatio, operatio, glossolalia and so on, I would suggest that it is not any of these formulae that we'd prescribe as generally normative --- for these will vary per temperament and charism and/or gift from a sovereign Spirit, Who initiates all such promptings. What is a norm to which we should all aspire is prayer from the True Self, which knows gentleness and compassion for the false self, one's own and others'. And these false selves are good and necessary selves for us to function in the human condition in this world but are still otherwise suboptimal for communing with God and realizing solidarity with others. Thus it is that all prayer lives are oriented through time toward increasing simplicity --- not so much from alternating and purposeful engagements and disengagements of various aspects of the human evaluative continuum as from the purposeful engagement of the True Self and disengagement of the false self; hence, the quieting disciplines and silencing practices are directed at our false self but not really at the human evalutive continuum as constituted in the True Self. Now, it just so happens that the human evaluative continuum of the True Self is quieter and simpler --- but this moreso results from its efficient integration and powerful holistic deployment (and does not require any particular, narrowly defined practice or privileged asceticism). re: optimistic and pessimistic takes on human nature: One thing of immediate interest to me is Pope Benedict's augustinian rather than thomistic perspective, which has large implications for our theological anthropologies. To keep it simple, I would just say that Pope Benedict's perspective on human nature is more pessimistic than JPII's. One major issue such a perspective will address, for example, is what human nature is capable of without the benefit of Divine revelation. Another issue would be to ask just how depraved we are vs how good we are (on a continuum, of course), before grace builds on nature, which is to ask, perhaps, what type of foundation does human nature afford the Spirit as each soul begins its journey of transformation? Pope Benedict, in relying so much on Augustine, will be very aware of the very best that Luther had to offer by way of critique and is in a very authoritative position, theologically, to advance ecumenical dialogue with Protestantism. This would make for a great papal legacy and great strides have already been made, for example, regarding the joint accord between Catholics and Lutherans on the doctrine of justification. [Much credit is due Hans Kung, too, whose role has, regrettably, been largely unacknowledged.] Benedict will also be in a position to point out what he would perceive as Luther's shortcomings insofar as he informs his augustinianism with the Catholic analogical imagination over against the Protestant dialectical imagination. See this from The White Robed Monks of St. Benedict. So, when it comes to human nature, it is essential that we flesh out our presuppositions regarding our theological anthropologies. The most pessimistic versions would be any like a radical, augustinian Protestantism and the most optimistic would be any like a transcendental thomism (of Rahner and Lonergan). JPII and Benedict's perspectives would fall in between, JPII more optimistic than Benedict but less than the transcendental thomists, Benedict more optimistic than Luther but less than JPII. This not only has important implications for theosis, for spiritual transformation, but also for our ecclesiology, how we conceive church. The more pessimistic view is going to give impetus to a more centralized governance, for example, reserving more teaching authority for the magisterium and imputing less docility to the Holy Spirit to us anawim? This view is surely tempered though by our incarnational approach, which sees God's grace and the Spirit's indwelling in all creation, in every creature, particularly the human being, who is made in the very image and likeness of God! One of the better balancing acts regarding theological anthropology and optimism-pessimism is that of Jesuit theologian Donald Gelpi, who tells us that the truth about human nature lies somewhere between the belief that we all long spontaneously for the beatific vision and the belief that creation and humanity are totally depraved and devoid of goodness due to God's radical absence and rare disclosure. Gelpi employs a foundational theology of conversion and I think this is right-headed --- because how the institutionalized church (sacramentally and otherwise) facilitates conversion is the ultimate measure of doctrinal orthodoxy. It is important to recognize that, whatever their theological anthropologies, Benedict and JPII and Paul VI and John XXIII and Rahner and Lonergan and, to some extent, even Luther, were in unity regarding essentials of our faith and what we are deliberating will invite a plurality and diversity of perspectives regarding various accidentals. With Augustine, then, and Benedict, in essentials, may we celebrate our unity; in accidentals, our diversity; and in all things, charity. [And this is not to deny that there is some disagreement on what exactly is essential and what accidental ] Regarding the last consideration, I'll be following that up as I participate in The Way of Christian Spirituality group -- and not on this thread. Join us there! pax, jb | ||||
|
Yes, I think it would be worthwhile for anyone interested to see this succinct summary on that thread. Comments by w.c. and Phil. pax, jb | ||||
|
This is a personal clarification. It is my view that Fathers Keating and Rohr have substantively and not superficially engaged The Cloud and other Classics in our Tradition and that they have depthfully and not facilely employed the many elements of the contemplative tradition in their approach to CP, which is to say that I do not resonate with any notion that there are fallacies in their logic and I would not want to caricaturize their approach and thereby dismiss strawmen. What is at issue for me is not the validity of their logic (these folks are excellent critical thinkers) but perhaps the soundness of certain conclusions regarding what exactly takes place in this or that practitioner of CP. Discerning the soundness of these conclusions is something that can only be done in the crucible of experience and this process of discernment must avoid its own set of fallacies, one of which is that the abuse of something is no argument against the use of something. To properly get at the soundness of their conclusions, the discerning community will have to go beyond personal anecdotes to sociological and psychological studies to measure the effects of this or that practice on intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious conversions. What most seems to be at issue, as best I can discern, can be illuminated by distinctions drawn by Maritain and by Merton. Maritain distinguishes between philosophical contemplation, intuition of being, natural mysticism and mystical contemplation. Merton distinguished between apophatic/kataphatic, immanent/transcendent, natural/supernatural and existential/theological. There are all sorts of other distinctons that come into play, too, such as between passive and active meditation, open and closed, receptive and concentrative, attentional and intentional and relational. There are the distinctions between active and passive and infused contemplation, between charisms and gifts of the Spirit, and an acknowledgment of the Spirit's sovereign action on the soul, notwithstanding our efforts. There are manifold psychological considerations that come into play also as we integrally and holistically conceive the human. Clearly, we must concede a depthful knowledge of these distinctions to all of the participants in this dialogue. The distillation of the concerns is this: There are manifold and varied asceticisms and disciplines and practices in our contemplative traditions, all of which can serve to dispose one to receive the gift of contemplation, all of which can facilitate our cooperation with grace as it builds on nature. Which of these practices should be pursued only with the guidance of a prudent, learned and experienced spiritual director, following certain caveats, for instance, because they facilitate receptivity/docility to the Spirit with a greater tendency to facilitate concommitant experiences of natural mysticism, enlightenment, kundalini arousal/awakening and such (which can be most efficacious but also, in many ways and in a word, unruly)? And if things do get unruly, have we provided resources for dealing with same?Is the jury still out on this? Has enough evidence come in? I dunno. I am not competent to answer that. The issues raised are important. And I am confident that the major players involved with them are prudent, learned and experienced, folks of large intelligence and profound goodwill. I will close with Thomas Merton: And what Merton says is true. Nothing we can do other than to dispose our self to receive the gift of contemplation. Like the stone, we exist because God sees us. We are good because God loves us. Unlike the stone, and Merton doesn't say this here but he wouldn't deny it, we can through natural exercises experience a natural mysticism, an intuition that we are receiving our being as we stand on the face of being looking in. This opens us to immanent being and an existential awareness and initiates us in apophasis and, if pursued further, can even give a metaphysical hint at creatio ex nihilo and creatio continua (for pantheism and even panen-theism are too riddled with incoherence). And one would have to believe that, pursued even further, some of the great nonChristian mystics moved even past deism to a relational encounter, which begins to properly nuance a pan-entheism and an indwelling of Being in being, standing, then, on the face of being looking out. But, there is more and, even though, anticipating the teilhardian perspective, Duns Scotus metaphysically suggested the Incarnation was foreordained from all eternity and not occasioned by any felix culpa, who woulda thunk it that the Logos would be uttered in Mary's womb, born in a manger, nailed to a cross and then raised to glory? Even thought this was all foretold in the OT, still, nobody thunk it! If anyone had gone beyond the attentional to the intentional to the relational, still, they had not conceived of the intensely personal.[And, it seems to me, that anyone formed in a Gospel tradition is going to ultimately arrive here and have their kataphatic devotion even more robustly experienced through moderate apophasis.] Merton: Mary went first. May we follow like her. pax, jb | ||||
|
Cathy, welcome! Two hours reading all our ramblings  . There should be some kind of award given for that.  If someone is turned to CP i would recommend to expand their Spiritual reading beyond the Cloud of Unknowing.... and to check out the Classics.... They have been proven and tried for cneturies and have so much to offer..... CP frightens me in that it is very easy to get wrapped up in self and lose site of God... instead of the Merging of the 2..... Tell me if I;m wrong Phil but this is how this Simple Irish gal w/ 4 children and 9 grandchildren sees it... CathyDot I respect your view, here. Of course, the Cloud is one of the classics as well, but I think your point is well-taken that no single work fully expresses the wisdom of the tradition, and the broader one's understanding, here, the better-equipped one is to discern what's going on. I wouldn't say that CP focuses on self, however. The practice is intended to facilitate deepening surrender to God. The question to me is if the way it is currently practiced calls for too un-natural an exercise of one's will, especially if divorced from the practice of Lectio Divina with a strong emphasis on going beyond thoughts. Maybe we could continue the CP discussion on that thread and leave this one for the review of the Keating-Rohr series and related issues. | ||||
|
Just to acknlowledge, JB, your depthful reflections above my post, especially that closing quote by Merton. Compare what he's written here with the CP teaching on striving for "pure faith" and see what you think. Of course, it's always possible that contemplative graces will be given in any kind of practice, so that's a given. What one can do is judge the practice per se, and where it seems to aim, given its methodology and what is actually taught and emphasized. | ||||
|
re: comparing that Merton quote with certain aspects of CP, yes, you read what I was writing between the lines That's why I offered that quote. On the one hand, the emphasis on nondiscursive method coupled with the use of a mantra would seem to moreso expose the average CP practitioner to experiences of natural mysticism, enlightenment and such with their concomitant energy upheavals and psychological by-products. This is one way of judging the practice, as you say, given its methodology. On the other hand, given what is actually taught and emphasized about CP within the context of a life of prayer that is otherwise kataphatic (reception of Eucharist, sacraments, lectio divina and such), one would not expect the average CP practitioner to experience natural mysticism or enlightenment, should such occur, in exactly the same way as one who is practicing TM or Zen, especially given where CP seems to aim, which is an intimate and affectionate and illuminating loving, personal relationship with God. So, what we have is CP's claim that it is not Zen or TM even as it employs a very Zen-like methodology coupled with CP's claim not to be a technique or method but, rather, a relational communing. What we also have is some evidence, no too few anecdotes, that many CP practitioners have experienced unruly energy upheavals. So, I am suggesting that, to get to the bottom of what is going on, we really need some sociological surveys to discern what mostly goes on with CP practitioners, what seldom goes on, what often goes on and such --- because the practice, its aims, its methodologies, it teachings and its emphases have some built-in ambiguities [not necessarily bad] due to its innovative blending of contemplative traditions. And we must carefully probe to discern how faithfully practitioners have practiced and how frequently and intensely and such. Some energy upheavals and psychological perturbations could occur with any practice or formulae engaged with great frequency and intensity. To this day, I attribute my own kundalini-like symptoms to glossolalia, but it could have happened with the Rosary, even, prayed somewhat nondiscursively. Of course, all prayer has a tendency to move toward simplicity in the life of an earnest pray-er. And should have some integrally transformative efficacies. If there are inefficacies, we need to see precisely where they lie: in the practice or the practioner. You and others have raised important questions. We'll one day have the answers, sooner than later, I believe. Meanwhile, people should proceed with some caution and with spiritual direction should certain perturbations present or unruly disturbances manifest. I think we are very much on the same page except that your trained intuitions and experience have already gifted you with an informed perspective on what the answers to these questions are and how such sociological surveys would play out, what they would reveal. For my part, I can appreciate what all of the parties are saying but feel that the final arbitration of the claims and counterclaims will need to be social-scientifically discerned through well-designed surveys and follow-up interviews. Would make for a great dissertation. pax, jb | ||||
|
Good stuff, JB, and if one were ever doing more than venturing an opinion on this matter, the kind of depthful analysis and research you call for would ne necessary. Now consider a few quotes someone who practices CP regularly sent me recently (OK, this might as well be CP thread #2  )I would agree that this practice, by itself, is not specifically Christian. Keating always points out the additional need for verbal prayer, lectio, Baptism, the Eucharist, etc. This would be especially true if one's sacred word was "peace," or something like that. Can you think of any other kind of Christian prayer method about which one could say the same? This doesn't discount your point about these additional factors contributing to a Christian orientation to support the kind of consciousness awakened by CP practice, but it does raise questions about how the method per se connects to the overall goal of the Christian spiritual tradition. If it weren't actually so disconnected from Lectio Divina in the way it was practiced that would be different, but that's not the case, I am sure. Also: But by far the bigger point is that the potential side-effects are (I feel) undersold, even by Fr. Keating. Mentioned, yes, but not emphasized. I think this is wrong. I think they should be not just mentioned, but underlined in big red flashing letters. . . The phenomena were (are) enough to disturb and even worry me at times - others could easily be frightened or seriously freaked out by them. I could even see it disturbing someone's faith, which would be tragic. There should be warning stickers, or something! | ||||
|
To some extent, it is the very nature of apophasis to invite us beyond image, beyond affect, beyond concept ... ergo, what is taking place during the apophatic experience is necessarily not going to be explicitly Christian or anything else for that matter, except for the remnant of relational intentionality that the Christian pray-er brings to the moment of prayer as a pray-er at the outset. This is all very dialectical and not in the hegelian sense of synthesis but in the catholic approach of both/and/neither. The connection to the goal of our spiritual tradition is, in my view, to reinforce the Dionysian mystical logic of 1) God is | x | and 2) God is | not x | and 3) God is neither | x | nor | not x |, which ties into our theologies of the univocity and analogy of being, where our statements about God are acknowledged not only as metaphorical but as very weak analogues, where no univocal predications can be made between God and creatures but only equivocal predications. The roles of kataphatic affirmation and apophatic negation and eminent predication (e.g. God is beautiful but not beautiful like us or creation but Beautoful most pre-eminently) are complementary and not over against each other. They offer perspectives and cannot be blended or intertwined (again, no synthesis) without violating the integrity of each of these moments or movements. It is the preservation of this integral nature of apophasis and kataphasis that Keating attempts to maintain by distinguishing between the practice of lectio divina and CP, affirming both movements but advising against their facile combination. So, the bigger concern for me is not at all theological but that which I expressed re: energy upheavals and psychological perturbations, like the examples you provided (and like your and my own!). I am wondering how much this is happening and exactly why, although I think we have more than a clue as to why. At the same time, my upheavals were rather orderly, still ... there has got to be a better caveat emptor. In my opinion there isn't enough apophasis in our tradition and this leads to a bad malady all its own ... radical fundamentalism(s). At the same time, I agree that the jury is out on whether or not CP is one of the cures for this, among the others that already exist in the normal flowering of a prayer life, in the ordinary journey of the soul awakening to the true self, in the conversions facilitated by the institutional church and its sacraments and sacramentals and manifold and multiform liturgical/spiritual exercises. pax, jb | ||||
|
Below is a sidebar conversation I was having with someone else re: the Rohr-Keating retreat, where the subject of the true-false self terminology came up. I thought I'd tack it on here: It turns me off in this sense. It is bad terminology. Unfortunate use of words. But we work with them because of their heritage in our tradition. Why unfortunate? Because of what you said: False self is not bad. I prefer to use: early on our journey and later on our journey, thus and such happens. [This is not to deny that many unduly put off the journey to such things as transformation and even adulthood.] The early stages of formation and transformation are good. So are the later. And nothing that takes place on our early journey is abandoned. The false self represents our socialization, moving from little animals to humans. It represents our humanization. And our humanization and divinization are inextricably intertwined, not really distinguishable really. The more fully human we become, the more we reflect the Divine Image, the imago Dei. So, we don't abandon the false self. Not at all. Rather, we take full possession of it in order to surrender it to crucifixion. [And one cannot surrender what one does not form and possess.] We give it up in order to be radically saved (from sin and death); it is no mere pious gesture. Thus the seed falls to the ground and dies ... Thus every other metaphor for the Paschal Mystery ... This is my False Self. I give it up for you. We awaken to the True Self when, like Ignatius, we see ourselves as God sees us. We awaken to our True Self when we realize that being socialized and a good citizen and a good person and more perfect ain't what it's about entirely; rather, its about being a Lover and being beloved and about being saved from sin and death by Jesus. It is a VERY big deal, the biggest thing anyone's got going. It is THE grail for which we quest and is wholly, wholly holy and holy, holy whole. | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues The Eternal Now - and how to be there!