"Do you want me to stop or just slow down?"

LOL! Oh, that's a great joke, Brad! Those of you who receive Daily Spiritual Seed, Weekend Edition, will see it there.

I see the discussion has now come to include Putting on the Mind of Christ, which I've not read. Jim did share a chapter from it, and we discussed that on our forum. It seems you all are parsing others on this thread. (Good to see you involved, Terri). I also see that JB has started a new one on Wilber's magnus opus, and I'm glad to see that. The relevance of Wilber's teaching re. Christian spirituality and theology is the larger question, here, with Jim's work being one example of their integration. Thomas Keating and others have made use of Wilber as well without transmuting the core doctrines into a Hindu-like framework. We already have a discusson on Wilber going in the Morality and Theology forum, but the new one on his book will help be helpful, I'm sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:

First off, what I see that has the potential to happen is that the revulsion caused by coming across views such as Jim�s (which may also parallel a revulsion we have towards the harshness of life) can send us straight to our home base of wherever thinking "Boy, I had doubts before about what I believed, but I�m sure now that I�m right." That could tend us toward fundamentalism, close-mindedness, or self-righteousness when perhaps there is something on display that we really need to take a look at. Pushing it away as "evil" and thus distancing ourselves from the problem might be the common thread of both Jesus and Jim here.

You'll get no argument from me on this observation. It has to do with removing the plank from our own eye before trying to pick the speck out of our brother's eye. My reaction to his post will be addressed a little further down here .

Oh, and BTW, it's so nice to have you in the convo!

quote:

I will say it, even though I don�t have to, that I don�t mean you in any way, shape, or form, Dear Terri. I�m simply bouncing my comments off you at the moment. Hope you�re wearing your rubber suit.

One must always wear the rubber suit when one is conversing on a bulletin board. *checks for leaks* Nope, it's all good here...lol.

quote:

Projecting a sympathetic attitude onto people (as Jim appears to be doing) who may be real dirt-bags is probably both wrong and right on the mark. In the midst of suffering a sensitive person can, and will, see past the sunken, hollow eyes of someone in the midst of depravity and see the humanity dying to reach out. And, odd as it may be, we will often try to express ourselves through some very controversial means, including sexual depravity.

Again, I agree. In fact, my sympathies are very, very much with those who do express their needs through what can often be termed self-destructive behavior, and I believe that Jesus shows us just exactly how "safe" it is to get down in the trenches with people, but that wasn't the message I got from Jim's quote.

quote:

When I look at the above paragraph from Jim it makes me think of the fine line between genius and lunacy. For Jesus himself to not distance himself from prostitutes was considered very controversial at the time, right? Well, I think that Jim has a little bit of that going here and it�s drawing controversy as well. Of course, that is NOT to say that he has gotten his message right or articulated that message very well. That message, in all probability, is implicit in his writing even if that writing is coming from a bit more of a mixed up place.

Perhaps you are right in that he has not articulated the message well. What I have particular concerns with is this:

quote:

I met people who trusted life enough to allow themselves to experience the extremes of this world. True, the path of these unconventional, marginalized people is a dangerous one that often proves fatal. But, as Jesus said, this path can be, and often is, a much faster path to the Kingdom than the safe, lukewarm, socially approved, avoid all risks factors path many Christians follow.

This bothers me because it almost (possibly without the intention being there) borders on saying..do this and you'll find the kingdom of heaven faster. Now, since I haven't read the book and don't know Jim, I have to go with the impression it makes on me from the quote itself. The other thing is that safe and lukewarm are not necessarily synonymous with each other. While I believe I understand what Jim is getting at, it's a generalization from both sides of the coin (extremes and safe) that could have devastating repercussions.

Blessings,
Terri

Hi JB,

quote:

he true controversy is in number 3. And I do not think there is any ambiguity about what he means by "allowing oneself to experience the extremes." This is to be clearly distinguished, then, from what may have been going on in #1, which could have been a social outreach ministry for all I know. Finally, taken against the backdrop of Marion's position re: good and evil and sin and mistakes, he very much appears to be asking: Wherein lies the non/virtue?

Your post pretty well hits it. Your last paragraph addresses why I had trouble with the quote, as you can see in my response to Brad.

Blessings,
Terri

Oh and Brad....LOVED the joke!!! I gotta show that one to hubby .

Nice to see you too Phil

Blessings,
Terri

quote:

re: #1) Not enough info there to discern what's going on.

re: #2) Right on, pecan.

re: #3) We report. You decide.

re: #4) This sentence, itself, requires parsing and nuance. The simplest distinction is that Jesus was making a descriptive and not rather a prescriptive statement? It also ignores the followup context of "Go and sin no more!" or, for those who do not believe in sin: "Go and do not repeat this mistake!." It is not an invitation to presume on God's goodness, or as some say: To tempt, God.

Nicely parsed, JB. I don�t disagree with any of that. But I think there are always two sides to these issues, the literal and the poetic. There is reading Jim�s lines literally (as you did quite well�far better than I could ever manage) and there is reading a bit (a precarious process, I admit) between the lines. Words are words and should be taken as such lest we cheapen meaning. But words also spring forth from inner feelings, longings, and inner conflicts and thus represent these also, quite apart from the literal words. I do believe if large errors are being made in what I could roughly call "postmodern thought" it is that people are confusing feeling with facts and/or are having trouble putting their feelings into literal expressions.

The true controversy is in number 3. And I do not think there is any ambiguity about what he means by "allowing oneself to experience the extremes." This is to be clearly distinguished, then, from what may have been going on in #1, which could have been a social outreach ministry for all I know. Finally, taken against the backdrop of Marion's position re: good and evil and sin and mistakes, he very much appears to be asking: Wherein lies the non/virtue?

In #3, JB, I read "All you self-righteous pricks out there who are too good to mix with the likes of the down-trodden like I am, well, up yours." Yes, there is the literal reading of #3, as you did so well. And then, if we are to try to understand what�s going on with this whole revisionist stuff, there is trying to understand the mental process that is going on. A difficult and precarious thing to do, I�ll grant you. So one could say that I�m not talking against what any of you are saying. I�m just finding other angles.

Again, I agree. In fact, my sympathies are very, very much with those who do express their needs through what can often be termed self-destructive behavior, and I believe that Jesus shows us just exactly how "safe" it is to get down in the trenches with people, but that wasn't the message I got from Jim's quote.

Terri, if you don rose-colored glasses, stand on your head, and look into a fun-house mirror, you will see exactly what I�m seeing.

I�m already out on a limb so I�ll just climb out further. But I do think when we come across what I would call "obvious incoherence", what we�re seeing expressed is a lot of anger and resentment. And that is not to automatically negate such things as anger because certainly one can be angry about things that are unjust and that therefore need changing. Anger can be good. It can motivate us to rectify injustices. So (speaking highly theoretically in this case), we can all have a certain anger towards what we perceive as some beastly, rotten, or just in-error thing. Our anger, whether we are technically justified in that anger or not, is going to look just like justified anger. And the things that we consider somewhat below contempt (the very things that may draw our anger), we often feel we don�t have to play fair with. We can take "cheap" shots at them and play fast and lose with the truth because these unjust entities deserve no better. Again, remember that I�m trying to enter the mind of those who either willingly distort the truth or somehow fool themselves so badly regarding the truth that they willingly ingest lies as truth�or who just go out on the limb on some really "interesting" forms of logic.

What I have often found in cases like this is that the anger is, from one perspective, real and justified�if we assume that the facts upon which the anger is based are true. But very often our anger is based on facts and assumptions that just ain�t so. And it�s not as if the relevant facts are so hard to find or dig up. Often they are staring us right in the face. But we sometimes don�t want to believe inconvenient facts, especially facts that do not support our internal feeling of self-righteous indignation, which I think is one of the most powerful and under-rated forces in humanity. However our worldview concepts develop, very often it seems that once they are developed they become a rather powerful prism which can bend and distort the surrounding world of facts so that our inner sense of "rightness" is maintained. This is one reason that conspiracy theories are so popular these days. By distrusting the supposed "surface appearance" of facts we can then pretend that we are clever and sophisticated. And the bonus is that now we are pretty much free to pick and choose our facts at will. Suspicious, skepticism, and cynicism are signs of sophistication. And even if we�re wrong, well, the things we oppose are contemptible enough that if we harm them through error then mission accomplished anyway.

Understand that I speak in general about a dynamic that I�ve seen. I think some of this likely applies to Jim, but it applies to me as well depending on the time and place. It�s hardly a rare phenomenon.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
I�m just finding other angles.

Let me see, if I click here ... yes, that's it. I think I've got this private messaging system down now.

So, anyway, could you direct me to the best brothels in Seattle so I can mix it up a little with the marginalized? I can't have someone else implying they're better than me in open forum.

end of private message

This bothers me because it almost (possibly without the intention being there) borders on saying..do this and you'll find the kingdom of heaven faster. Now, since I haven't read the book and don't know Jim, I have to go with the impression it makes on me from the quote itself. The other thing is that safe and lukewarm are not necessarily synonymous with each other. While I believe I understand what Jim is getting at, it's a generalization from both sides of the coin (extremes and safe) that could have devastating repercussions.

Oh, well said. I totally agree, Terri. If one were to simply start dispensing some of Jim�s beliefs with all the presumed safety and goodness as if one were dispensing flue shots at the clinic, we might all be sick in no time. Let�s see if I can spell this out:

Do I believe that the faster path to moral development is depravity? No. Do I think there is much knowledge, wisdom and compassion that can be obtained from falling into depravity? Yes. Absolutely. There is a potential depth there that one might not ever find if one always lived on the safe side of the railroad tracks. Because this is so, do I recommend the route of depravity to others, even as just an alternative route to sanctity? Hell no. You�d frankly have to be fairly misguided or confused about something rather fundamental to recommend that. But I would highly recommend ministering to those who are deeply in need. But one need not mirror their behavior in order to do so. And perhaps thus we run into another "PC" or postmodern belief, that to put a distance between ourselves and others is to be harsh, judgmental, to think ourselves better than others when we are all just the same. And one way that I think this can play out psychologically is this idea of joining the depraved as if we were doing something good.

quote:

Let me see, if I click here ... yes, that's it. I think I've got this private messaging system down now.

So, anyway, could you direct me to the best brothels in Seattle so I can mix it up a little with the marginalized? I can't have someone else implying they're better than me in open forum.

Oh my goodness. That made me laugh. "LOL" wouldn�t do it justice.

quote:

Do I think there is much knowledge, wisdom and compassion that can be obtained from falling into depravity? Yes. Absolutely. There is a potential depth there that one might not ever find if one always lived on the safe side of the railroad tracks.

This is definitely true. The key phrase, I believe, is "falling into." We can't relate to those in need if we haven't had the need ourselves, at least not genuinely. As Jesus said, those who have been forgiven much, love much (slight paraphrase). Who better to forgive and love a drunk/addict/name your poison than a drunk/addict/whatever who has been forgiven and loved? Yet, we must be careful not to do a reverse self-righteousness by implying that one who's been on the safe side of the tracks doesn't have a deep love and compassion as well.

quote:

Because this is so, do I recommend the route of depravity to others, even as just an alternative route to sanctity? Hell no. You�d frankly have to be fairly misguided or confused about something rather fundamental to recommend that.

Exactly. There lies the foundation of my concern for, if nothing else, the wording of the quote.

quote:

But I would highly recommend ministering to those who are deeply in need. But one need not mirror their behavior in order to do so.

Yes, and there is a certain danger in that very thing happening. It's not all that uncommon to run across those who've "ministered" ending up in even worse shape than the ones they minstered to. Needless to say, one has to remain focused on the Master of the mission when stepping out there.

quote:

And perhaps thus we run into another "PC" or postmodern belief, that to put a distance between ourselves and others is to be harsh, judgmental, to think ourselves better than others when we are all just the same. And one way that I think this can play out psychologically is this idea of joining the depraved as if we were doing something good.

You bet. It kind of flows along the lines of...if I'm going to help the cause, I need to be a part of the cause. The intentions may be good ones, but intentions can't replace wisdom and strength in these types of situations.

The inherent danger in putting forth ideas like the ones reflected in that quote is that the playing field is not level in regards to experience. You and I might see that perhaps Jim isn't advocating depravity as a route to God but rather is trying to tell us not to be judgmental, to be willing to walk into the muck to rescue the ones there, or simply to be ready to help. However, someone who isn't at the same level of experience or maturity might read it and say....aha...the way to the kingdom is through sinning as much as I can to accomplish a level of depravity that is so low that there's no way to go but up, and then God will reach down, grab me, and take me to a level of spiritual enlightenment that the average Joe will never experience. There's an underlying current of an elitist attitude in that line of thought.

Gotta be careful with stuff like that.

Blessings,
Terri

Yet, we must be careful not to do a reverse self-righteousness by implying that one who's been on the safe side of the tracks doesn't have a deep love and compassion as well.

Yes. Perfect. That's my kind of thinking.

It's not all that uncommon to run across those who've "ministered" ending up in even worse shape than the ones they minstered to.

Interesting. I didn't know that, although I certainly knew about the inherent emotional stress involved.

You and I might see that perhaps Jim isn't advocating depravity as a route to God but rather is trying to tell us not to be judgmental, to be willing to walk into the muck to rescue the ones there, or simply to be ready to help. However, someone who isn't at the same level of experience or maturity might read it and say....aha...the way to the kingdom is through sinning as much as I can to accomplish a level of depravity that is so low that there's no way to go but up, and then God will reach down, grab me, and take me to a level of spiritual enlightenment that the average Joe will never experience. There's an underlying current of an elitist attitude in that line of thought.

Well said again, Terri. But I have eyes wide open and realize that this is likely more than just a lack of a failure to communicate. Jim is also saying exactly what he wants to say. Some of that stuff represents a "contrarian" point of view. Examine the implications behind the emphasis of "socially condemned" and "socially approved" in the context of that one paragraph:

quote:

On occasion my adventures took many into what many people might call the "sexual underworld," a place of unconventional sexuality, drug dealing, prostitution, heavy alcohol use, and other socially condemned practices�.But, as Jesus said, this path can be, and often is, a much faster path to the Kingdom than the safe, lukewarm, socially approved, avoid all risks factors path many Christians follow.

He's implying a complete reversal. Not only is he suggesting that if something is socially approved that it is somehow tainted or questionable, but that if one is involved in "unconventional" behaviors that one is involved in something inherently noble simply because it is not tainted with conventionalism. Contrarianism: the mindset that doesn't really know how to logically be for things so it is simply against things -- in this case things that have been demonized by rather facile thinking, setting up the dynamic of the big, powerful oppressor versus the oppressed, powerless victim. That's it. Life is that simple for some. Hell, that's line-for-line the entire Democratic Party's script these days, and is at the core of the far left's way of thinking. The problem with this way of thinking isn't that sticking up for the downtrodden is bad or that opposing oppressors is bad. It's simply that when it is done in this way it can easily become exploitive.

Let's move past this rather simplistic view of life and look at the reality: A lot of these people, the drug addicts and such, are where they are because of their bad choices. Some of those people are where they are because society has spit chewed them up and spit them out. All of them are deserving of our mercy and help. But to glorify them all with no exception, to take away all stigma from some really crummy behavior, while at the same time demonizing "conventional" people who are struggling to play by the rules of good behavior is, in my mind, a rather passive-aggressively act of anger aimed at "conventional society" (for whatever reason). To do so in this way is to use the poor to settle some score with somebody else. But those who really care about the poor ought to care at least as much about the truth. I have the same beef with the so-called peace movement.

Clearly this is someone who has a bee up their butt regarding conventional things. Again, it seems to me it's that rather facile postmodern attitude that assumes that appearances of supposedly good things is just a thin veneer covering up the real story which is that behind the scenes of the conventional is the real seediness, depravity, debauchery, etc. By contrast, those who are into drugs, prostitution, or whatever are just "unconventional", as if their very existent is somehow testament to the fact that society at large is such a hypocritical mess. These Bohemians are really the heroes. They're suffering for all of us, etc., etc. Again, there is some truth to this. The mistake, however, is to lose 90% of the truth by filtering out everything but one's simplistic "oppressor vs. victim" scenario. And it's a tragic error. It is not an error that is justified by simply erring on the side of victimhood in this "oppressor vs. victim" scenario. The problem is that this mindset tends to produce more victims because some of the truth that is thrown out is the very truth that could help some of these people get out of where they are�and to help other people avoid ever getting into that scenario. Clearly having some dummy glamorize drug use or alcohol abuse isn't doing anyone a favor.

quote:

He's implying a complete reversal. Not only is he suggesting that if something is socially approved that it is somehow tainted or questionable, but that if one is involved in "unconventional" behaviors that one is involved in something inherently noble simply because it is not tainted with conventionalism.

That was what I felt was being hinted at (or maybe shouted?) as well, and why I mentioned the underlying current of elitist attitude. It's odd how that works, but that mindset permeates a lot of different facets of society. It's as though, being responsible, hard-working, and straight as an arrow are bad things, and those who live that lifestyle aren't a part of the real world.

quote:

Contrarianism: the mindset that doesn't really know how to logically be for things so it is simply against things -- in this case things that have been demonized by rather facile thinking, setting up the dynamic of the big, powerful oppressor versus the oppressed, powerless victim. That's it. Life is that simple for some. Hell, that's line-for-line the entire Democratic Party's script these days, and is at the core of the far left's way of thinking. The problem with this way of thinking isn't that sticking up for the downtrodden is bad or that opposing oppressors is bad. It's simply that when it is done in this way it can easily become exploitive.

That makes me think of all these "protest" groupies that simply travel the country protesting for whatever cause is the hot-button issue at the moment. If it's "against" the norm, then by golly we need to be a part of protesting that norm .

quote:

Let's move past this rather simplistic view of life and look at the reality: A lot of these people, the drug addicts and such, are where they are because of their bad choices. Some of those people are where they are because society has spit chewed them up and spit them out. All of them are deserving of our mercy and help. But to glorify them all with no exception, to take away all stigma from some really crummy behavior, while at the same time demonizing "conventional" people who are struggling to play by the rules of good behavior is, in my mind, a rather passive-aggressively act of anger aimed at "conventional society" (for whatever reason). To do so in this way is to use the poor to settle some score with somebody else. But those who really care about the poor ought to care at least as much about the truth. I have the same beef with the so-called peace movement.

Yep!

quote:

Clearly this is someone who has a bee up their butt regarding conventional things. Again, it seems to me it's that rather facile postmodern attitude that assumes that appearances of supposedly good things is just a thin veneer covering up the real story which is that behind the scenes of the conventional is the real seediness, depravity, debauchery, etc. By contrast, those who are into drugs, prostitution, or whatever are just "unconventional", as if their very existent is somehow testament to the fact that society at large is such a hypocritical mess. These Bohemians are really the heroes. They're suffering for all of us, etc., etc. Again, there is some truth to this. The mistake, however, is to lose 90% of the truth by filtering out everything but one's simplistic "oppressor vs. victim" scenario. And it's a tragic error. It is not an error that is justified by simply erring on the side of victimhood in this "oppressor vs. victim" scenario. The problem is that this mindset tends to produce more victims because some of the truth that is thrown out is the very truth that could help some of these people get out of where they are�and to help other people avoid ever getting into that scenario. Clearly having some dummy glamorize drug use or alcohol abuse isn't doing anyone a favor.

Bravo! I'm not sure I would have ever gotten all of that out of the quote, but that is GREAT insight into a behavior (and teaching!) that is confusing the issues of mercy and grace with licentiousness and rebellion.

Good post

Blessings,
Terri

That was what I felt was being hinted at (or maybe shouted?) as well, and why I mentioned the underlying current of elitist attitude.

Yes. You are right. You did get to that conclusion first. I'm giving back my prize money.

It's odd how that works, but that mindset permeates a lot of different facets of society. It's as though, being responsible, hard-working, and straight as an arrow are bad things, and those who live that lifestyle aren't a part of the real world.

Terri, I was thinking just the other day about why it is we all do the things we do. It seems a great proportion of our time is spent in self-reinforcement, especially psychologically. That can come in the form of fixing, constructing, propping up, adjusting, rationalizing, explaining, putting others down, reconfiguring, etc., etc. Not all of these are counter-productive. But slathering on things like an elitist attitude is a quick-fix. It's like putting a Rolls Royce front end on a Volkswagen Beetle, if you've ever seen one of those. We don't have to change our views. We simply put a little shiny chrome on them and find like-minded believers who will help us to forget our hubris. When we're not feeling too good about ourselves, when we're feeling vulnerable, we're prone to things such as an elitist attitude. An elitist attitude is simply trying to cover up something with a suit, tie, and fancy dress. It's simply the same, although opposite, response as the hobo lying in the gutter in rags smelling like urine. "I'm not good enough" and "I'm better than" are just two sides of the same coin.

That makes me think of all these "protest" groupies that simply travel the country protesting for whatever cause is the hot-button issue at the moment. If it's "against" the norm, then by golly we need to be a part of protesting that norm

The more I think of that phenomenon, Terri, the more I start to see the whole of society as some type of organism. My beef with the peace movement (and least the louder and more public ones) is that they seem ready enough to parade around with signs declaring the defenders of freedom to be the equivalent of Hitler while soft-peddling or completely ignoring the fascist dictators of the world who are murdering and torturing by the thousands. This lack of wisdom and integrity does not lead to good things except perhaps if we view the human species as mainly the interaction of individual extremist parts, in which case having an extremist view doesn't disqualify one from being a useful part of the whole organism. One can think of each one of these screaming meemie parts as an antibody in the whole body of the organism making sure that other extremist screaming meemies don't take over. But left on their own, unopposed, they would kill the organism. They would be like a cancer, eating it alive.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] The dialogue between myself and Jim Marion can now be found at http://shalomplace.com/res/psr-marion.pdf [/qb]

I have just purchased Putting on the mind of Christ, so I will read the book before I look at your discussion. I see that Jim and Joseph Conti had an, ahem, frank exchange of views on the book's Amazon comments page.

Joseph Conti has been a fan of BR for a long time. I checked out his Amazon review and Jim Marion was right to call him on the lack of specifics. Also, I noted in Conti's other reviews that he gave 1 star to Jim Arraj's book, Christianity in the Crucible of East-West Dialogue, largely, it seems, because Arraj was critical of BR. Wow!