The Wanderer (yes, Jer, I was referring to you) posted a response on his blog yesterday, as well as commenting directly on my post. And his response and comment now, in turn, elicit a response from me.

First I want to clarify my comment about the immutability issue. I should have proofread my post more thoroughly yesterday, as I didn’t complete my thought. Here’s what I said:

For instance, one dogmatic statement comment to much of Christianity has to do with the concept of immutability. Namely, God is never changing, God does not change, and God cannot change, because God is all perfect. If we expect to accept that religion needs to change to meet new paradigms, what does that say about God’s immutability? That is something I think most people have a hard time getting around. While at this particular moment in time the most virulently opposed to religious change, the most reactionary, fearful and thus dangerous group with confronting this issue is Fundamental Islam. However, Fundamental Christianity and Fundamental Judaism is not far behind. Indeed, the fundamentalist sects of just about every single religious structure on the planet is facing these questions, and becoming dangerous as a result.

I don’t believe God changes. It’s perhaps one of the few of the bedrock dogmas of Christianity that I can accept. I acknowledge in my heart that the God of today is the God of Creation, the God of History, the God for tomorrow. What changes, what is far from immutable is how we as humans understand God, and perceive God’s handiwork in the world around us. The iconization and idolization of what many, if not most, Christians refer to as Holy Scripture retards the growth of human understanding by “plastinating” dogma at one point in time and denying us the ability to progress in understanding God. And progressing in that field of understanding is, contrary to common belief, a good thing. We have codified the cessation of spiritual growth by accepting a nearly 2000 year old definition of the concept of dogma. (Another clarification is needed here; I cannot address most Protestant understanding of the concept of Dogma, I can only speak for Catholic Dogma, and in that, Catholic Church holds that dogma is immutable.)

Secondly, I no longer look to the Roman Catholic Church to make progress in any field or endeavor in human understanding of the divine, as it is hopelessly locked in it’s idolization of itself. While some Catholic scholars may make progress in this regard, it is foolhardy, in my opinion, to expect that the magisterium of the Church will ever embrace their work. For this reason, I am now convinced that the Catholic Church is destined over time to decline in the western world to a state of utter irrelevancy.

Third, and finally (at least for THIS post) Jer asks in his comment to my previous post, “How do we proceed?”) My initial response is “What?!?! I only pose the hypothesis; don’t expect me to do anything about it!” But, actually Jer’s question is an interesting one, and one I’d like to explore. So, “How do we proceed?”

I think the process for working out for ourselves an understanding of What/Who God is begins with stating the basic question which will guide our considerations, followed by a supposition or understanding of the goal, then finally the posing of a question (or more).

I know that I am hardly the first individual to pose the questions in my previous post. In fact, those who read this post know that I have read some of Spong’s books and that Bishop Spong does indeed address much of this. But I’m uncomfortable with Spong’s assertions, and I’m even more uncomfortable replacing one icon with another. So, to the topic/hypothesis.

I believe that, for now, the question is simple: “Is God relevant to humanity in light of the phenomenal growth of scientific knowledge?”

The supposition on which I would build my process is that since human understanding of God is mutable, any results of the process are themselves subject to change over time, even the lifetime of those arriving at the results.

And finally the question to be posed as an initial understanding of the task would be a simple one. What can we know (or think we know) about the nature of God? A correlative question would necessarily be (in light of my foregoing discussion) Can we accept the following hypothesis: “God is immutable, human comprehension of the nature of God is not”?

(Note: Before I begin, I have a question for my fellow wanderer: Have I offended you, brother? Now, on to today’s post?)

I don’t know when it started. I suspected it began about the same time that the first human, or perhaps even human LIKE, person molded a clump of mud into a figurine and declared that it represented a god.

Whenever it began, for countless thousands of years humankind has asked ontological and metaphysical questions. Who are we (as in humankind)? Where’d we (again, humankind) come from? How did all we (ahem, see above) perceive come into being? There are numerous other questions of this nature, and someone has thought them. I suppose there are ontological and metaphysical questions yet to be conceived. I’m almost sure of it.

Anyhow, at some point in the far distant past, our ancestors stopped answering the “Where’d we come from” question with “From my parents” and reached back beyond that to the ultimate where’d the first one come from, or has this gone on forever? At some point, seemingly simplistic answers ceased to suffice. As early humankind put questions together to realize that there were NO simple answers, ontological and metaphysical thought processes began. (I guess this is a question for the philosophy of the history of philosophy studies?)

So, where’m I going with this. Simply that at some point one or more of those early philosophers came up with a concept of divinity.

Over time, millennia to be sure, groups of humans came to identify with a set of gods that could provide them with answers to those troubling questions. And, just as humankind evolved further, so the religions evolved into more and more complex schools of theological and philosophical beliefs.

Now, let me be clear, you have read I hope enough of my blog to know that in spite of early claims, I do believe in God. There is, in my opinion and belief structure, SOMETHING behind those religions.

What these religions did, and the reason they evolved, I believe, is that as humankind continued to think on the questions and their initial answers to them, as the thought itself became more and more refined, the practice as perceived also became more refined. Religion as it stood became less real, and needed to grow to embrace the new questions and the new perceptions of divinity.

I guess, what I’m trying to say is that I believe religion as we practice it is a constantly evolving construct. In millennia to come, assuming we avoid destroying our habitat through cataclysmic nuclear war or more slowly through environmental neglect, and assuming the environment doesn’t destroy (rebirth?) itself through natural causes (did you see “Supervolcano” on Sunday?), then in the coming millennia, religion and how we practice it will evolve into something we may or may not recognize.

As people of faith, and here I’m speaking of the philosophical theologians, both educated as such, and those lacking formal education, as these thinkers reflect on who and what God is in light of the expansion of knowledge they will see that religion itself cannot remain static. Religion, and the practice of it, must change to meet the new paradigms confronting it as scientific knowledge of the natural realm expands.

The precepts of Christian faith in it’s current configuration met the spiritual and religious needs of humankind for a time. But that may or may not be true any longer.

In the field of religion, humanity shows its nature to be fearful of change. We resist moving into new areas of thought because we have difficulty comprehending that dogma is not black and white, no matter how much we want it to be.

For instance, one dogmatic statement comment to much of Christianity has to do with the concept of immutability. Namely, God is never changing, God does not change, and God cannot change, because God is all perfect. If we expect to accept that religion needs to change to meet new paradigms, what does that say about God’s immutability? That is something I think most people have a hard time getting around. While at this particular moment in time the most virulently opposed to religious change, the most reactionary, fearful and thus dangerous group with confronting this issue is Fundamental Islam. However, Fundamental Christianity and Fundamental Judaism is not far behind. Indeed, the fundamentalist sects of just about every single religious structure on the planet is facing these questions, and becoming dangerous as a result.

In the “Children of the Book” world (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) I suspect that in the long run, the ones destined to have the most problem with change (and hence the most significant propensity to dangerous behavior) are the Christians. With Judaism and Islam, the question revolves around for them, who/what is God and what is to become of God in the new paradigms? Christians have to add to that Where does Jesus fit in? When the dust settles, whether in this century or in the next millennium, where will Jesus be in the economy of heaven?

When I confront this issue, I realize just what a complex task I’ve set myself, as I seek to answer these questions for myself. Because, even being open to the assertion that it MUST change, I fear the answer myself; I frequently doubt the hypothesis itself.

Sung to the tune, of course…. 24 little hours in a day.

I woke up a different person today than I was when I awoke yesterday. Okay, not really. But, yes, really. Okay, let’s face it… I believe we ALL wake up each day different in some way than the day before.

First off, let me back up a little. Last Friday I had to be taken to the local ER after I developed symptoms of lightheadedness and dizziness, feelings of constriction of my chest, some minor pain in my left shoulder, and numbness in my 3 left fingers of my left hand. The company’s EMT determined my BP was far too high for her comfort, and observed that I was beet red and that my ears “almost literally glowed”. Oh, and I just didn’t feel too well.

Well, the doctor at the ER didn’t think too much of my “issues”. He was pretty ho hum about it. By 4:15 I was released, with a “strongly recommended” admonishment to see my doctor.

So, yesterday I saw my doctor. I was expecting a little tsk, tsking and an increase in my medications once again. My oh my did my visit NOT live up to those expectations. First of all, he won’t increase the meds. Instead he’s insisting I see the electro-cardiology (like I’ve been thinking about doing) and has told me that I probably will have to have the ablation surgery. Okay, that didn’t make my day… even though I HAVE somewhat expected it.

But that was only the first of his pronouncements. The more significant one caught me way off guard. I have been diagnosed with Diabetes. That makes me not too happy. (Can you see the German reserve in me?) Daily finger pricks. I like pricks, let’s face it. But not THAT kind of prick. I’m trying to psych up for it with that old queeny stand bye: “Hurt me, oh yeah baby, HURT me!” But that’s not really helping.

********

What else? Hmmm…. Oh, on the subject of the Pope’s passing and funeral. I’ve been reading about this “Spiritual Last Will & Testament”. Got to thinking about it, and thought, Hmmm… Sounds like something I’d not mind doing. So I went out to the Internet and read a few samples.

Nope. Not going to subject you folks… or ME… to that. Ain’t gonna happen.

But the Pope’s passing has moved me. In death, and in the suffering he faced in the hours before death (I read a news item that interviewed his personal physician about those last hours that said in effect Yes, the pope had suffered greatly in those last hours… which is a whole ‘nother topic I may or may not write about) he showed great grace and dignity, and was I feel, an example for all of us. His desire to bear that in solidarity with his Savior was inspirational to me. In spite of all his other flaws.

I read this morning after the funeral (no, I haven’t watched it yet…. maybe later) a quote from a priest in Poland: “our Vatican umbrella has been taken down. We are now adults and must carry on with what we have learnt…” What an interesting statement… especially the last. “We are now adults and must carry on…”

That seems to be my primary problem with my RCC roots. The Vatican and more pointedly our bishops and archbishops see us just that way… as children. It’s time for us to become adults, not to rely so heavily on some centralized teaching authority. We… okay I… need to come to grips with the simple fact of my own previous posts. My reality is that God is Divine Other, indwelling in my own spiritual cathedral, my soul. I may soil that soul, but nothing will drive that Divine Other from me. It is up to ME to find that Otherness, not for the dogmatists of some distant ecclesial body with parental hangups to direct me in how, when and where to search.

Just as in Scripture and in everything else for that matter, the church, be it Roman Catholicism or my own UFMCC, may provide material of great worth for my journey, but it is TRULY for me to sample that material and decide for myself.

The fact is, God IS within me, and hence knowledge of that Divinity also resides within. To find the ultimate destination I must, finally, look to the vessel of the journey itself.

The Pope provided for me what is perhaps one of the greatest services by his example… the good and the bad… in finding that Otherness. Pope John Paul Magnus… yes, I believe that… set his eyes and followed his Shepherd. He fell far more than his church will ever acknowledge, but all of us do. His brokenness and failure to embrace ALL God’s Children hurt many of us to the quick… and beyond. He drove some of my fellows away from the Church, and worse, from the Divine Itself. And in that brokenness proved his own humanity. In living that brokenness and humanity, I think, is his final testament to his depth of spirituality and THAT is what I can glean from his time on Peter’s Chair. As he set his sight on Jesus, and followed to the best of his limitations the way of Jesus, I think he can provide for many of us an example of how WE can follow Jesus.

In May, 1996, I walked out the doors of St. Meinrad School of Theology with a Masters Degree for the last time. It marked for me the end of a process, the end of an epoch. Because when those doors shut, my 38 years as a Roman Catholic came to an end. I loved the Church, it had nurtured and cared for me through some very rough times, and through some beautiful times.

But for me, the path on which the Church had set itself was unsupportable. The words and policies of my own Archbishop had cut me to the core, had killed within me something precious. I could, I found, no longer practice as a Catholic with good conscience.

I professed a love for that institution, even as I walked away from it. Not considering myself to be a “Recovering Catholic” (a term I found, and find, offensive) I considered myself, instead, a Catholic in Exile… an exile from which I knew then, and know now, I would never be able to return.

As the years have passed, I’ve found a new church home, a new Church, “True” for me in the same way that the Catholic Church is True for it’s followers. As unjust edict after unjust edict spewed from the antiquated walls of the Vatican, I found myself hurt more and more. It came to a place, a time, when the thought of walking through the doors of a Catholic Church became unthinkable to me.

But through it all, I’ve held an abiding love for the man who has led that institution for all my adult life. I personally believe he will go down in the annals of the Roman Catholic Church as one of, if not THE, greatest popes of all time. And the history of the world will, I also believe, rank him as one of the greatest and most important leaders in the world in the last quarter of the 20th Century. I know in the last 20 years there are none who have had as much respect from the greatest number of people. Next to him the current fraud in the US White House is a pale shadow of a human; in stature, John Paul is a giant next to a toy soldier compared to the “Leader of the Free World” (Side note: Please, someone, help me stop laughing!)

It’s true, some of the documents and words that have hurt me the most have come from John Paul, or with his blessing. To me, though, that has proved nothing other than John Paul II is, above all, a human with all the failings that humanity suffers. I still see him as a deeply spiritual man, with a heart for Jesus that is huge. I believe he doesn’t see that his words are hurtful, that they are, in deed, wrong.

In a funny way, he is one of three people who keep my ties to the old RCC alive. With his passing, I know that that period of my life is truly over.

And so, as I watch the news, anticipating the worst with every minute, my heart breaks, my eyes tear, and my mind grieves for the loss of this great man. But to see his ongoing suffering wounds me even more.

So, Godspeed, Il Papa!