I resonate most with Luke Timothy Johnson and N.T. Wright but would not so narrowly

categorize them as Jesus the Savior theorists. I think they both very well articulate a much

more robustly integral Christology, as I tried to articulate, myself:

quote:

In my opening post, I offered a Fivefold Christology/Pneumatology: If we look through a

Lukan prism, we might see a fivefold Christology, which recognizes that Christ came to

orient, sanctify, empower, heal and save us. As Luke’s narrative continues in Acts, we see

the Spirit continuing this divine work.

For Bourgeault, both gnosis and sophia imply an integral, participational knowledge carried

in one's entire being toward the end of transformation of one's entire being. She points out

that the Oneness that Jesus talks about is --- NOT that oneness often implied in the Eastern

sense regarding an equivalency of being (a robust intra-objective identity) but, rather ---

that of mutual indwelling. Once more, the thrust is epistemic and not ontological as she

teases out the distinctions between those aspects of our consciousness that do or do not

differentiate.

As long as one engages transformation (which I broadly conceive in terms of theology,

Christology, pneumatology and human anthropology) integrally and holistically (along with

soteriology, ecclesiology & eschatology), as did Lonergan, for example, that makes good

sense to me. Discussions regarding over- and under-emphases can also be useful. It even

helps to discuss matters of primacy but we must take care to point out whether we mean it

in an ordinal or cardinal sense, in other words, does it indicate merely the first in a series or

in time or first in importance or in value?

There is likely a case that can always be made against this or that approach to Christianity

vis a vis matters of relative emphasis. To the extent that sophiology, as inherently integral

and holistic, would include soteriology, it would make little sense to me to ask which is

more important. While a case CAN be made against many who've overemphasized both the

soteriological and epistemically dualistic, Bourgeault's question, Savior or Life-Giver? and

juxtaposition, soteriology or sophiology?, DO present false dichotomies, in my view.

Her explication of sophiology was helpful. To the extent that foils can be useful, the proper

foil for her, as I see it, would have been this or that overemphasis on soteriology and not,

rather, soteriology per se. Also, in citing such an overemphasis, it does seem that her

1

indictment of the West was much too broad. Within Western Christianity, there has existed

a constant tradition of sophiological teaching, in the early fathers & mothers, in medieval

doctors, mystics & mendicants, in esoteric and minority reports, in our religious orders and

consecrated vocations, in our saints and unheralded lay anawim, in our contemplative and

apostolic, cenobitic, monastic, eremitic and prophetic traditions. So, the core teaching has

always been there as have practical supports and approaches to robustly transformative

realizations. So, the indictment doesn't stick in that regard. On the other hand, as Merton

observed and lamented, our churches have been much more about the mere tasks of

socialization (part of the journey to authenticity, to be sure) and much less effective, it

seems, in fostering transformation (coming closer to completing the journey vis a vis True

Self realization and moving beyond the moral, social and practical to the robustly relational

& intimate). In that regard, the indictment sticks fairly well? Witness the political

polarization of our Christian country as so often grounded in shallow, fundamentalistic

religious apologetics.

What I was hoping to accomplish in this thread was the introduction of some categories and

vocabulary that would be more descriptive and less ambiguous than much of that employed

in these particular aspects of formative spirituality. Toward that end, after explaining these

concepts and teasing out the associated meanings and insights, I next had in mind

introducing Phil's approach to God, self and ego and trying to merge his definitions and

descriptions with my own. We started to do some of this in correspondence awhile back but

I haven't followed through yet. I thought it might be more helpful in an open forum where

we could negotiate their meaning together.

Let me say, also, in the context of discussing this descriptive exercise. It was my original

intent to stay away from the normative angles regarding what is or is not helpful vis a vis

formative spirituality and this or that nondual approach, but it is only natural that that type

of discussion will ensue. To the extent that it has, this has helped to tease out nuances and

clarify definitions.

Also, regarding the use of foils and over against approaches, while these can be helpful both

in our deepening our own self-understanding and in better understanding others, we do not

want to miss the opportunity to define our approaches, positively, on their own terms as we

seek to clarify what it is we are for and what it is we believe. Further, others with whom we

may differ or disagree are foremost persons and not foils, fellow sojourners and not

sparring partners!

Phil and I once corresponded a little re: Pannikar and I recall parsing and faulting some

aspect of his epistemology. Maybe I can find it and offer it here.

2

And it helps to be clear when we say nondual whether we mean nondual mystical

experience or nondual epistemic approach. Keating says that, when Christians hear identity

they best translate that as intimacy, consistent with what Bourgeault meant in her

distinction between an equivalency of being and an indwelling. Also, as Arraj pointed out, it

is a mistake to impose Western metaphysical concepts on Eastern phenomenal experiences

because the East isn't

There is a difference in suggesting that from the start Christianity has gotten the Jesus path

slightly wrong and in believing that the apostolic tradition that emerged was a distortion of

Jesus' teaching and the meaning of his life? that celibacy is an essential requirement of the

ascetic path but not the kenotic path? As far as Jesus' physical celibacy is concerned,

Bourgeault is correct, we just don't know. I would add that I just don't care! Big Grin

Back to intra-objective identity, from an onto-theological and metaphysical perspective, the

problem of the One and the Many perdures (although Neville approaches it by drawing a

distinction between God's indeterminate reality and determinate being as Creator vis a vis

creatio ex nihilo ). Our inter-subjective value-realizations are indispensable. Still, how it is

that physical reality might interact causally with a God, Whom we can only affirmatively

describe via metaphor (the weakest of analogies), remains puzzling. What stuff or matrix

mediates divine causation in our physical milieu? What Unknown Causes are proper to

those effects for which there are otherwise no known causes? The Hesychasts introduce an

intriguing distinction between God's essential nature and the Divine energies. Lots to muse

over. As John of the Cross pointed out, at some level, even a person in mortal sin is still held

in existence (such as by a creatio continua ); THAT this is true is more important than HOW ;

good thing!

3