As I begin to formulate my own Christology on Myrtle’s
Christology I recognize that this is going to get interesting in a class blog,
since we can’t even agree on Myrtle’s definition of God, which was discussed last
week. We are to do our own interpretations
of Myrtle’s beliefs based on what we know or read in the few chapters we’ve
been assigned this week. Is this really
enough information to come up with a complete definition of Myrtle’s
Christology? We will soon see.
One thing that stands out to me when reading Myrtle’s work
is that she believes spiritual science is absolute truth. She compares her spiritual beliefs to
belief’s she shares with others in regards to mathematics and science. She seems to respect the research done by
scientists and mathematicians because of the way they scientifically gather
their information. Scientific data is
information based on logic, exactness and reasoning. It is based on facts and the data can prove a
point. As Myrtle say’s we have a
responsibility “to prove that the principle is workable” (27). With that being said, all the great deeds
Jesus did for the people came with spoken words of wisdom. Jesus always gave his God/Spirit/Father
credit for the works he/she did through him. Jesus and Myrtle both spoke of a God who was
always present. Myrtle pointed out that Jesus went away at
various times to connect with God and I believe this is a key point because Myrtle
valued logical information and she believed that if man didn’t take time to
connect with God man could be:
“So deluded by the five senses and
dependent on them for information so implicitly that he has lost sight of this
higher realm of causes. Hence when he is told that a certain line of thought
held strongly in the mind will produce certain effects, he will not believe
it.”(50)
What is Myrtle alluding to here? Man can sometimes forget his Truth and he is
reminded of Truth when he becomes one with God again. This happens via one’s Faith, which is Truth. Jesus’s teachings were all about Truth and Faith. No matter what something appeared to be in
outer circumstances there was always Truth.
Truth, which Jesus accessed easily through his use of denials and
affirmations. Myrtle found examples of
Jesus using affirmations and denials many times. In one story specifically, Jesus used
affirmations and denials when the fisherman doubted there were fish in the
water. Jesus did not doubt and he asked
them to cast their nets out again and the fish appeared… When you let go of the
negative thoughts it makes room for Truth. In chapter five Myrtle tells readers “we are
indebted to Jesus Christ for his fearless propagation of Truth” (31) Myrtle
believed that Jesus taught us many thing’s and he did so in the words he spoke,
in his deeds and in the thoughts he held in mind.
Christine-
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through a couple of the class blogs previous to yours I’ve been able to more fully understand the assignment and drill down into what Mrs. Fillmore’s interpretation of the Christ might be. In quoting her saying “we are indebted to Jesus Christ for his fearless propagation of Truth” (31), you may have captured the very essence of her Christology. Do you think she believes, as I’m hearing she does, that without Jesus there would be no Truth? Or does she look upon Jesus as a master who came along to explain Truth to us? I’m going to go back and read her again, this time taking a narrower gauge sieve along. This is becoming a more interesting exploration for me. Thank you for your post.
Chritine, Thanks for pointing out Myrtle's concern that we not forget the Christ within. It reminds me of the 6th chapter of Deuteronomy (Where we are told to "love God with all of" our heart, strength and mind). The chapter goes on to include God telling the Hebrews that when they are in houses ('which they did not build") and have rich crops ("which they did not plant") and they eat and are full, "then do not forget the God who lead you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.")
ReplyDeleteI seem to do serious situations (such as unemployment and cancer) well in terms of my relationship with the Christ. It is when times are going well that I can forget. Thanks for bringing this up.
Christine writes: "We are to do our own interpretations of Myrtle’s beliefs based on what we know or read in the few chapters we’ve been assigned this week. Is this really enough information to come up with a complete definition of Myrtle’s Christology? We will soon see."
ReplyDeleteExcellent critique of the assignment! Of course, a few chapters are far from a comprehensive survey. This was meant to be a sampling, like a slice into an archeological tell.
Another point you made doesn't work as well: "I observed language that leads one to believe that Jesus and Myrtle both thought that God that was indwelling and accessible through connection in thought and mind."
Myrtle certainly believed God was indwelling everyone, but there is little evidence in the NT that Jesus shared that position. Gospel authors believe he was several shades of divine, depending on which evangelist you read. However, even liberal scholars are hard pressed to find a straightforward quote from Jesus which asserts that divinity is evenly divided among all humanity. Right the contrary. In the sermon on the Mount, Jesus asserts, "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" John's Jesus makes a fleeting observation (John 10:34) about a quotation from Psalm 82:6 - “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?" But the quotation from the Psalms refers to the heavenly council, not humanity at large.
Even the early Gnostics, who are sometimes mistakenly cited as lofty exponents of the divinity of man, felt only a small portion of the human race has a divine essence; the rest of us are animals who ceased to exist with death.
Is this another example of Myrtle seeking authoritative cover from the Bible for ideas which were not considered Christian by the majority of people? And do we persist in that rescue effort today through metaphysical interpretation of the Bible?
Obiter dictum: Thanks, Richard and Lesley, for your wise and perceptive analysis of Christine's excellent work. Yes, this is a voyage in the fog. Keep your running lights on and watch for icebergs and/or Tiki bars.
ReplyDeleteRegarding this: "As I begin to formulate my own Christology on Myrtle’s Christology I recognize that this is going to get interesting in a class blog, since we can’t even agree on Myrtle’s definition of God, which was discussed last week. We are to do our own interpretations of Myrtle’s beliefs based on what we know or read in the few chapters we’ve been assigned this week. Is this really enough information to come up with a complete definition of Myrtle’s Christology? We will soon see." I had the same concern come up. Thank you for taking time to state it! Also, I'm interested in this relationship between what we know apart from our senses and with our senses. This goes beyond Myrtle's christology but I hope we discuss it at one point. Because Both Myrtle and Charles focus on the practical nature of Spirit--how it can impact the material world and how even spirituality can be seen as a "science." At the same, unlike in science, where we rely on evidence from past trials, Unity's spirituality seems to suggest we NOT look to the past to determine what is possible for the future. I do have a theory on how to reconcile these that I might flesh out if/when we get to this topic. for now, regarding Christology, is the idea that there is a science and Jesus's life tells us that man's theories of science are still too limited but the "science of mind" the fillmores were developing could explain all apparently "miraculous" phenomena...?
ReplyDeleteNhien writes: "I'm interested in this relationship between what we know apart from our senses and with our senses." Some philosophers would answer your question about what we can know apart from sense consciousness: "Nothing." Since everything we know has come to us by way of seeing, hearing, etc., no other source can be legitimately called knowledge. That's another discussion, as you have indicated, but it does cast light on some of the Fillmorean rants against "sense consciousness" which we regularly encounter in Charles and occasionally find among Myrtle's souvenirs.
DeleteIn referencing both Christine's blog and Lesley's post: " Do you think she believes, as I’m hearing she does, that without Jesus there would be no Truth? Or does she look upon Jesus as a master who came along to explain Truth to us? "
ReplyDeleteI'll bite on that one. I perceive that Myrtle is seeing Jesus as a master who came along to explain Truth to us versus there would be no Truth without Jesus. And I am unclear where the interpretation that without Jesus there would be no Truth came from. Help me put on your lenses, Lesley! :)
Christine, it certainly is clear that Myrtle held tightly to an indwelling God. That clearly appears throughout her works. I find it rather interesting, but not surprising, that Mrs. Fillmore compared her spiritual beliefs with beliefs she shared with others with regards to science and mathematics. After all she was a teacher.
ReplyDeleteYou said, “Myrtle pointed out that Jesus went away at various times to connect with God …” and that “… that if man didn’t take time to connect with God man could be ‘So deluded by the five senses …’” might be telling us a lot about her Christology. Jesus, it seems she was saying, had to expend an extra effort to make connection with God that’s inside him. This gives Jesus a very human nature, doesn’t it? - Doug
ReplyDelete