"Napa Valley" Brocken InaGlory. Licensed. Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0
"Napa Valley" Brocken InaGlory. Licensed. Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0
Welcome to LAST SUPPER RED!!
What if laughter and hilarity are sacred? Might prayer be less about words and more about how we position ourselves before Mystery? What if God is less like Santa Claus and more like air? What if we are defined more by "Original Blessing" than "Original Sin?" Would Christianity flourish if we followed Jesus instead of worshipping him? What if "the Kingdom of God" has much less to do with the hereafter and is instead a here-and-now countercultural idea and reality with political and economic consequences?
What if laughter and hilarity are sacred? Might prayer be less about words and more about how we position ourselves before Mystery? What if God is less like Santa Claus and more like air? What if we are defined more by "Original Blessing" than "Original Sin?" Would Christianity flourish if we followed Jesus instead of worshipping him? What if "the Kingdom of God" has much less to do with the hereafter and is instead a here-and-now countercultural idea and reality with political and economic consequences?
Q begins with his usual seemingly irrelevant blather. This time it's about a horoscope appearing in the paper on the very morning he sat down to write a Dialogue which would attempt to do precisely that.
So, for starters, what do you make of such "coincidences" or "synchronicities" in your own life? When such things happen to you, do you sometimes get a) weirded out, b) goosebumps, c) . . . well, how do you respond?
Q again plunges his main characters into an extensive theological discussion. At least they don't end up alienating each other this time.
What do you make of Phyllis Tickle's idea about the church having a rummage sale on its doctrines every 500 years or so? (see Footnote 9 on Page 45.) If it's true, should it happen at all? Should it happen more often? Are we living in such a time today? If so, what do you think the church needs to get rid of?
Q asserts that the "heart" is somehow basic and, like the carpet Snark and Advocatus sat on, something that connects us. Where does this notion take your in your reflections?
(John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, also placed an emphasis on the heart. In his mystical conversion experience, he reported, "I felt my heart strangely warmed." Later, he would talk about his approach to Christian doctrines by quoting Jehu (2 Kings 10:15): "'Is your heart as true to mine as mine is to yours?' If so, then give me your hand." This can be found in a sermon of Wesley's and reading it may repay dividends when considering the contentiousness that roils our society . . . just as it roils the relationship between Snark and Advocatus. It's called "A Catholic Spirit" by which is meant not Roman Catholicism, but a Universal Spirit.)
Advocatus and Snark each root their differing approaches to sacrifice in a specific cultural context, and to which their ideas speak. Is this a useful way to understand some of the churches' ideas . . . to put them in that sort of context? Or does this diminish their "authority?"
Advocatus winds up practicing some meditation so he can think more clearly. Then Q gives us a description of how the brain functions and how things can go very wrong because of it. Is this information new to you? Do you think such information is useful to people who are in conflict? Have you ever practiced deep breathing to quiet the reactivity of your "alligator brain" so that you could respond out of your uniquely human brain?
Is "having the mind of Christ" (St. Paul's phrase) possible when the alligator brain is greatly activated?
Is there a relationship between the ego and the alligator brain? Discuss.
