Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

The Healing Nature of the Mandorla

"The mandorla is so important for our torn world that we will explore 
it in detail.  We have been talking about pairs of opposites in our 
examination of the shadow.  It has been the nature of our cultural 
life to set a good possibility against a bad one and banish the bad one 
so thoroughly that we lose track of its existence.  These banished 
elements make up our shadow, but they will not stay in exile forever, 
and about midlife they come back like Old Testament scapegoats 
returning the from the desert.  What can one do when the banished 
elements demand a day of reckoning?  Then it is time for an 
understanding of the mandorla.

The mandorla has a wonderfully healing and encouraging function.  When 
one is tired or discouraged or so battered by life that one can no 
longer live in the tension of the opposites, the mandorla shows what 
one may do.  When the most herculean efforts and the finest discipline 
no longer keep the painful contradictions of life at bay, we are all 
in need of the mandorla.  It helps us transfer from a cultural life to 
a religious life.  (Fortunately, this does not end our cultural life, 
for by now it is well enough established to survive on its own.)

The mandorla begins the healing of the split.  The overlap generally is 
very tiny at first, only a sliver of a new moon, but it is a 
beginning.  As time passes, the greater the overlap, the greater and 
more complete is the healing.  The mandorla binds together that which 
was torn apart and made unwhole--unholy.  It is the most profound 
religious experience we can have in life.

The mandorla is the place of poetry.  It is the duty of a true poet to 
take the fragmented world that we find ourselves in and to make unity 
of it.  In the Four Quartets, T.S. Eliot writes, "The fire and the 
rose are one."  By overlapping the two elements of fire and a rose, he 
makes a mandorla.  We are pleased to the depth of our soul to be told 
that the fire of transformation and the flower of rebirth are one and 
the same.  All poetry is based upon the assertion that this is that.  
When the images overlap, we have a mystical statement of unity.  We 
feel there is safety and sureness in our fractured world, and the poet 
has given us the gift of synthesis.

Great poetry makes these leaps and unites the beauty and the terror of 
existence.  It has the ability to surprise and shock--to remind us 
that there are links between the things we have always thought of as 
opposites."

Language as a Mandorla

.
.
.

"All good stories are mandorlas.  They speak of 'this' and 'that' and 
gradually, through the miracle of story, demonstrate that the 
opposite overlap and are finally the same.  We like to think that a 
story is based on the triumph of good over evil; but the deeper truth 
is that good and evil are superseded and the two become one.  Since 
our capacity for synthesis is limited, any stories can only hint at 
this unity.  But any unity, even a hint, is healing.

Do you remember the story of Moses and the burning bush?  There are 
many bushes and much burning; but in *this* story the bush and the 
burning overlap; the bush is not consumed and we know that two orders 
of reality have been superimposed.  In a moment we find that God is 
near--the result of the overlap.

Whenever you have a clash of opposites in your being and neither will 
give way to the other (the bush will not be consumed and the fire will 
not stop), you can be certain that God is present.  We dislike this 
experience intensely and avoid it at any cost; but if we an endure it, 
the conflict-without-resolution is a direct experience of God.

A mandorla is a prototype of conflict resolution.  It is the art of 
healing, if you will.  

Shakespeare wrote of his art:

	The poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,
	Doth glance from heaven to earth, from
	  earth to heaven;
	And as imagination bodies forth
	The forms of things unknown, the poet's
	  pen
	Turns them to shapes and gives to airy
	  nothing
	A local habitation and a name.

Here Shakespeare is reconciling heaven and earth and giving a place 
and a name to the human faculties that can cope with this wide vision.

To reconcile so great a span as heaven and earth is beyond our 
ordinary way of seeing; generally, two irreconcilable opposites (guilt 
and need) make neurotic structures in us.  It takes a poet--or the 
poet in us--to overlap such a pair and make a sublime whole of them.  
Who but Shakespeare could bring the airy nothing of heaven into 
consonance with the heavy reality of earth and give it a form that 
ordinary humans can understand?  Who but the Shakespeare in yourself?

Take 'this' and take 'that'--and make a mandorla of them.

In your own poetic struggles you may make only the tiniest sliver of a 
mandorla that will vanish a few minutes later.  Where is the 
inspiration of yesterday that was so thrilling?  But if you repeat 
this often enough it will become the permanent base of your 
functioning.  It can be hoped that by the end of your life the two 
circles will be entirely overlapped.  When one is truly a citizen of 
both worlds, heaven and earth are no longer antagonistic to each 
other.   Finally one sees that there was only one circle all the time. 
This is the true fulfillment of the Christian goal, the beatific 
vision so prized in medieval theology.  The two circles were only the 
optical illusion of our capacity--and need--to see things double.

Mandorla making is not confined to verbal form.  An artist makes a 
mandorla with form, color, visual tension.  A musician does the same 
with rhythm, form, and tone.

Since music is a developed faculty in me, I am aware of the mandorla 
in this mode more than any other.  There is a wonderful moment about 
three-quarters of the way through Bach's St. Matthew Passion.  The 
scene is the crucifixion and an alto is singing the solo "Lord Jesus 
Stretches Forth His Hand."  The alto voice weaves its serene vocal 
line while a contra faotto, a particularly rough instrument in the 
lower register, makes a series of leaps of the natural seventh.  This 
interval (an octave minus one note) is forbidden in classical 
counterpoint since it resembles the braying of a donkey to a 
startling degree.  Ferde Grofe makes dramatic use of this in his Grand 
Canyon Suite to portray donkeys going down the canyon trails.  But 
Bach, in his genius, weaves these two elements together--the most 
serene and the most ragged and disjointed--and makes a mandorla of it. 
The serene alto voice goes its tranquil way while the contra fagotto 
makes a grotesque buffoonery of the natural seventh leap in the bass 
line.  The two together make a sublime whole.  It is one of the most 
healing experiences in the world for me to listen to this moment of 
genius.  If these two extremes can be woven together to make a 
masterpiece, perhaps I can bring the ragged, disjoined elements of my 
own life together.

A particularly powerful form of mandorla can been seen in the customs 
of South American *curanderos*, who are a curious mixture of primitive 
shaman and Catholic priest.  Their mesa (table) is an altar where they 
say Mass for the healing of their patients.  They divide this alter 
into three distinct sections.  The right is made up of inspiring 
elements such as a statue of a saint, a flower, a magic talisman; the 
left contains very dark and forbidding elements such as weapons, 
knives, or other instruments of destruction.  The space between thee 
two opposing elements is a place of healing.  The message is 
unmistakable; our own healing proceeds from that overlap of what we 
call good and evil, light and dark.  It is not that the light element 
alone does the healing; the place where light and dark begin to touch 
is here miracles arise.  This middle place is a mandorla."
.
.
.

.
.
.
"If you find a person who is particularly peaceful or has a healing 
presence around her, it is probably because she has done her mandorla 
work.  If you want to affect your environment, don't get lost in your 
activism.  Stop for a moment and make a mandorla.  Don't just do -- 
*be* something.

People often asked Dr. Jung, "Will we make it?" referring to the 
cataclysm of our time.  He always replied, "If enough people will do 
their inner work."  This soul work is the one thing that will pull us 
through any emergency.  The mandorla is peace making.

I think the loveliest lines in our Scripture are, "If they eye be 
single, they whole body will be filled with light" (Matt. 6:22).  The 
right eye sees 'this', the left eye sees 'that'; but if one comes to 
the third eye, the single eye, all will be filled with light.  
Indian people put a spot of rouge in the center of the forehead to 
indicate that they are enlightened (or on the way to enlightenment).  
In the system of chakras that is the highest point attainable by human 
consciousness.  One more chakra, the seventh, exists, but that is 
beyond our ordinary ability of experience.

Encouraged by Christian practice, most Westerns invest the energy that 
might go into a mandorla in useless guilt.  guilt is a total waste of 
time and energy.  I used to tease my Baptist grandmother, telling her 
guilt was a sin.  She would get very angry since I was depriving her 
of her favorite pastime.  She though she was not doing her duty to 
Jesus if she were not wringing her hands in guilt at her (or my) 
sinful condition.  Guilt creates nothing; conscious work constructs a 
mandorla and is healing.  The mandorla has no place for remorse.  It 
asks conscious work of us, not self-indulgence.  Guilt is also a cheap 
substitute for paradox.  The energy consumed by guilt would be far 
better invested in the courageous act of looking at two sets of 
truths that have collided in our personality.  Guilt is also arrogant 
because it means we have taken sides in an issue and are sure that we 
are right.  While this one-sidedness may be part of the cultural 
process, it is severely detrimental to the religious life.  to lose 
the power of confrontation is to lose one's chance at unity--and to 
miss the healing power of the mandorla.

It is good to remember that the old symbol for Christ--the two lines 
indicating a stylized fish--is a mandorla.  By definition, Christ 
himself is the intersection of the divine and the human.  he is the 
prototype for the reconciliation of opposites and our guide out of the 
realm of conflict and duality.  Early Christians would make themselves 
known to one another in this way; upon meeting, one would scratch a 
small circle in the dust.  The other would make a second circle that 
was slightly overlapping--thus completing a mandorla.  This way of 
greeting--at a time when Christians were severely persecuted--was 
powerful and eloquent.  It also has meaning for us today.  If one has  
a statement to make, it is good to invite another statement--generally 
one coming from the shadow--and thus make a mandorla that is greater 
than either point of view alone.

I remember in high school debating class, our teacher once made us 
change our positions one minute before the debate.  I was in a panic 
for a moment, then felt the flood of energy that came from getting the 
overview in a new and different way.  Indeed, this experience was so 
powerful that I won the debate.  I think I have won (or superseded) 
some very serious spiritual debates in my inner life by giving 
credence to both sides, until a superior point of view could be 
achieved."

The Human Dimensions of the Mandorla

"Once can view a human life as a mandorla and as the ground upon which 
the opposites find their reconciliation.  In this way every human 
being is a redeemer, and Christ is the prototype for this human task.  
Every glance between a man and a woman is also a mandorla, a place 
where the great opposites of masculinity and femininity meet and honor 
one another.  The mandorla is the divine container in which a new 
creation begins to form and germinate.  Scripture never tires of 
speaking about courtship and marriage as the symbol for our 
reconciliation with the spirit.  
.
.
.
Our human situation divides us over and over again into ego-shadow 
opposition, no matter where we start.  This is probably why St. 
Augustine said, "To act is to sin."  As long as we take our place in 
society, we will pay for it by bearing a shadow.  And society will pay 
a general price with collective phenomena such as war, violence, and 
racism.  This is why the religious life speaks of another realm,
heaven and of the millennium, as the culmination of the inner life. 
Culture and religion have different aims. 

To balance out our cultural indoctrination, we need to do our shadow 
work on a daily basis.  The first reward for this is that we diminish 
the shadow we impose on others.  We contribute less to the general 
darkness of the world and do not add to the collective shadow that 
fuels war and strife.  But the second result is that we prepare the 
way for the mandorla--that high vision of beauty and wholeness that is 
the great prize of human consciousness.

The ancient alchemists understood this process.  In alchemy one goes 
through four stages of development: the negredo, in which one 
experiences the darkness and depression of life; the albedo, in which 
one sees the brightness of things; the rubedo, where one discovers 
passion; and finally the citrino, where one appreciates the goldenness 
of life.  After all this comes a full-color mandorla.  This is the 
pavanis, the peacock's tail that contains all the preceding hues.  One 
cannot stop this process until one has brought it to the pavanis, that 
concert of colors that contains everything.

Wrongly done, the many colors of life produce a grayness, and all the 
colors neutralize each other into a dull monotony.  Correctly done, 
the pavanis comes and all the colors of life make a magnificent and 
rich pattern.  The mandorla is not the place of neutrality or 
compromise; it is the place of the peacock's tail and rainbows."

    Hi Ro:
    
    NOT SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE!!!!!
    
    Just kidding Ro.  Thought I'd get your gander!  I will print these out
    and take a look at what you wrote.  Thanks for taking the time to put
    this in.
    
    Peace in Christ,
    
    Jack
    

Jack!  8^)  8^)

    

    The mandorla is not a "religious experience", it is an artistic
    convention of Roman Catholic and other Christian artists of the Middle
    Ages and Renaissance.

    "The mandorla is an oval frame enclosing an important figure." 
    Handbook of symbols in Christian Art, Gertrude Sill, Collier Books 1975

    By far, the most common mandorla of Christian art is the one enclosing
    Christ on the throne of glory at the Last Judgment.  Oddly enough, 
    that reality hasn't been mentioned in the excerpts of Robert A.
    Johnson's book.

    The most common mandorla of today is the MasterCard symbol.

Pat,

<    The mandorla is not a "religious experience", it is an artistic
<    convention of Roman Catholic and other Christian artists of the Middle
<    Ages and Renaissance.

So the mandorla is not a 'religous experience' for you Pat, what is 
your point?  That because it is not a 'religous experience' for you, 
then it must not be for anyone else?  That it isn't for Johnson?   
Must you always attempt to invalidate someone else's experience 
because it is not your own.

My reason for entering this topic was at attempt to show that there 
are peacemaking tools within Christian history that people may 
not be aware of.   It seemed to me a rich symbol that could be worked 
with in one's every day life.  I find the constant bickering in here 
tiring and disheartening.  I was looking for a way to heal some of 
that.  I'm sorry that you don't understand the author's intent or mine. 

Sigh,

Ro

    Gosh Ro:
    
    Don't you think you were being a little hard on Patrick?!  As I have
    mentioned before, look at this conference as a pseudo para ministry for
    all people.  It is an informal and inpersonal medium to exchange
    perspectives and ideas, that's all!  Okay, so we have bickered a few
    times over things!  My wife and I bicker too, but we always make up and
    even laugh it off!!
    
    Look at this conference as an exercise in critical thinking.  If you
    think I'm ignorant, arrogant, forebearing...Okay..cool, I respect your
    1st ammendment right and your opinion.  So we just agree to disagree
    and start a new day.  Don't take all this personally!  I consider any
    difference of opinion a wonderful challenge to my beliefs and a great
    opportunity to teach or be taught.
    
    Patrick says it isn't a religious experience.  Maybe he's right, maybe
    your right.  Now if your right, then darn it straighten that guy out!!
    Come on, let's show fortitude here.  We could live in Albania and you
    would have to die for teaching him a lesson!!!
    
    Press on Ro, we need to get your insight!!!
    
    -Jack

    maybe religious experiences are a personal thing and Ro, like lots of
    ordinary people, doesn't like others telling them their personal
    experiences are invalid?
    
    just a hunch....

    
    Ro,
    
    Thanks so much for entering those!
    
    Dorian

    
<<    Don't you think you were being a little hard on Patrick?!  As I have
 
Well Jack, I think if Pat would preface his remarks with 'I believe' 
or in 'my opinion', people would not react so strongly to his remarks.

    
<<    Patrick says it isn't a religious experience.  Maybe he's right, maybe
<<    your right.  Now if your right, then darn it straighten that guy out!!

The point is this isn't about winning/losing - right/wrong; it is 
about sharing and learning from each other.  Patrick doesn't give 
people the space to introduce their beliefs/ideas without condemning
them or attempting to invalidate them.  Someone's experience is
someone's experience...there is no right or wrong about it. 

You say you bicker with your wife sometimes; I've been know to bicker 
with the hubby! ;')  But underlying that is respect and Love for the 
other and an honoring of their beliefs (or I would hope so); I don't 
see that in Pat's notes.  I often disagree with notes that Collis 
writes; however, I highly respect his integrity and have admired his 
sharing and openness.  There isn't the mean spiritedness that is
often shown by some here.

Ro

    Re: .10
    
    Your hunch is probably correct.  If somebody slandered my name to my
    manager, would the proper reaction be to be offended or to go to my
    boss and speak the truth and gain back his/her respect.  
    
    Ro, if I ever slander your religious experiences, then put the slam on
    me by defending your position with logic, fact, evidence, whatever.
    It'll teach me a valuable lesson and add tremendous credibility to your
    beliefs.  This is how Jesus converted some of the Jews, by using the
    Old Testament and adding validity to his claims.
    
    -Jack

    If an oval frame can be a "religious experience", then a madorla can be
    a religious experience.

    Ro:
    
    In defense I think it fair to point out that you and Collis are in the
    same building.  Your input on Patricks methods may or may not be
    correct but if you met him personally, you may find he's an alright
    guy, especilly for somebody who works in N.Y.C.  I don't know, I'm only
    conjecturing.
    
    Ro, I also believe that everybody (and I mean everybody) in this
    conference is searching.  Even the perceived agitators are looking for
    truth, they just don't realize it.  I agree this forum shouldn't be
    about winning or losing an argument, it is meaningless in the eternal
    perspective.  However, if one disagrees with somebody, then one needs
    to submit evidence to substantiate one's claims.  God tells us in the
    O.T. to "..Test the spirits."  It is the prudent thing to do!
    
    If Patrick seems condescending, just say, "Hey Patrick, what the heck's
    eatin you!!!!????"  Then leave it at that.  No sense in getting worked
    up over what these types of forums have proved, inevitable!!!
    
    Peace in Christ,
    
    -Jack

    
<    Ro, if I ever slander your religious experiences, then put the slam on
<    me by defending your position with logic, fact, evidence, whatever.
<    It'll teach me a valuable lesson and add tremendous credibility to your
<    beliefs.  This is how Jesus converted some of the Jews, by using the
<    Old Testament and adding validity to his claims.
    
I'm not interested in proving or defending my experiences.  This topic 
describes an experiential process - it isn't about acting from the 
mind so much as opening to the heart and *feeling*, *being*, with the
experience.  Something is lost in trying to defend with 'logic, fact, 
evidence etc.' a mystical experience.  The author was suggesting a way 
to merge these opposites and I thought he successfully demonstrated 
what he meant by this through his examples of poetry, music, and 
language.  

Ro

    
    I'll be honest here Ro.  I'm not putting this down, it's just that
    it didn't make any sense to me.  How is it a religious experience?
    What do you do?  Do you look at mandorlas do you draw them?  Do
    you try to find mandorlas in stories or conversations?  I'm completely
    lost and I've even read some of your entries twice.  
    
    As for the attitudes towards Patrick.  I personally feel that Patrick's
    bluntness is simply a part of his personality.  He's extremely
    direct and doesn't see any reason to add what he might consider 
    unnecessary words.  I don't think he's trying to offend you.  I 
    find that he's a "Just the facts ma'am" type guy.  Now, this style
    doesn't work for me, but I'm aware that it is a style.  So I don't
    take offense and I look at the content.  I've seen it suggested that
    Patrick change his style.  Not an easy thing to do if it's more of
    a lifestyle rather than just a writing style.  
    
    Jill

    
    
    
    
    
    
    Jill - 
    
    To me, the difference in presentation is that Patrick tends to present
    his *opinions* as *facts*.  I know he does that.  I've seen it over and
    over in here.  However, knowing that doesn't always make it any easier
    to swallow especially when he seems to be passing judgement on
    something I hold to be very valuable.  In this case, this subject is
    not religious in Patrick's opinion.  I can accept that.  However when
    he says this subject is not religious period that negates anyone's
    religious experience of it.  We all come from different paths and 
    experience things in different ways.  Patrick's path is not mine or Ro's 
    or Jack's.  That's fine.  But because my path is different does that give 
    ANYone the right to assert that MY experience is invalid?
    
    Patrick, I apologize if you feel I'm talking about you as if you're not
    here.  I was trying to respond to Jill's characterization of what you
    said.  The above was only my perception of what happened and, as we all
    know, perception varies according to where you're standing.
    
    Jack - as far as logic is concerned, I think Ro has a good point. 
    There are some things that just cannot be proved logically...God, for
    instance.  :-)  Given that, I really appreciate the reconciliatory
    nature of your last few notes.  Thanks.
    
    Nanci 
    

    
    Nanci, while I respect your feelings and Ro's, I don't think either of
    you are being objective.  I reread Patrick's note.  I do not find that
    he even implied "Ro, you didn't have a religious experience." Ro
    presented info from a book, and it looks like Patrick came back and
    quoted information from several sources that happen to define a
    mandorla differently.  After all it appears to be a symbol from his
    denomination. Anyone whose been here for any length of time is going to
    know that if you present anything about Catholism that isn't in 
    accordance with the way Catholism presents it, Patrick will clarify it.
    Kinda like when I've said something about New Age and you or others
    have quickly jumped in to clarify what New Age teaches.  Both appear
    to me as equal.
    
    I think this is somewhat ironic since the whole concept behind this
    string is reconciliation.  It might be nice if you would try to
    find a mandorla with what Patrick presented which looks to me as if
    it's clearly factual and not judgemental.  But you need to find that
    within yourself.  You have to be willing to put your prejudices about
    Patrick that have built up over time aside and see his note for what it
    was - info he's gathered within Roman Catholism on the mandorla.
    
    Jill

    The book "Owning Your Shadow" by acclaimed Jungian analyst Robert A.
    Johnson can be both wrong as it states the facts of what is a mandorla
    and be a source of a religious experience for someone else.

    The mandorla is an artistic convention like drawing a halo around
    Jesus, the angels, and the saints.  That's a fact that no one should
    flee from.

    Where there is an artistic representation of a sacred scene, it can
    inspire one to pray. The worship of the image itself as opposed to the
    person of God is iconolatry.

    Reconciliation, which according to Johnson is mystical, is to me an
    ordinary human activity of forgiveness and restoration of relationship
    and taught by Jesus in the parable of the Prodigal Son.

    Patrick - 
    
    I agree!
    
    (Would somebody get Patrick the smelling salts please?)
    
    :-)
    
    Nanci

    I do not see any Christian connection with the way that mandorla's are
    described in .0-.5. It is not Christian the gospel of Christ that says
    we are to reconcile good and evil or in any way unify these things. 
    This method is a gnostic concept which is inconsistant with Christianity.
    
    Jesus says to turn away from sin through him by the power of the Holy
    Spirit. We are to set our sights on Him and His Way alone. Jesus never
    taught reconciliation with our evilness. He taught coming to Him for
    reconciliation with God for the sins we commit. Our hope and trust is
    in His forgiveness rather than through us becoming 'comfortable' with
    who we are, sin and all. 
    
    My sin hurts me, and also others, because it disrupts the harmony and
    peace that is between me and God. Unless I return to the right path
    then this sin will lead to more sin and more disunity because there is
    only one Way in life, God's Way.  Only by seeking reconciliation with God 
    first will that peace be restored to myself and others. Living in Christ 
    is the only way to successfully reject occasions of sin. 
    
    This true relationship does not put one into a life of guilt. Instead it 
    is freeing for two reasons : 1) we learn that Jesus does indeed forgive
    sin and bring healing through repentance and we are also graced with
    added power to sin no more, and 2) we come to know that 'To live is
    to sin', therefore, we are not to hide or ignore sin, but to trust God
    through reconciliation. A confessed and repentant person is a free and 
    happy person. Those who deny this and spend their efforts trying to
    make peace with sin itself or its presence in their lives, or who fight
    internal battles to justify sin (why it isn't really a sin), do not
    know peace.
    
    'Shadow work' and the 'mandorla' as described here are, at best,
    humanistic means of dealing with sinfulness. It is not the way that
    Christ, the prophets, or the apostles taught about dealing with sin in
    our lives.
    
    The Christian 'mandorla', as Patrick said, is a framing technique used
    to highlight portions of icons. It is true that this was for the
    purpose of prayer and meditation on the Christian meaning represented
    in the mandorla. The Virgin or Baby Jesus are often framed this way,
    but it is a misrepresentation to say that it was to point to some 
    'cosmic meaning or association with God's creation (example, earth
    goddess cults). It is rather to proclaim the awesome reality of God 
    Incarnate of a Woman, as scriptures foretold. 
    
    The Incarnation of God as man in Jesus Christ is the greatest event and
    work of God in all of history, past, present, and future. To place
    another meaning to the artistic iconography which, in essence, would 
    set the Incarnation aside seeking a 'greater meaning' is to reject our
    Savior yet finding 'something greater'. 
    
    As Christians, if we wish to promote unity between all religions and
    peoples, then what we should be doing is showing others how their
    understanding of God is made clearer and complete in Jesus Christ, and
    how He is the Savior of all people through his Incarnation as God and
    Man, and through His complete and perfect sacrifice for our sins on
    the cross. 
    
    Eastern mandorla techniques and religions can, at best, make a person
    more comfortable with their sins, it is only God, through Christ and
    His Body, the Church, that can forgive them.
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    
    
    

 AMEN!

    If you believe that reconciliation is not a part of Christianity, then
    you might want to take a look at Matthew 6:23-24:

        "When you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that
        your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift
        there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother
        or sister, and then come and offer your gift."

    For what it's worth, the concept of reconciliation with those who
    differ with you serves as the foundation of the Quaker meeting for
    business.

    -- Mike

 It is one thing to be reconciled to a brother or sister one has wronged,
 and quite another to reconcile oneself to sin/evil







 Jim

    The quote from the Sermon on the mount doesn't say anything about
    anyone "wronging" another person.  It merely says that if someone has
    something against you, go reconcile yourself with them.

    Reconciliation comes in many forms.  Reconciliation is an important
    principle of Quakerism, and because of this the Quaker business meeting
    is a process of worship that is founded on reconciliation.  Wars,
    conflicts, or simple disputes often exist because of needless
    antagonisms that exist among the parties involved.  To polarize this
    important issue by simply dismissing as one of good (my side) versus
    evil (the other side) is precisely the mentality that a philosophy of
    reconciliation seeks to overcome.  In a way, then, this discussion
    illustrates precisely the problem that needs to be solved.

    The Quaker business meeting is founded on this principle.  Many people
    mistakenly describe the Quaker meeting for business as based on
    "consensus".  But consensus is a secular concept, frequently based on
    compromise.  The Quaker business meeting is not a secular process, but
    a form of worship, in which the parties in conflict seek to reach a
    higher truth out of their respective and conflicting positions.  This
    has nothing to do with reconciling one's self to evil, but rather both
    parties reconciling themselves to truth, and to each other, as they
    reach out to one another to overcome their antagonisms and search
    together for what is right.

    To confuse this with reconciling one's self with evil is to miss the
    point.  If there is one thing that Quakers don't believe in, it is
    reconciling one's self with evil.  Just consider the example of John
    Woolman, who was uncompromising in his opposition to slavery, but who
    always expressed his views through love and through the Quaker process
    of truth seeking that is mistakenly called "consensus".  The result was
    remarkable--Quakers, even those from the south, became universally
    opposed to slavery.

    -- Mike

    re:.26
    
    Mike,
    
        I don't see where what I have written has contradicted the 
    reconciliation that you describe in the Quaker business meeting,
    in fact, I would say it is the same concept that we seek God's
    Will and God's Truth in the matter and to put our own personal
    desires under God's Will in obedience.
    
        This, I think is entirely different than the concept of 
    reconciling good and evil as expressed through the articles in .0
    through .5.
    
        In the gospel, Jesus warns us about compromising and he said
    that in the this can get so bad that people will call evil good and
    good evil. He did not make excuses for sin, but rather invited the
    sinner to repentance and to 'go and sin no more'. These words of
    Jesus through our meeting with Him in confession where we admit our
    sins with contrition gives us grace to do just that, 'go and sin no
    more'. It is the sinner who tries to justify the sin that is not
    free since it is not admitted as a sin. 
    
        Satan uses this tactic - to argue that "x" is really not a sin.
    If not rejected, the person stays bound by it and the sins accumulate
    and pretty soon the person is rejecting even the idea of God's
    authority to establish what is right and wrong in His eyes. 
    
        The true end to conflicts between people or nations cannot come
    until both sides seek God's Will. If only one side recognizes this
    then they become the victim of the other side. Even if peace is forced
    economically or militarily, until the sides recognize god's plan and
    wisdom in their lives there will be no real peace. 
    
        The lack of actual, immediate conflict, then, is not the true
    peace. Rather, it is the right relationship with God and our
    willingness to be obedient to God's Will for us that assures peace.
    Given mankind's current willingness to set the desires of self aside,
    I would say that we are living in extremely dangerous times despite 
    the perceived peace due to the end of the Cold War.
    
    Mary
    

    Mike, I believe that you and Mary are on the same side of the line. 
    However, if you seek out conflict where none exists, then go ahead.

    The excerpt from .2 that follows may not be what Johnson or Ro
    believes, but to me it strikes me as pagan Manichaeism, that third
    century philosophy that has a cosmology of dualism: two supreme forces,
    one good and one evil:

    > We like to think that a story is based on the triumph of good over
    > evil; but the deeper truth  is that good and evil are superseded and
    > the two become one.

    Reconciliation is the restoration of our relationship with God, on
    God's terms.  That's the common view, I believe.  The manner in which
    God makes his will know to all is where different Christian views
    become distinct.
    
    Pat Sweeney

    The problem that I see is that when you tend to see all conflict in
    terms of absolutes and good versus evil (with "my" side presumably
    being on the side of good), then reconciliation doesn't really become
    possible.

    -- Mike

That is precisely the Christian point, which is so different from .0-.5.

It is not "two absolutes, good versus evil" but only one absolute:

	God, who is completely good.

The Christian concept of evil is not an opposing evil power but a tendency
to put self before God, to rebel against him, to do our will instead of His.
Vices are almost always misapplications of faculties which would be virtues
if done according to His will.

/john

    
    what about the Devil, who is completely bad?
    
    Dorian

In Christianity, the devil is not an absolute.

God created him, and initially he was good.

His pride caused him to rebel against God and to tempt others to also
rebel, by playing on their pride, laziness, and intellectual snobbishness.

The devil himself remains good, as is all of God's creation; but his
actions, his rejection of God, are evil.

/john

    I don't see any contradiction between Christianity and .0-.5, but then
    maybe some people are seeking conflict where none exists.  :-)
    
    -- Mike