PS. Rancitas. How interesting. The first two lines of Shelley are the attributes of a faith Peter writes of. Alas, to endure is to be particular.

CSTEELE
I appreciated your reference to Jesus with the Canaanite woman.
I particularly enjoyed your sharing 'and from that moment her son was well'........

Just one of MANY reports by eye witnesses and reliable chains of tradition, of what Christ did, which caused John to say "But these things are written, that you may believe, and in believing, have life in His name".....

But may I urge ALLL of us, to consider this for what it is.

No less than God the Son, God in Christ, showing us Himself "I and the Father are one"

I'm a great believer of 'If we look to Christ, we can't go wrong'.

But there are 2 ways of looking to Jesus, the 'he was a good example' way.. and the "Personal faith encounter with Him".

Its only the latter which will change/transform/renew us at our deepest core level.

Peter tends to complicate a very simple part of life.

The last sentence of my article runs as follows: “However, universalism may only be opened to us after we have embraced the “narrowness” of Israel, the “particularity” of election, the “singularity” of the Name, the limited course of the story of YHWH and his people.” The road to the universal must begin with the particular struggle of Israel with its God and the man Jesus because these are anchored in reality. To forsake particular historical experience in order to come to universal morality, spirituality, philosophy or fabricate principles of living, even though they may involved “respect for life” is to construct a system that is not grounded in human reality. It is only via the crucified Christ that we may come to the cosmic Christ.

Scripture cannot be forced into the mold of moral manual. Because Lot’s daughters seduced their father in order to bear offspring does not give an excuse for incest. Because David seduces Bathsheba and contrives for her husband to die in battle does not bless adultery of murder. These are all believable stories about the human as good literature is and are more like a map of the human heart than stories with a moral point.

The scientist and the theologian have one thing in common, they both deal with the particular, they cannot weave a scientific theory or write a theology without real data from the natural world or real history of human living.

Many of you have taken umbrage because it looks as though I would return to primitive religion. But as the scientist must work with data from nature the theologian must work with biblical texts that sometimes describes the elaborate celebration of the cult. This does not mean that we must return to animal sacrifice, it means that we take as our datum a specific experience of Israel when they did. In other words the canon of scripture is a whole, even if it is composed of many literary genres, even though we may be repelled by the idea of putting adulterers to death. This was the religious experience of Israel and it was the genius of Israel, that was handed on to OT writers to include the scandalous and the unsavory as well as the primitive. It is all the Word of God because it represents the struggle of this particular people with religion.

The transition from the particular biblical text to understanding is a task that happens in preaching. The story of Ruth and Naomi may include the actions of a seductress but it is mainly about faithfulness, remarkably, between a daughter in law with her mother in law. This is why the book of Ruth is such a good book to preach on for a wedding.

When out society loses these stories it loses the vocabulary of Western civilization, worse, it loses the vocabulary we need in order to understand the human condition. That is why particular stories are important. When we try to produce a universal ethics from these stores we fail, as Arnold Toynbee and Albert Schweitzer have shown so vividly. We must listen to the stories themselves, on their own terms, when we do we will hear echoes of our own existence. Perhaps this engenders the peace of God that passes understanding, we know that as strangers and aliens in the world we are also at home in it?

Ps. Thanks to David Boaz for a hint about “Imagine” in one of his posts

I’m probably the only one on this site who’s been on stage with John and Yoko (Albert Hall, 1968). But I think that John’s “Imagine” is best described as naïve utopianism, with little link to reality. And reality has to be the basis for any spiritual development.

But this is not the particularist, surface, reality referred to by Peter Sellick. That “reality” attempts to convey the transcendent, the unconfined, within the narrow limits of words and the so-called “conscious” mind.

A deeper reality is central to most major religions and to spiritual growth, whether it is referred to as knowing God, union with the all, realising Nibbana or experiencing that which is beyond time and space. This reality cannot be conveyed by words, it can’t be mediated by priests, it isn’t the property of any organised religion - it must be experienced directly.

And this reality cannot be sectarian, it must be universal. Rejection of such universality, as by Sellick, comes from ignorance and attachment which block spiritual growth.

So how do we experience this reality, this ultimate truth? As Jesus and many saints and sages have said, “Know thyself,” “The kingdom of Heaven lies within you,” spiritual realisation requires self-realisation.

But how to do this? Again, it cannot be a sectarian method, it must be universal. The Buddha taught a universal method (not a “Buddhist” method or Buddhism) for introspection. This has three interdependent parts. First: broadly, adherence to a moral discipline (abstaining from killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct and intoxicants). This is not an end in itself, but is necessary to quiet the mind sufficiently to take the second step – developing control over the mind, the ability to concentrate. This enables the third, critical step – observing with detachment the reality of the present moment as it manifests within one’s own mind and body.

This depends on no particularity, no tradition; it’s here and now, and enables access to the deeper levels of the mind, the so-called unconscious which is in fact always conscious. And now the dreaded word limit strikes …

Peter,
Your approach assumes that univeralism and particularity are oppositional concepts where there is only one or the other in any circumstance. But what if instead there was a kind of 'sandwich' structure that allowed of both universals and particulars?

Human rights for individuals could be seen as a balance to the power of modern states. The abstractions of the rule of law and individual human rights - together - work in the modern context of national states. These universals provide the space for a person living within a state to exercise their freedom in whichever particular way they choose.

We are socially constructed - we are born into families, into a social environment, learn a social language, develop an identity etc, etc. These are some of the particulars that you refer to, and every person is by definition unique and has their own stories. The universals of the rule of law and human rights for individuals are also socially constructed - within the context of modern states - so that we can live our unique lives as we please, without being subject to undue coercion by the state or the people who control it.

So the point that I wanted to make is that univerals/particulars could be configured in such a way - like a sandwich maybe - that enable each other rather than being oppositional either/or polar extremes. One thing that seems to be forgotten in the debate about human rights and modernity is that this is all happening within the context of modern states. The history of the twentieth century shows how modern states can become extremely destructive when the balancing concepts of human rights are undermined.

If anyone is interested, there is more on this approach in my blog http://pharoz.blogspot.com but in an unorganised way...