I still have an interest in attempting to baptize Kashmiri Shaivism, according to which the great goddess Shakti is immanent as the life of the Creation, while also being in the syzygy of marital union with the transcendent god Shiva (who is blue as well, like Krishna). So, keep the fundamental structure but think of it in terms of Sophia and Jesus, would be the idea.
(If the ancient Church had no qualms with baptizing Greek philosophy, and the Celts were so wondrously syncretic, then I don't see why we should be so timid now.)
That's maybe for later, though. I've been doing another edit of my book this week, so as to make sure that the draft is in the best possible shape when Angelico Press is good to get the ball rolling.
I agree! The Yab Yum, the union of Shiva and Shakti depicted in the Maithuna, the coital embrace--creating the worlds in the bliss of their union, would be the best sex education possible. God's having sex! Should be fundamental to our thinking about not only sex but the world itself. Like you say: Christ and Sophia united. The conjunctio oppositorum. The Heiros Gamos. This should be fundamental to our understanding of Christianity...like you said Sethu: "not so timid."
I think the bridal mysticism is there in the Bible, with the Song of Songs, and how the Old Testament generally portrays Israel's relationship with the Lord, and the wedding feast at the end of the world. It's there, but it needs to be developed much further than it has been.
There's also what I find to be Magdalene's highly suggestive role in the gospels: while I wouldn't go so far as to declare that Jesus was married to her, I'd suggest that she at the very least stands as a symbol or synecdoche for Sophia the Soul of Creation. I would like to develop a much stronger connection between Magdalene and Soul Sophia, but I'm not sure yet how to go about it without being too arbitrary. That would be quite the jump.
I'm with you there! The imagery is there in the S of S, as you say, and The Bride of the Lamb, but something needs to be done with it. What was it the angel said to the church of Ephesus?: "I have somewhat against you: You must return to your first love."
And Magdalene is for sure a key to the future of the church. I've explored the connection of the Virgin Sophia, who in Christian Esotericism was equated with the Virgin Soul--the purified human astral body in an article called: "How to Find the Virgin Sophia in the Foundation Stone Meditation." (https://languages-uconn.academia.edu/BillTrusiewicz/The-Foundation-Stone-Papers) This in an effort, like you said, to go beyond the arbitrary to a spiritual scientific explanation. I've done the same with Isis/Sophia in: "The Foundation Stone as the Being of Isis/Sophia." (In the series noted above) I'd love to see one on Mary Magdalene. You're right she represents the fallen and redeemed soul--out of whom seven demons were cast out--cleansing the seven energy centers.
I'll check it out! For my part, I'm trying to follow Bulgakov to suggest that perhaps Mother Mary and Magdalene are the divine and human (or uncreated and created) modes of Sophia, with Mother Mary being the Virgin and Magdalene being the Bride.
I saw that you subscribed to my blog, and you can see the general contours of what I'm thinking in my post of the "Eleven Theses":
I'm sort of getting a picture where Mother Mary isn't the Soul of Creation, she's like something from before the Creation. But her pure uncreated nature is also a mirror of perfection down here, meaning that the redeemed Soul of Creation and the Virgin would reflect each other.
I've also been toying with the Hindu concept of the gunas: tamas, rajas, sattvas—that's life energy from lowest to highest spiritual frequencies. So the casting out of the demons from Magdalene's seven chakras would also be suggestive of Soul Sophia rising from tamas to sattvas and beyond.
Yes, as you say: Mother Mary Uncreated and Mary Magdalene Created/Redeemed. Like Jesus being the sister-soul of Adam who never incarnated before--Mary similarly uncreated from a godhead that is neither male or female but the undivided ground of being. We, in the West don't have terms for the godhead that express the "uncarved block," or Wu Chi of Taoism. My soul seeks that expression. The closest thing that I have come to is the term in the Prologue of John: "the only begotten." This evidently is not an adequate translation. It should be rendered: "the singly begotten," meaning from an undivided divinity that is neither male or female. Georg Kuhlewind, in his "Becoming Aware of the Logos," speaks of this.
I take heart from the idea that the future of spiritual science will encompass all religious expressions world-wide. This itself is a Sophianic Idea. There appear to be indications of "the undivided" in Kabbalah, as well, with "ein soph." And another term that I can't remember at the moment. Vidar wants us to be "creators" so we will need to penetrate these obscure regions to be conscious "creators." This is part of restoring the "Lost Word," the Logos--finding the lost words.
I find clarity (not arbitrariness) with regard to the Sophia in Steiner's Foundation Stone Meditation, in spite of the fact that it is ostensibly about the masculine trinity of Father, Son and HS (first three panels). Embedded within these verses is the Threefold Sophia: Mother, Daughter and HSoul. I've begun to lay that out in my article: "The Revelation of the Threefold Sophia: As Key to Meeting Christ in the Etheric." (https://www.academia.edu/38268832/The_Revelation_of_the_Threefold_Sophia_As_Key_to_Meeting_Christ_in_the_Etheric) I need to come back to that a few years later with more clarity. I'm wedding Steiner and Tomberg here using Tomberg's "Luminous Holy Trinity" in conjunction with Steiner's Rosicrucian saying: Ex Deo Nascimir, In Christo Morimur, Per Spiritum Sanctum Reviviscimus, if I've spelled that right.
I didn't see the "Eleven Theses" so I'll look again. It would be great to collaborate on developing clarity about these matters. I was working with John O'Meara in this vein a few years back during and after he left the editorship of Starlight. He was the one who initiated the idea of collaborating on Sophianic research. Sophia is keen on us doing this.
"I take heart from the idea that the future of spiritual science will encompass all religious expressions world-wide."
I consider myself a perennialist, and the way I put it is that the Logos who is Jesus Christ speaks through holy Wisdom across all places and cultures and times. Of all the religions in the world, Islam gives me the most trouble on that front—but I do love the Sufis. Taoism is great, and I've been meaning to read that book *Christ the Eternal Tao*. Apparently, in the Chinese and Japanese Bibles, "Logos" is in fact translated as Tao.
And yes, collaboration sounds good to me. I'll go over your writings soon.
Thanks, Michael, for this. I went through a similar process of discovery as you describe finally arriving at “home church.” (Hope you don’t mind if I go on at some length about this. You give me a rare opportunity.) It was in the late eighties. I took a journey (about 15 years) through numerous “Christian Churches,” some of whom didn’t clearly understand the difference between a “church building” and “the church as the body of Christ,”--a living temple of individuals. Even those who did clearly understand that point, succeeded, nevertheless, to create a “material temple” from the spiritually understood principle, by making (very high) teachings and teachers into gods. Many of us were serious students of the New Testament, which does, by the way, teach the Way of the Wild God—once it’s unpacked from theological cerements. Several families gathered in one or another’s home for meetings. It was the “Wild God” that we (most of us young people), were hungry for. We did have many, memorable “Wild God” experiences. We called our goal simply: “The New Testament Church.” We took the wild John the Baptist for our “patron saint,” who didn’t mind wearing “unclean” camel skins to offend the religious. Who lived in the wild and was unafraid to call out the hypocrisy of religion. We reveled in the Jesus who knocked over the money changers. And the Jesus who healed on the Sabbath day. We loved the “King David” who stole the holy shewbread to feed himself and his men, and danced nearly naked before the ark of the covenant. In fact, I was dubbed “King William,” because I did occasionally get up and dance in the excitement of revelation in meetings. That was a younger me but I’d do it again given the inspiring spirit of the Wild God. We broke whole loaves of bread and gave pieces to each other, meeting each other’s eye with appreciation for each persons contribution as “living stones” in the temple of God—as “bread broken” for each other. We shared a cup of “wine” acknowledging our willingness to spill our blood for each other as He did for us. We did our own music, much of it composed, especially lyrics, by us. So much for home church in the 1980s.
There was much in the Christendom of those days that troubled me, in spite of the fact that I was honored for dancing in church meetings—mostly the un-universal, often uncharitable, small-minded “Jesus Cult.” By that I mean that there wasn’t the breadth and depth of cosmic Christianity, the Christ of cosmic, universal, cosmopolitan proportions one finds in Anthroposophical Christology, for instance—not to minimize our beloved Lord Jesus. That’s not to say that Anthroposophists don’t tend to be uncharitable. It isn’t the Christology that is to blame—it’s the “universal” small-mindedness of humans. And almost totally missing was the beautiful nature-loving Celtic spirit—except for a beloved Methodist, pastor George Smith, who was a poet of a man and could weave the livingness of a full-orbed life that revered mountains and lakes and streams and everything green and ruddy—into his sermons.
I agree with you, Michael, that “Alt-Christianity is the New Celtic Christianity.” Today, I take comfort in the fact that the old Nordic god Vidar is back in commission as we enter Ragnarok—as prophesied in the Nordic Edda—coming to slay the Fenris Wolf. Reading from the Mission of Folk Souls in Relation to Teutonic Mythology, by Steiner, “He [Vidar]...had undertaken another mission—that of becoming the inspirer of esoteric Christianity, which was destined to live on further in the Mysteries of the Holy Grail, in Rosicrucianism...All the underlying teachings and impulses of esoteric Christianity, have their source in his inspirations.” Archangel Vidar in the new guardian of the “youth forces” after Archangel Michael who has risen to Time Spirit. Vidar, who is the revealer of the Living Christ, is among us to revive and renew what is old—to guide us into the wilds of connecting to the elemental world, over whom he is guardian (as leading angel of Christ the “Lord of the Elements”)—in fine Celtic fashion. Towards that end I have written five essays on Vidar, the ambassador of the Living Logos—restorer of the Lost Word if anyone is interested. I’m inspired by this “Wild God” idea—it will show up in my continuing Vidar work.
So much this--and I'm right there with you regarding John the Baptist! Many of the poems in my first collection are about him--and he shows up in the new book as well. He's been haunting me since childhood.
He's still "Main Man" in my book. He shines ever more beautifully through Raphael and Novalis. Just as J the B was the preparation for Christ, Novalis is the preparer of the Sixth Epoch community and its new Sophianic Pentecost. Sergei O. Prokofief's, "Eternal Individuality: Toward a Karmic Biography of Novalis" is highly recommended if you haven't already discovered it. I'd like to see your first collection, Michael. What's that called?
Ah, yes! So is it supposed to be. To put us in communion with the Holy Ghost. Just as an en-Christed human being can put us in touch with Christ, so also an Archangel such as Vidar can bring the Holy Spirit, through "Jacob's Ladder," down to us. That is indeed his task.
That is so interesting. I first heard about Vidar from Thomas Meyer and you have fed that desire to learn more....will be reading what you have linked.
I agree in part with your comments on conversion to eastern Orthodoxy. I feel some of those tensions myself as a westerner, with a physical lineage going back to the British Isles, in a church that is rooted in Russia. However, another side of this — which I think Kingsnorth and Shaw have picked up on, especially since more of this survives in Orthodoxy in the British Isles than in America — is that, as a westerner, one finds in eastern Europe and Russia (and Arab lands, and Christian India, and Orthodox Ethiopia, etc) a sense of homecoming to what was lost in the west. E.g. one may get a better sense of what ancient Ireland was like by visiting rural Romania today than by visiting rural Ireland. And Russia is a wild place, a swirling malestrom of ideas and influences! I was just reading this week about neo-paganism in Russia, which is booming. One can see this eclectic, pulsating life in the work of Bulgakov. Behind "official" Orthodoxy in Russia is a bizarre, perhaps aberrant but nonetheless fascinating folk religion that still survives, somehow. But American converts to Orthodoxy have brought their puritanism and fundamentalism with them and prefer to shove all that wild stuff into the closet. And I totally agree about the date of Easter.
More generally, my response to your thoughts here is to remember an intention I've had over the last few years that I haven't yet acted on — celebrating with my family, on my own land, the western festivals like Candlemas, St John's Day (summer solstice), Michelmas, etc. For those of us without a background in Waldorf and who may find the practicalities a bit daunting, how does one begin? E.g. how do we celebrate May Day, what kind of tree is good to use for the May Pole, what dances to use, etc? I would love to see you write a practical and theoretical guide to reclaiming and celebrating family festivals with your wife, kind of like that Waldorfy book from the 70's "Around the Year" but with a focus on taking the festivals seriously as adults, not just doing it "for the kids."
True festivity seems like maybe the most anti-Ahrimanic, revolutionary thing one could do on this continent right now.
I completely get the fascination Western people have with the Eastern Church (having experienced it first hand for over 25 years). But, as you know, the leadership in the EO churches are just as worthless as those in every other denomination. The wild version of Christianity I'm interested in now is, at heart, a wish for a decentralized Christianity. You could say that the time of institutions--both secular and religious--has reached atrophy and has nowhere to go but collapse. Yet they still keep trying to hang on...
I completely agree. I’m a Catholic and I just don’t understand Tomberg and Solovyov’s idealization of the papacy. Bulgakov and Olivier Clement are brilliant in how they understand sobornost. I’m a huge fan of Milbank, but even he confuses me when he speaks of the church needing the papacy. Maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t see it. I’m not sure who said it but I believe it to be true: multiplicity without unity is confusion, but unity without multiplicity is tyranny.
About Tomberg, again, I just finished reading "Personal Certainty," which is Tombergian clarity at its best, until near the end when the clouds roll in...
He leads one so surely on the path of mysticism and gnosis, the inner path each individual must take for "personal certainty," leading one to the "faithful inner voice of truth," and then in one stroke of legerdemain, he raises the question of the most holy and sacrosanct "unity of the church." This he says must be upheld at all costs. Never mentioning that an outer unity, like Matthew mentions above, is a unity that silences the multiplicity--"unity without multiplicity is tyranny." Outer unity by command slays the individual conscience, breaking the rule of "faithfulness to the inner voice of truth and conscience!" Why he does this is another question. He does the same in his "Meditations on the Tarot." Such an incredibly beautiful work yet deeply flawed in this matter of church authority.
I'm with you Matthew. I love Tomberg but he goes too far with the papacy, so starkly in contrast to his earlier work in Inner Development, quoted above. "independent of all teaching and teachers and organizations in the world." This doesn't negate our working within or with organizations, as I explain in my papers "Toward Building a Community of Grail Knights." Or with a teaching or teachers. It just means keeping one's reserve, being independent in one's thinking and not compromising that. Living now in what Rudolf Steiner calls the "consciousness soul" age, in which independent thinking is to be developed, we still have one foot in the old paradigm of dependence on teachers and Popes to tell us what is right and wrong. In the coming age, represented by the Waterman (Aquarius), we will be holding the container of water of life, each ourselves--not swimming in it like our current Piscean age. Water as a picture of being immersed in feeling/sensing, the astral world of half asleep-ness. The remove of thinking is pictured as the Waterman handling the water but living in the air. Interestingly, Steiner once called the Piscean age that of John the Baptist--the Waterman. (Michael take note.) My point is that we need to embrace the wildness of not having so much reliance on teachers and Popes--trusting each other to know the truth, finding the ground of truth in us. The new covenant, as St. Paul described it, is "not each one telling his brother "know the Lord" for all shall know him from the least to the greatest."
I recall that Solovyov went for some pretty hard stretches in his book, such as observing that ROMA spelled backward is AMOR, or love. . . . Um, yeah, I guess that's the sort of thing you start doing when you're out of arguments.
The early church wanted centralization in Jerusalem but St. Paul opposed it. There is no biblical precedent for centralization. The Pope is an invention of those who put order above life instead of life above order. This ruled out the Wild God. You will not find single priests or pastors leading congregations, either, in the New Testament. There was a plurality of elders. Like I said, the Wild God is supported in His Word. Children need boundaries but they learn best by doing, experimenting, playing and making mistakes. So it should be in the church--with the children of God. The Biblical picture is "the flock" and not the "fold." He calls his own "the little flock." Those in the "little flock" know his voice. Those living in the confines of the fold don't need to know his voice. Their lives are so regulated by rules, by centralized government, that they don't need to know his voice themselves--they look to the teacher. This is the truth so clearly put forth by Valentin Tomberg in "Inner Development," speaking of the New Grail Knighthood: "But let us keep one province free from compromise; let us remain true to the spirit, independent of all teachings and teachers, of all organizations in the world. Let us remain faithful to the inner voice of truth and conscience! Then we are in the school that is preparing for the future Michael Community--the community that will bear the motto: Michael-Sophia in nomine Christi."
I expect that I'll head to the Orthodox Church sooner or later (I think I've mentioned that I'm currently Eastern Catholic—Maronite). Someone said that Orthodoxy is the blockchain version of the Church, which I found hilarious. The idea was that it can't get thoroughly corrupted from the top, because it is a confederacy with no head. Made me think a little of what Deleuze an Guattari might have meant by rhizomatic organization (relative to the Catholic Church, anyway).
Basically, the leadership is just as worthless, but they are also less important.
Of course, I agree with you about wanting much greater decentralization than that. But, well, I'm young and need a community and counterculture, which isn't a thing I could give to myself, so I feel obliged to make certain strategic and tactical calls.
I am impressed by this article, which I need to read several times. For the moment I should mention the extraordinary personality of Simone Weil who is described in "The Year of Our Lord 1943, Christian Humanism in an Age of Crisis" by Alan Jacobs. https://global.oup.com/.../the-year-of-our-lord-1943...& The Allies and the Soviets defeated Hitler's evil regime, but would the victors continue their life with more moral virtue and nobility of spirit? Darkness was beaten by blood and tears, but in 1943 darkness still covered Europe and most of the world. This book makes previously unseen connections between the ideas of five major Christian intellectuals in WWII — T. S. Eliot, C. S. Lewis, W. H. Auden, Simone Weil, and Jacques Maritain. Society had to be based on an authentic spiritual life without need for force or fear to keep order.
I am very struck by the life and thought of the French Jewish philosopher and mystic Simone Weil (1909 - 1943) who died very young. She is often called "a kindred spirit for church outsiders". https://uscatholic.org/.../simone-weil-a-kindred-spirit.../ The point I make is that too many people get complexed about what they do in church, as if it mattered to other people or the collectivity. I have known holy and silent souls who just evaporated away after having sown the seeds, allowing others to reap the harvest. Many such souls will not be seen or noticed in church, but it doesn't mean they are atheists or bad people. If we can comprehend such an idea, maybe the experience of institutional churches and liturgy will be that much more authentic and a source of grace. We might judge Weil for not accepting Baptism, but in her view of the Church, there was another way to Christ. I say this as a priest, horrified by the example of too many churchgoers.
So much for the "good old days"! 1943 was 16 years before I was born, and I have the impression of reading about our present world crisis.
We do need to present forms of Christianity that speak to western people like you and I, though our strengths and weaknesses. I suspect that trying to revive an institutional Celtic Church would be self-defeating, but it could live as a spiritual ideal for many who are "outside".
Also, I've been developing the concept of the Church of Magdalene, which is meant as a contrast against the institutional Church of Peter: the mystic Church of poetic vision, anchored in her first witness of the Resurrection.
Thanks, Anthony, I read the short article you suggested about Simone Weil with great interest, and felt immediately her "kindred spirit." My friend, Chris Bamford, attempted to turn me on to Weil many years ago--as well as other friends. But one cannot read everything, which I prove by always trying. Now I know why he suggested her. Would you be able to suggest a volume of her work that would be a good place to start? Or someone else reading here might have a suggestion?
This article by Dr Michael Martin resonates with me even more since I was talking with a friend of mine who is a Church of England priest. He is aware of the absolute shit-show of bureaucracy and lying clerics, like politicians. I am very interested in the idea of providing this "wild church" with priests and the possibility of liturgy / Sacraments. Clericalism has killed the institutional churches, but the priesthood can survive and continue the Mystery. Independent bishops have proved very disappointing through their narcissism and other psychological and moral deficiencies. There is a very interesting book by John P. Plummer, "The Many Paths of the Independent Sacramental Movement". Yes if the Sacraments can serve the "wild church" and not seek a position of domination. John Plummer can be found on Facebook. I would appreciate reflections on this theme.
I appreciate and admire your consideration of the wild church, Anthony. It's a beautiful thing to recognize what's not working and to be willing to move on in spite of having invested a great deal of oneself in something. My wife was considering the priesthood and attended an "Orientation for the Priesthood," (of the Christian Community) so that she could bring the sacraments to our believing friends but that wasn't allowed by the hierarchy of the CC Church. But it's totally in alignment with the way the Wild Church works if I may say so.
I'm happy to share my thoughts on the Wild Church under Michael's eye not knowing what he'll think. He's the guy who named it and I love the idea. So, I'd like to hear from Michael on what I propose (suppose) IS the Wild Church. It can only be valid and possible if "two or three agree." And I don't consider myself to have any authority as an independent voice.
The Wild Church needs to get back to The New Testament Church of scripture, to my way of thinking. It requires a washing away of any tradition that doesn't have grounding in the Epistles or the Gospels. That's a big stretch for those who love tradition. But, I think it is so, nevertheless, and I think St. Paul is reliable as both a witness of the early church and as a minister, an Apostle. He outlined the archetypal ministry as 5-fold: Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Of course books could be and have been written about this but they are actually quite rare since most books are not about the New Testament Church at all but about a tradition that followed--I believe, a corrupted tradition--sometimes beautiful, sometimes pure and righteous but architecturally corrupted nevertheless. There are, nevertheless, some books written precisely about the NT Church. The NT Church is archetypally (architecturally) depicted, not surprisingly, in the NT. The NT Church is indeed a "Wild Church," in the best sense of the word--like nature is wild--with its own nobility, beauty, even grandeur. All in spite of its home grown variety and durability and maybe BECAUSE of its homegrown aspect--in the same way as David's "homegrown" method destroyed Goliath in spite of his stature in the world's sight.
The New Testament Church, as easily seen in the NT, once the blinders of tradition have been removed, is "home grown." (Sorry for repeating myself; I'm dashing this off.) Each locality is autonomous, not under any other authority but freely submitting to Apostolic wisdom--that means choosing what and when the words of the Apostles are followed. Apostolic wisdom like everything in the New Testament Church, is subject to scrutiny of those "who need not that any man teach them." Nothing is official in the usual sense. What is official is what shows itself to be worthy of "office," and only as long as it remains "worthy of office." An elder is only an elder if he or she acts like an elder, etc. Pastors and teachers and fathers as referred to in the NT are pastors, teachers and fathers as long as they act like such. Simple! Everything is regulated by "truth in reality and reality in Life." The Logos is only the Logos when it is the Logos. Nothing is official that it not proved in Life. We call things by their "real names." We return to truth "in Life." This is called "recovering the Lost Word." A minister or pastor only becomes a minister or pastor, or teacher by being one in a real-life situation. By proving themselves in a local congregation. Outside teachers or elders from other churches aren't guaranteed status in another congregation--they have to earn that status "in life," in other congregations. Like I said: Nothing is official in the usual sense. All of our language about these things has to change to reflect "reality in life."
I could go on and on about this. The reality in life ("Christ, who is our Life") says that you, Anthony, for instance, could conceivably become a minister in a local Wild Church. You would need to be there long enough to prove that you were actually a minister--not by any other authority than the authority that lives as Christ in his body--the particular church in which you are "built as a living stone." If you are recognized as minister within the local church then you are one. If you aren't recognized then you are not one. It's all very simple you just call everything by its "real name." Jesus Christ the Logos is present in "wild churches" to witness the naming and testify that it is true. He gives us "the spirit of truth by which we know all things." (1 Jn 2:27.) This will require re-thinking even what the sacraments are. What is sacred is ordained not by humans but by the creator Spirit. That is part of our challenge as "wild churches"--to give real names to everything. If one thinks about this I think what is possible becomes self-evident. Of course there are hundreds of other ways to do "church" as you will have observed.
Indeed, this is a very hazardous rabbit hole, and perhaps evidence that the only church life can be the local village parish - except they are nearly all destroyed. The "independent sacramental movement" scene is also fraught with danger of communities being dominated by control freaks, narcissistic personalities and ideologies like "woke". I think John Plummer simply dropped his priestly life and continued as an academic - I may be wrong. All in expressing these ideas, I am very reticent because I am not a leader. I can give good ideas that others find inspiring or useful, but I have had too much experience of being sucked into other people's ideologies. Maybe the community idea, at least for me, is an illusion. Already I work as a freelance translator. I hardly ever wear clerical dress and I spend a lot of time sailing with groups, associations or on my own. I seem to be destined to be a hermit.
True enough, no doubt, Anthony. With all the narcissistic personalities and "woke" ideologies, as you say. My reply is that those "local village parishes" were not built on the principles I maintain must be followed. They were built on worldly principles whose authority was tradition and not scripture. Communities being dominated by control freaks is a very present reality, I agree. They thrive especially well in church architectures grown on tradition and not on the original architecture of St. Paul. I know what you are saying because I've experienced it in a number of communities--just at you say: "control freaks." Even in churches that strive for the true God-given (NT) architecture, control freaks wreak havoc. I've experienced that too. But I don't take that to mean we should give up. The beauty of the church of which I speak, is too compelling, too possible if one believes John: "I have written these things to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, and you don't need anyone to teach you. Instead, his anointing teaches you all things, and is true and is not a lie..." The whole New Testament (new covenant) hinges on this principle. The same "rabbit hole" was working back then as evident in this epistle. I believe a "wild church" will not be deterred by any "rabbit holes," which are always abundant in any case. If we didn't have control freaks to overcome our faith wouldn't be worth much. Totally respecting your choice to do what you think best.
Just to avoid confusion concerning what I am calling the "wild church" (by Michael's initiation), I should explain. And Michael please let us know how or if this does or doesn't resonate. I'm beholden to you for this opportunity, which arises totally out of your instigation. You got me started. I am continuing to share, and extrapolating rather freely, under impressions I've picked up from following your work closely. If I didn't have that background I wouldn't be taking such liberty. I continue...
The "wild church" isn't just a name that can be given if you like the idea; it must be grown 'from scratch.' I do mean "grown." This idea comes out of LIFE. The etheric, if you will. The idea is that the life of Christ grows in those who recognize him and depend upon him for their LIFE. People must gather around this idea to start--that Christ is our life. (Following St. Paul's "Christ who is our life." Col. 3;4) No one will understand this but everyone will be in awe of the fact and will accept it as their truth and notice that others feel the way they do. From this things can happen--wild, beautiful things. As soon as one acknowledges others as brothers and sisters by the spirit one sees the need for everyone's participation; one sees the value for the community of each member. The community is built on recognizing the value of each member not on a leader or leaders. Leaders are the ones who first see the value of the least member and honor the least first and the greatest last. They are acknowledged as leaders (elders, pastor or teachers) only by the body itself, by the health they have brought to the body in their ministrations. The greatest honor goes to the least. (1 Corinthians 12) This is the principle of strength in the body of Christ. When one practices this principle one sees and discovers the strength of the body in reality--a body which is whole. If one honors the "greater members" one cultivates or draws forth narcissistic personalities and control freaks--who are seeking honor. If one honors the least to become a leader one repels control freaks seeking the lead. If one builds a body on these principles strength grows in every individual and leaders take a subsidiary role. They become watchers and guides while the body functions naturally with all members active. (Try thinking about how you drive the car while you are driving it if you want to get confused and have an accident.) Our ideas about our head and our heart being somehow the sole rulers of the body is inaccurate. We need to understand how a body really works--the heart isn't a pump. The head can do very little on its own. Without the body the head is quite useless. The brain and the heart are "watchers and guides" to the Life of the Body. (We drive a car by having automated our bodily functions so that they work with only the slightest nudges and directions from the head--the body does 99% of the work.) Learning such truths are the basis of the life and growth of the "wild church." "For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." (Rom. 2:4-5).
Thank you for your kind response. I live in France, and I have not seen any evidence of the existence of any such communities. People are more religious in the US than in Europe. I am aware that the ideas I express are academic. I was once intrigued by the notion of "intentional communities" where people do things like permaculture and crafts, but they surrender their personality to the collective. These are communes for which the term "communism" has its origin. They are ruled by the Alpha personality and are mostly totalitarian cults. Perhaps the exception exists and doesn't involve flying half way around the world. I fear that Utopia will remain a dream of Sehnsucht. Really I am not doing "what I think best" as if I have a choice. I just do what I find myself doing. I keep an open mind. Really, religious communities depend on institutional churches because most people are only motivated by force, fear or peer pressure. The noble soul is as rare as hen's teeth. Forgive me my cynicism - as Oscar Wilde said, "knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing". Just another bit of information - I am diagnosed as being on the "Aspergers" autism spectrum. That explained a lot of things to me.
"Gravity and Grace", "The Need for Roots: Prelude to the Declaration of Duties towards Mankind", "Selected Essays 1934-1943", "Waiting for God". I have just fished these out of the bibliography of Alan Jacobs' book mentioned in my comment above.
Here I go again, reprising something I have talked about elsewhere. A quote from the hymn Be Thou My Vision which is a translation from an ancient Celtic Christian poem.
“Thou my great Father and I thy true son”
In all this talk of a wild Christianity I see no talk of the wild spiritual life of Jesus had with God the Father. A wild life we can also have as being fellow sons of God filled with the Holy Spirit – John 1:12, Galatians 3:26, 4:6. A wild Christianity with the Father because it is empowered by the Holy Spirit doesn’t need nature immersion to happen, though having the privilege of nature immersion I suppose may be a useful adjunct for many. After all when Jesus gave prayer instructions in Matthew 6 he said simply to close the door to your room and pray to your Father who is there in secret.
When you look at the actual spirituality espoused by Jesus and practiced by him in the Gospels it is utterly unfashionable by those who look to non-dual awareness, and “Christ Consciousness” "ground of being” as the ticket or Vidaric angelic intermediaries. No, nothing as ethereal and esoteric as that! A Father in heaven, “pray to your Father who is there unseen”. Jesus was by no means ashamed of the old man and talked about and to him a whole lot. God speaking in an audible voice, expectation of specific even miraculous answers to prayer, lifting eyes in prayer, a robust intensely personal God the Father that isn’t you, but you can know, and directly know his love for you as an individual through Jesus as the connection and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit as gift.
I’ve read the article and comments several times and this resonates with me. I have a question for Michael and others here: should someone who has never been baptized but is feeling a strong calling in their middle age to a sacramental faith, establish themselves in a church before or as he is going “alt-Christian?l (asking for myself and Russell Brand :))
Chris, like Michael said, "it's up to you," but it would be more fun to hold your baptism as a project with whoever joins you in the Wild Church. We did some of our own baptisms, back in the day, while most of us had been baptized in other churches some were new to the faith or just hadn't been baptized. It's a wonderful adventure for a group to partake together in such things--deciding where and how to baptize. (We chose a river in a neighboring town.) It is, at once, both gravely serious and positively delightful. That sort of lively duality is the hallmark of taking the "middle path." Where in true sister-brotherhood one can "sit in the heavens and laugh," both at the Luciferic (devilish) and the Ahrimanic (Satanic) deviations--where the matter can be taken too lightly or too gravely, rising above the wrong sort of polarizing forces that imprison--to a liberating, playful dynamism that lies in the "metaxu," between the two--where YOU decide!
Thank you so much Bill! I have been thinking about doing this sort of thing with my wife this Easter in a spot in one of our favorite swimming holes in the woods that is aptly named “Paradise” by the locals. I am in Vermont so it will be very cold still but we love the feeling from a good cold plunge.
That Massingham quote about the loss undergone by neutering this tradition is a word...serious consequences for us that look like us Westerners imagining ourselves somewhere in a cold "universe" rather than placed and having an active role in a charged, shepherded "cosmos", and the attitude affects believers and nonbelievers alike.
Michael, I wonder if "the Druid" remembers his connection to Vidar? It looks to me like Vidar is active in your whole approach with the "Wild of God" idea for renewal of Christianity. What you are proposing appears to me to be in perfect alignment with Vidar's guidance in our time. Here's a note off the back of Adrian Anderson's book of research on "Vidar and the Flame Column, According to Rudolf Steiner": "In 1910, Rudolf Steiner told an audience in Oslo, Norway, that a deity known in the Edda as 'Vidar', was an Archangel known from ancient times, and who now provided the spiritual essence of anthroposophical wisdom. He also mentioned that the Druids had made a carving of this deity..."
Vidar was the guiding spirit who was the inspiration behind the esoteric Christianity of the Grail and Rosicrucianism. Steiner describes him here: "Now what became of the Archangel of the Celtic peoples, when he had renounced becoming a Spirit of Personality? He became the inspiring Spirit of esoteric Christianity; and in particular of those teachings and impulses which underlie esoteric Christianity; the real true esoteric Christianity comes from his inspirations. The secret, hidden place for those who were initiated into these Mysteries was to be found in Western Europe, and there the inspiration was given by this guiding Spirit, who had originally gone through an important training as Archangel of the Celtic people, renounced his further ascent, and had undertaken another mission, that of becoming the inspirer of esoteric Christianity, which was to work on further through the Mysteries of the Holy Grail, through Rosicrucianism." (Mission of Folk Souls)
Vidar is working to reconnect humanity to the elemental world and to lead people to the experience of the Etheric Christ--the "Living Christ," through the experience of nature and the seasons. He is the new guiding Archangel of the youth forces connected with the Nathan Soul, since Archangel Michael's elevation to Time Spirit, with the task of inspiring the esoteric church to replace dead with living thinking--by restoring the Logos: the Lost Word. He is working to lay the groundwork for collaborative endeavors among highly individual spirits as forerunners of the diverse Philadelphia culture of the sixth epoch. Marks of his activity will be renewal that manifests unity-in-diversity with active elemental, life-forces. The old authorities of "teaching and teachers" (Petrine Popes and Pastors) will be replaced among Vidar's followers by their own spiritual guides under his unifying leadership. Vidar plus Christianity is the formula for a new "Christian Paganism," similar but different from (a variation of) Christian Hermeticism.
I have five essays published on Vidar, which it appears will be the beginning of my first book in a series called: "Vidar, Archangel Michael's Successor: How Can We Know Him?" A final chapter/essay (almost done) may complete this series, but I'm not quite sure yet. Completed chapter/Essays can be seen here: https://languages-uconn.academia.edu/BillTrusiewicz/Vidar-Papers
It saddens me that the simple mediatorship of Jesus of Nazareth that brings us the knowing of the Father and the Holy Spirit seems inadequate or unreal or inaccessible for so many. That becoming like a little child in this area is such a challenge. An unbelief that he has come in the flesh and said “I am with you always even unto the end of the age” and “I will never drive away any who come to me”
Some fun, me dressed up as Saint Patrick in 2015 in our town’s Saint Patrick’s Day parade. Scroll down to see the picture. Over the years I have repeatedly dressed up as him and told his story first person taken from his own writings. My current outfit is toned down, more “natural” not full on Roman Catholic style bishop. People would tell me I looked like a green pope in that particular outfit. Not a message I want to present! https://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/picture-gallery/news/2015/03/14/green-wearing-revelers-take-over-downtown-visalia-in-st-pats-parade/24764497/
I still have an interest in attempting to baptize Kashmiri Shaivism, according to which the great goddess Shakti is immanent as the life of the Creation, while also being in the syzygy of marital union with the transcendent god Shiva (who is blue as well, like Krishna). So, keep the fundamental structure but think of it in terms of Sophia and Jesus, would be the idea.
(If the ancient Church had no qualms with baptizing Greek philosophy, and the Celts were so wondrously syncretic, then I don't see why we should be so timid now.)
That's maybe for later, though. I've been doing another edit of my book this week, so as to make sure that the draft is in the best possible shape when Angelico Press is good to get the ball rolling.
That sounds fascinating--and I'm looking forward to the book!
I agree! The Yab Yum, the union of Shiva and Shakti depicted in the Maithuna, the coital embrace--creating the worlds in the bliss of their union, would be the best sex education possible. God's having sex! Should be fundamental to our thinking about not only sex but the world itself. Like you say: Christ and Sophia united. The conjunctio oppositorum. The Heiros Gamos. This should be fundamental to our understanding of Christianity...like you said Sethu: "not so timid."
I think the bridal mysticism is there in the Bible, with the Song of Songs, and how the Old Testament generally portrays Israel's relationship with the Lord, and the wedding feast at the end of the world. It's there, but it needs to be developed much further than it has been.
There's also what I find to be Magdalene's highly suggestive role in the gospels: while I wouldn't go so far as to declare that Jesus was married to her, I'd suggest that she at the very least stands as a symbol or synecdoche for Sophia the Soul of Creation. I would like to develop a much stronger connection between Magdalene and Soul Sophia, but I'm not sure yet how to go about it without being too arbitrary. That would be quite the jump.
I'm with you there! The imagery is there in the S of S, as you say, and The Bride of the Lamb, but something needs to be done with it. What was it the angel said to the church of Ephesus?: "I have somewhat against you: You must return to your first love."
And Magdalene is for sure a key to the future of the church. I've explored the connection of the Virgin Sophia, who in Christian Esotericism was equated with the Virgin Soul--the purified human astral body in an article called: "How to Find the Virgin Sophia in the Foundation Stone Meditation." (https://languages-uconn.academia.edu/BillTrusiewicz/The-Foundation-Stone-Papers) This in an effort, like you said, to go beyond the arbitrary to a spiritual scientific explanation. I've done the same with Isis/Sophia in: "The Foundation Stone as the Being of Isis/Sophia." (In the series noted above) I'd love to see one on Mary Magdalene. You're right she represents the fallen and redeemed soul--out of whom seven demons were cast out--cleansing the seven energy centers.
I'll check it out! For my part, I'm trying to follow Bulgakov to suggest that perhaps Mother Mary and Magdalene are the divine and human (or uncreated and created) modes of Sophia, with Mother Mary being the Virgin and Magdalene being the Bride.
I saw that you subscribed to my blog, and you can see the general contours of what I'm thinking in my post of the "Eleven Theses":
https://beulahrising.substack.com/p/eleven-theses-on-sophias-arc
I'm sort of getting a picture where Mother Mary isn't the Soul of Creation, she's like something from before the Creation. But her pure uncreated nature is also a mirror of perfection down here, meaning that the redeemed Soul of Creation and the Virgin would reflect each other.
I've also been toying with the Hindu concept of the gunas: tamas, rajas, sattvas—that's life energy from lowest to highest spiritual frequencies. So the casting out of the demons from Magdalene's seven chakras would also be suggestive of Soul Sophia rising from tamas to sattvas and beyond.
Yes, as you say: Mother Mary Uncreated and Mary Magdalene Created/Redeemed. Like Jesus being the sister-soul of Adam who never incarnated before--Mary similarly uncreated from a godhead that is neither male or female but the undivided ground of being. We, in the West don't have terms for the godhead that express the "uncarved block," or Wu Chi of Taoism. My soul seeks that expression. The closest thing that I have come to is the term in the Prologue of John: "the only begotten." This evidently is not an adequate translation. It should be rendered: "the singly begotten," meaning from an undivided divinity that is neither male or female. Georg Kuhlewind, in his "Becoming Aware of the Logos," speaks of this.
I take heart from the idea that the future of spiritual science will encompass all religious expressions world-wide. This itself is a Sophianic Idea. There appear to be indications of "the undivided" in Kabbalah, as well, with "ein soph." And another term that I can't remember at the moment. Vidar wants us to be "creators" so we will need to penetrate these obscure regions to be conscious "creators." This is part of restoring the "Lost Word," the Logos--finding the lost words.
I find clarity (not arbitrariness) with regard to the Sophia in Steiner's Foundation Stone Meditation, in spite of the fact that it is ostensibly about the masculine trinity of Father, Son and HS (first three panels). Embedded within these verses is the Threefold Sophia: Mother, Daughter and HSoul. I've begun to lay that out in my article: "The Revelation of the Threefold Sophia: As Key to Meeting Christ in the Etheric." (https://www.academia.edu/38268832/The_Revelation_of_the_Threefold_Sophia_As_Key_to_Meeting_Christ_in_the_Etheric) I need to come back to that a few years later with more clarity. I'm wedding Steiner and Tomberg here using Tomberg's "Luminous Holy Trinity" in conjunction with Steiner's Rosicrucian saying: Ex Deo Nascimir, In Christo Morimur, Per Spiritum Sanctum Reviviscimus, if I've spelled that right.
I didn't see the "Eleven Theses" so I'll look again. It would be great to collaborate on developing clarity about these matters. I was working with John O'Meara in this vein a few years back during and after he left the editorship of Starlight. He was the one who initiated the idea of collaborating on Sophianic research. Sophia is keen on us doing this.
"I take heart from the idea that the future of spiritual science will encompass all religious expressions world-wide."
I consider myself a perennialist, and the way I put it is that the Logos who is Jesus Christ speaks through holy Wisdom across all places and cultures and times. Of all the religions in the world, Islam gives me the most trouble on that front—but I do love the Sufis. Taoism is great, and I've been meaning to read that book *Christ the Eternal Tao*. Apparently, in the Chinese and Japanese Bibles, "Logos" is in fact translated as Tao.
And yes, collaboration sounds good to me. I'll go over your writings soon.
Thanks, Michael, for this. I went through a similar process of discovery as you describe finally arriving at “home church.” (Hope you don’t mind if I go on at some length about this. You give me a rare opportunity.) It was in the late eighties. I took a journey (about 15 years) through numerous “Christian Churches,” some of whom didn’t clearly understand the difference between a “church building” and “the church as the body of Christ,”--a living temple of individuals. Even those who did clearly understand that point, succeeded, nevertheless, to create a “material temple” from the spiritually understood principle, by making (very high) teachings and teachers into gods. Many of us were serious students of the New Testament, which does, by the way, teach the Way of the Wild God—once it’s unpacked from theological cerements. Several families gathered in one or another’s home for meetings. It was the “Wild God” that we (most of us young people), were hungry for. We did have many, memorable “Wild God” experiences. We called our goal simply: “The New Testament Church.” We took the wild John the Baptist for our “patron saint,” who didn’t mind wearing “unclean” camel skins to offend the religious. Who lived in the wild and was unafraid to call out the hypocrisy of religion. We reveled in the Jesus who knocked over the money changers. And the Jesus who healed on the Sabbath day. We loved the “King David” who stole the holy shewbread to feed himself and his men, and danced nearly naked before the ark of the covenant. In fact, I was dubbed “King William,” because I did occasionally get up and dance in the excitement of revelation in meetings. That was a younger me but I’d do it again given the inspiring spirit of the Wild God. We broke whole loaves of bread and gave pieces to each other, meeting each other’s eye with appreciation for each persons contribution as “living stones” in the temple of God—as “bread broken” for each other. We shared a cup of “wine” acknowledging our willingness to spill our blood for each other as He did for us. We did our own music, much of it composed, especially lyrics, by us. So much for home church in the 1980s.
There was much in the Christendom of those days that troubled me, in spite of the fact that I was honored for dancing in church meetings—mostly the un-universal, often uncharitable, small-minded “Jesus Cult.” By that I mean that there wasn’t the breadth and depth of cosmic Christianity, the Christ of cosmic, universal, cosmopolitan proportions one finds in Anthroposophical Christology, for instance—not to minimize our beloved Lord Jesus. That’s not to say that Anthroposophists don’t tend to be uncharitable. It isn’t the Christology that is to blame—it’s the “universal” small-mindedness of humans. And almost totally missing was the beautiful nature-loving Celtic spirit—except for a beloved Methodist, pastor George Smith, who was a poet of a man and could weave the livingness of a full-orbed life that revered mountains and lakes and streams and everything green and ruddy—into his sermons.
I agree with you, Michael, that “Alt-Christianity is the New Celtic Christianity.” Today, I take comfort in the fact that the old Nordic god Vidar is back in commission as we enter Ragnarok—as prophesied in the Nordic Edda—coming to slay the Fenris Wolf. Reading from the Mission of Folk Souls in Relation to Teutonic Mythology, by Steiner, “He [Vidar]...had undertaken another mission—that of becoming the inspirer of esoteric Christianity, which was destined to live on further in the Mysteries of the Holy Grail, in Rosicrucianism...All the underlying teachings and impulses of esoteric Christianity, have their source in his inspirations.” Archangel Vidar in the new guardian of the “youth forces” after Archangel Michael who has risen to Time Spirit. Vidar, who is the revealer of the Living Christ, is among us to revive and renew what is old—to guide us into the wilds of connecting to the elemental world, over whom he is guardian (as leading angel of Christ the “Lord of the Elements”)—in fine Celtic fashion. Towards that end I have written five essays on Vidar, the ambassador of the Living Logos—restorer of the Lost Word if anyone is interested. I’m inspired by this “Wild God” idea—it will show up in my continuing Vidar work.
https://www.academia.edu/98293450/How_to_Recognize_and_Connect_with_Vidar_The_Archangel_of_the_New_Community
So much this--and I'm right there with you regarding John the Baptist! Many of the poems in my first collection are about him--and he shows up in the new book as well. He's been haunting me since childhood.
He's still "Main Man" in my book. He shines ever more beautifully through Raphael and Novalis. Just as J the B was the preparation for Christ, Novalis is the preparer of the Sixth Epoch community and its new Sophianic Pentecost. Sergei O. Prokofief's, "Eternal Individuality: Toward a Karmic Biography of Novalis" is highly recommended if you haven't already discovered it. I'd like to see your first collection, Michael. What's that called?
Your description of Vidar ("ambassador of the living Logos" and "restorer of the lost Word") seems to me to resemble the Holy Ghost.
Ah, yes! So is it supposed to be. To put us in communion with the Holy Ghost. Just as an en-Christed human being can put us in touch with Christ, so also an Archangel such as Vidar can bring the Holy Spirit, through "Jacob's Ladder," down to us. That is indeed his task.
Very interesting—I'll check out your article. How do you say his name? VY-der, ve-DAR?
Vee-Dahr...
In terms of pop culture, I think that has an unfortunate resemblance to Vader—but nevertheless, I like it.
That is so interesting. I first heard about Vidar from Thomas Meyer and you have fed that desire to learn more....will be reading what you have linked.
Hi Charlene! Nice to hear from you. Let me know what you think of the Vidar.
I agree in part with your comments on conversion to eastern Orthodoxy. I feel some of those tensions myself as a westerner, with a physical lineage going back to the British Isles, in a church that is rooted in Russia. However, another side of this — which I think Kingsnorth and Shaw have picked up on, especially since more of this survives in Orthodoxy in the British Isles than in America — is that, as a westerner, one finds in eastern Europe and Russia (and Arab lands, and Christian India, and Orthodox Ethiopia, etc) a sense of homecoming to what was lost in the west. E.g. one may get a better sense of what ancient Ireland was like by visiting rural Romania today than by visiting rural Ireland. And Russia is a wild place, a swirling malestrom of ideas and influences! I was just reading this week about neo-paganism in Russia, which is booming. One can see this eclectic, pulsating life in the work of Bulgakov. Behind "official" Orthodoxy in Russia is a bizarre, perhaps aberrant but nonetheless fascinating folk religion that still survives, somehow. But American converts to Orthodoxy have brought their puritanism and fundamentalism with them and prefer to shove all that wild stuff into the closet. And I totally agree about the date of Easter.
More generally, my response to your thoughts here is to remember an intention I've had over the last few years that I haven't yet acted on — celebrating with my family, on my own land, the western festivals like Candlemas, St John's Day (summer solstice), Michelmas, etc. For those of us without a background in Waldorf and who may find the practicalities a bit daunting, how does one begin? E.g. how do we celebrate May Day, what kind of tree is good to use for the May Pole, what dances to use, etc? I would love to see you write a practical and theoretical guide to reclaiming and celebrating family festivals with your wife, kind of like that Waldorfy book from the 70's "Around the Year" but with a focus on taking the festivals seriously as adults, not just doing it "for the kids."
True festivity seems like maybe the most anti-Ahrimanic, revolutionary thing one could do on this continent right now.
I completely get the fascination Western people have with the Eastern Church (having experienced it first hand for over 25 years). But, as you know, the leadership in the EO churches are just as worthless as those in every other denomination. The wild version of Christianity I'm interested in now is, at heart, a wish for a decentralized Christianity. You could say that the time of institutions--both secular and religious--has reached atrophy and has nowhere to go but collapse. Yet they still keep trying to hang on...
I completely agree. I’m a Catholic and I just don’t understand Tomberg and Solovyov’s idealization of the papacy. Bulgakov and Olivier Clement are brilliant in how they understand sobornost. I’m a huge fan of Milbank, but even he confuses me when he speaks of the church needing the papacy. Maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t see it. I’m not sure who said it but I believe it to be true: multiplicity without unity is confusion, but unity without multiplicity is tyranny.
About Tomberg, again, I just finished reading "Personal Certainty," which is Tombergian clarity at its best, until near the end when the clouds roll in...
He leads one so surely on the path of mysticism and gnosis, the inner path each individual must take for "personal certainty," leading one to the "faithful inner voice of truth," and then in one stroke of legerdemain, he raises the question of the most holy and sacrosanct "unity of the church." This he says must be upheld at all costs. Never mentioning that an outer unity, like Matthew mentions above, is a unity that silences the multiplicity--"unity without multiplicity is tyranny." Outer unity by command slays the individual conscience, breaking the rule of "faithfulness to the inner voice of truth and conscience!" Why he does this is another question. He does the same in his "Meditations on the Tarot." Such an incredibly beautiful work yet deeply flawed in this matter of church authority.
I'm with you Matthew. I love Tomberg but he goes too far with the papacy, so starkly in contrast to his earlier work in Inner Development, quoted above. "independent of all teaching and teachers and organizations in the world." This doesn't negate our working within or with organizations, as I explain in my papers "Toward Building a Community of Grail Knights." Or with a teaching or teachers. It just means keeping one's reserve, being independent in one's thinking and not compromising that. Living now in what Rudolf Steiner calls the "consciousness soul" age, in which independent thinking is to be developed, we still have one foot in the old paradigm of dependence on teachers and Popes to tell us what is right and wrong. In the coming age, represented by the Waterman (Aquarius), we will be holding the container of water of life, each ourselves--not swimming in it like our current Piscean age. Water as a picture of being immersed in feeling/sensing, the astral world of half asleep-ness. The remove of thinking is pictured as the Waterman handling the water but living in the air. Interestingly, Steiner once called the Piscean age that of John the Baptist--the Waterman. (Michael take note.) My point is that we need to embrace the wildness of not having so much reliance on teachers and Popes--trusting each other to know the truth, finding the ground of truth in us. The new covenant, as St. Paul described it, is "not each one telling his brother "know the Lord" for all shall know him from the least to the greatest."
I recall that Solovyov went for some pretty hard stretches in his book, such as observing that ROMA spelled backward is AMOR, or love. . . . Um, yeah, I guess that's the sort of thing you start doing when you're out of arguments.
The early church wanted centralization in Jerusalem but St. Paul opposed it. There is no biblical precedent for centralization. The Pope is an invention of those who put order above life instead of life above order. This ruled out the Wild God. You will not find single priests or pastors leading congregations, either, in the New Testament. There was a plurality of elders. Like I said, the Wild God is supported in His Word. Children need boundaries but they learn best by doing, experimenting, playing and making mistakes. So it should be in the church--with the children of God. The Biblical picture is "the flock" and not the "fold." He calls his own "the little flock." Those in the "little flock" know his voice. Those living in the confines of the fold don't need to know his voice. Their lives are so regulated by rules, by centralized government, that they don't need to know his voice themselves--they look to the teacher. This is the truth so clearly put forth by Valentin Tomberg in "Inner Development," speaking of the New Grail Knighthood: "But let us keep one province free from compromise; let us remain true to the spirit, independent of all teachings and teachers, of all organizations in the world. Let us remain faithful to the inner voice of truth and conscience! Then we are in the school that is preparing for the future Michael Community--the community that will bear the motto: Michael-Sophia in nomine Christi."
I expect that I'll head to the Orthodox Church sooner or later (I think I've mentioned that I'm currently Eastern Catholic—Maronite). Someone said that Orthodoxy is the blockchain version of the Church, which I found hilarious. The idea was that it can't get thoroughly corrupted from the top, because it is a confederacy with no head. Made me think a little of what Deleuze an Guattari might have meant by rhizomatic organization (relative to the Catholic Church, anyway).
Basically, the leadership is just as worthless, but they are also less important.
Of course, I agree with you about wanting much greater decentralization than that. But, well, I'm young and need a community and counterculture, which isn't a thing I could give to myself, so I feel obliged to make certain strategic and tactical calls.
I am impressed by this article, which I need to read several times. For the moment I should mention the extraordinary personality of Simone Weil who is described in "The Year of Our Lord 1943, Christian Humanism in an Age of Crisis" by Alan Jacobs. https://global.oup.com/.../the-year-of-our-lord-1943...& The Allies and the Soviets defeated Hitler's evil regime, but would the victors continue their life with more moral virtue and nobility of spirit? Darkness was beaten by blood and tears, but in 1943 darkness still covered Europe and most of the world. This book makes previously unseen connections between the ideas of five major Christian intellectuals in WWII — T. S. Eliot, C. S. Lewis, W. H. Auden, Simone Weil, and Jacques Maritain. Society had to be based on an authentic spiritual life without need for force or fear to keep order.
I am very struck by the life and thought of the French Jewish philosopher and mystic Simone Weil (1909 - 1943) who died very young. She is often called "a kindred spirit for church outsiders". https://uscatholic.org/.../simone-weil-a-kindred-spirit.../ The point I make is that too many people get complexed about what they do in church, as if it mattered to other people or the collectivity. I have known holy and silent souls who just evaporated away after having sown the seeds, allowing others to reap the harvest. Many such souls will not be seen or noticed in church, but it doesn't mean they are atheists or bad people. If we can comprehend such an idea, maybe the experience of institutional churches and liturgy will be that much more authentic and a source of grace. We might judge Weil for not accepting Baptism, but in her view of the Church, there was another way to Christ. I say this as a priest, horrified by the example of too many churchgoers.
So much for the "good old days"! 1943 was 16 years before I was born, and I have the impression of reading about our present world crisis.
We do need to present forms of Christianity that speak to western people like you and I, though our strengths and weaknesses. I suspect that trying to revive an institutional Celtic Church would be self-defeating, but it could live as a spiritual ideal for many who are "outside".
Simone is one of my guiding spirits--going back at least 30 years. I love her so much it hurts.
I've read that *1943* book by Jacobs—it's great.
Also, I've been developing the concept of the Church of Magdalene, which is meant as a contrast against the institutional Church of Peter: the mystic Church of poetic vision, anchored in her first witness of the Resurrection.
Thanks, Anthony, I read the short article you suggested about Simone Weil with great interest, and felt immediately her "kindred spirit." My friend, Chris Bamford, attempted to turn me on to Weil many years ago--as well as other friends. But one cannot read everything, which I prove by always trying. Now I know why he suggested her. Would you be able to suggest a volume of her work that would be a good place to start? Or someone else reading here might have a suggestion?
This article by Dr Michael Martin resonates with me even more since I was talking with a friend of mine who is a Church of England priest. He is aware of the absolute shit-show of bureaucracy and lying clerics, like politicians. I am very interested in the idea of providing this "wild church" with priests and the possibility of liturgy / Sacraments. Clericalism has killed the institutional churches, but the priesthood can survive and continue the Mystery. Independent bishops have proved very disappointing through their narcissism and other psychological and moral deficiencies. There is a very interesting book by John P. Plummer, "The Many Paths of the Independent Sacramental Movement". Yes if the Sacraments can serve the "wild church" and not seek a position of domination. John Plummer can be found on Facebook. I would appreciate reflections on this theme.
I appreciate and admire your consideration of the wild church, Anthony. It's a beautiful thing to recognize what's not working and to be willing to move on in spite of having invested a great deal of oneself in something. My wife was considering the priesthood and attended an "Orientation for the Priesthood," (of the Christian Community) so that she could bring the sacraments to our believing friends but that wasn't allowed by the hierarchy of the CC Church. But it's totally in alignment with the way the Wild Church works if I may say so.
I'm happy to share my thoughts on the Wild Church under Michael's eye not knowing what he'll think. He's the guy who named it and I love the idea. So, I'd like to hear from Michael on what I propose (suppose) IS the Wild Church. It can only be valid and possible if "two or three agree." And I don't consider myself to have any authority as an independent voice.
The Wild Church needs to get back to The New Testament Church of scripture, to my way of thinking. It requires a washing away of any tradition that doesn't have grounding in the Epistles or the Gospels. That's a big stretch for those who love tradition. But, I think it is so, nevertheless, and I think St. Paul is reliable as both a witness of the early church and as a minister, an Apostle. He outlined the archetypal ministry as 5-fold: Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Of course books could be and have been written about this but they are actually quite rare since most books are not about the New Testament Church at all but about a tradition that followed--I believe, a corrupted tradition--sometimes beautiful, sometimes pure and righteous but architecturally corrupted nevertheless. There are, nevertheless, some books written precisely about the NT Church. The NT Church is archetypally (architecturally) depicted, not surprisingly, in the NT. The NT Church is indeed a "Wild Church," in the best sense of the word--like nature is wild--with its own nobility, beauty, even grandeur. All in spite of its home grown variety and durability and maybe BECAUSE of its homegrown aspect--in the same way as David's "homegrown" method destroyed Goliath in spite of his stature in the world's sight.
The New Testament Church, as easily seen in the NT, once the blinders of tradition have been removed, is "home grown." (Sorry for repeating myself; I'm dashing this off.) Each locality is autonomous, not under any other authority but freely submitting to Apostolic wisdom--that means choosing what and when the words of the Apostles are followed. Apostolic wisdom like everything in the New Testament Church, is subject to scrutiny of those "who need not that any man teach them." Nothing is official in the usual sense. What is official is what shows itself to be worthy of "office," and only as long as it remains "worthy of office." An elder is only an elder if he or she acts like an elder, etc. Pastors and teachers and fathers as referred to in the NT are pastors, teachers and fathers as long as they act like such. Simple! Everything is regulated by "truth in reality and reality in Life." The Logos is only the Logos when it is the Logos. Nothing is official that it not proved in Life. We call things by their "real names." We return to truth "in Life." This is called "recovering the Lost Word." A minister or pastor only becomes a minister or pastor, or teacher by being one in a real-life situation. By proving themselves in a local congregation. Outside teachers or elders from other churches aren't guaranteed status in another congregation--they have to earn that status "in life," in other congregations. Like I said: Nothing is official in the usual sense. All of our language about these things has to change to reflect "reality in life."
I could go on and on about this. The reality in life ("Christ, who is our Life") says that you, Anthony, for instance, could conceivably become a minister in a local Wild Church. You would need to be there long enough to prove that you were actually a minister--not by any other authority than the authority that lives as Christ in his body--the particular church in which you are "built as a living stone." If you are recognized as minister within the local church then you are one. If you aren't recognized then you are not one. It's all very simple you just call everything by its "real name." Jesus Christ the Logos is present in "wild churches" to witness the naming and testify that it is true. He gives us "the spirit of truth by which we know all things." (1 Jn 2:27.) This will require re-thinking even what the sacraments are. What is sacred is ordained not by humans but by the creator Spirit. That is part of our challenge as "wild churches"--to give real names to everything. If one thinks about this I think what is possible becomes self-evident. Of course there are hundreds of other ways to do "church" as you will have observed.
Indeed, this is a very hazardous rabbit hole, and perhaps evidence that the only church life can be the local village parish - except they are nearly all destroyed. The "independent sacramental movement" scene is also fraught with danger of communities being dominated by control freaks, narcissistic personalities and ideologies like "woke". I think John Plummer simply dropped his priestly life and continued as an academic - I may be wrong. All in expressing these ideas, I am very reticent because I am not a leader. I can give good ideas that others find inspiring or useful, but I have had too much experience of being sucked into other people's ideologies. Maybe the community idea, at least for me, is an illusion. Already I work as a freelance translator. I hardly ever wear clerical dress and I spend a lot of time sailing with groups, associations or on my own. I seem to be destined to be a hermit.
True enough, no doubt, Anthony. With all the narcissistic personalities and "woke" ideologies, as you say. My reply is that those "local village parishes" were not built on the principles I maintain must be followed. They were built on worldly principles whose authority was tradition and not scripture. Communities being dominated by control freaks is a very present reality, I agree. They thrive especially well in church architectures grown on tradition and not on the original architecture of St. Paul. I know what you are saying because I've experienced it in a number of communities--just at you say: "control freaks." Even in churches that strive for the true God-given (NT) architecture, control freaks wreak havoc. I've experienced that too. But I don't take that to mean we should give up. The beauty of the church of which I speak, is too compelling, too possible if one believes John: "I have written these things to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, and you don't need anyone to teach you. Instead, his anointing teaches you all things, and is true and is not a lie..." The whole New Testament (new covenant) hinges on this principle. The same "rabbit hole" was working back then as evident in this epistle. I believe a "wild church" will not be deterred by any "rabbit holes," which are always abundant in any case. If we didn't have control freaks to overcome our faith wouldn't be worth much. Totally respecting your choice to do what you think best.
Just to avoid confusion concerning what I am calling the "wild church" (by Michael's initiation), I should explain. And Michael please let us know how or if this does or doesn't resonate. I'm beholden to you for this opportunity, which arises totally out of your instigation. You got me started. I am continuing to share, and extrapolating rather freely, under impressions I've picked up from following your work closely. If I didn't have that background I wouldn't be taking such liberty. I continue...
The "wild church" isn't just a name that can be given if you like the idea; it must be grown 'from scratch.' I do mean "grown." This idea comes out of LIFE. The etheric, if you will. The idea is that the life of Christ grows in those who recognize him and depend upon him for their LIFE. People must gather around this idea to start--that Christ is our life. (Following St. Paul's "Christ who is our life." Col. 3;4) No one will understand this but everyone will be in awe of the fact and will accept it as their truth and notice that others feel the way they do. From this things can happen--wild, beautiful things. As soon as one acknowledges others as brothers and sisters by the spirit one sees the need for everyone's participation; one sees the value for the community of each member. The community is built on recognizing the value of each member not on a leader or leaders. Leaders are the ones who first see the value of the least member and honor the least first and the greatest last. They are acknowledged as leaders (elders, pastor or teachers) only by the body itself, by the health they have brought to the body in their ministrations. The greatest honor goes to the least. (1 Corinthians 12) This is the principle of strength in the body of Christ. When one practices this principle one sees and discovers the strength of the body in reality--a body which is whole. If one honors the "greater members" one cultivates or draws forth narcissistic personalities and control freaks--who are seeking honor. If one honors the least to become a leader one repels control freaks seeking the lead. If one builds a body on these principles strength grows in every individual and leaders take a subsidiary role. They become watchers and guides while the body functions naturally with all members active. (Try thinking about how you drive the car while you are driving it if you want to get confused and have an accident.) Our ideas about our head and our heart being somehow the sole rulers of the body is inaccurate. We need to understand how a body really works--the heart isn't a pump. The head can do very little on its own. Without the body the head is quite useless. The brain and the heart are "watchers and guides" to the Life of the Body. (We drive a car by having automated our bodily functions so that they work with only the slightest nudges and directions from the head--the body does 99% of the work.) Learning such truths are the basis of the life and growth of the "wild church." "For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." (Rom. 2:4-5).
Thank you for your kind response. I live in France, and I have not seen any evidence of the existence of any such communities. People are more religious in the US than in Europe. I am aware that the ideas I express are academic. I was once intrigued by the notion of "intentional communities" where people do things like permaculture and crafts, but they surrender their personality to the collective. These are communes for which the term "communism" has its origin. They are ruled by the Alpha personality and are mostly totalitarian cults. Perhaps the exception exists and doesn't involve flying half way around the world. I fear that Utopia will remain a dream of Sehnsucht. Really I am not doing "what I think best" as if I have a choice. I just do what I find myself doing. I keep an open mind. Really, religious communities depend on institutional churches because most people are only motivated by force, fear or peer pressure. The noble soul is as rare as hen's teeth. Forgive me my cynicism - as Oscar Wilde said, "knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing". Just another bit of information - I am diagnosed as being on the "Aspergers" autism spectrum. That explained a lot of things to me.
"Gravity and Grace", "The Need for Roots: Prelude to the Declaration of Duties towards Mankind", "Selected Essays 1934-1943", "Waiting for God". I have just fished these out of the bibliography of Alan Jacobs' book mentioned in my comment above.
Thank you!
Here I go again, reprising something I have talked about elsewhere. A quote from the hymn Be Thou My Vision which is a translation from an ancient Celtic Christian poem.
“Thou my great Father and I thy true son”
In all this talk of a wild Christianity I see no talk of the wild spiritual life of Jesus had with God the Father. A wild life we can also have as being fellow sons of God filled with the Holy Spirit – John 1:12, Galatians 3:26, 4:6. A wild Christianity with the Father because it is empowered by the Holy Spirit doesn’t need nature immersion to happen, though having the privilege of nature immersion I suppose may be a useful adjunct for many. After all when Jesus gave prayer instructions in Matthew 6 he said simply to close the door to your room and pray to your Father who is there in secret.
When you look at the actual spirituality espoused by Jesus and practiced by him in the Gospels it is utterly unfashionable by those who look to non-dual awareness, and “Christ Consciousness” "ground of being” as the ticket or Vidaric angelic intermediaries. No, nothing as ethereal and esoteric as that! A Father in heaven, “pray to your Father who is there unseen”. Jesus was by no means ashamed of the old man and talked about and to him a whole lot. God speaking in an audible voice, expectation of specific even miraculous answers to prayer, lifting eyes in prayer, a robust intensely personal God the Father that isn’t you, but you can know, and directly know his love for you as an individual through Jesus as the connection and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit as gift.
I’ve read the article and comments several times and this resonates with me. I have a question for Michael and others here: should someone who has never been baptized but is feeling a strong calling in their middle age to a sacramental faith, establish themselves in a church before or as he is going “alt-Christian?l (asking for myself and Russell Brand :))
I think it's up to you (and Russell!). St Paul's baptism was pretty much a baptism of the Wild God: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209%3A10-30&version=HCSB
Chris, like Michael said, "it's up to you," but it would be more fun to hold your baptism as a project with whoever joins you in the Wild Church. We did some of our own baptisms, back in the day, while most of us had been baptized in other churches some were new to the faith or just hadn't been baptized. It's a wonderful adventure for a group to partake together in such things--deciding where and how to baptize. (We chose a river in a neighboring town.) It is, at once, both gravely serious and positively delightful. That sort of lively duality is the hallmark of taking the "middle path." Where in true sister-brotherhood one can "sit in the heavens and laugh," both at the Luciferic (devilish) and the Ahrimanic (Satanic) deviations--where the matter can be taken too lightly or too gravely, rising above the wrong sort of polarizing forces that imprison--to a liberating, playful dynamism that lies in the "metaxu," between the two--where YOU decide!
Thank you so much Bill! I have been thinking about doing this sort of thing with my wife this Easter in a spot in one of our favorite swimming holes in the woods that is aptly named “Paradise” by the locals. I am in Vermont so it will be very cold still but we love the feeling from a good cold plunge.
That Massingham quote about the loss undergone by neutering this tradition is a word...serious consequences for us that look like us Westerners imagining ourselves somewhere in a cold "universe" rather than placed and having an active role in a charged, shepherded "cosmos", and the attitude affects believers and nonbelievers alike.
His book 'The Tree of Life' is filled with bangers like that.
Michael, I wonder if "the Druid" remembers his connection to Vidar? It looks to me like Vidar is active in your whole approach with the "Wild of God" idea for renewal of Christianity. What you are proposing appears to me to be in perfect alignment with Vidar's guidance in our time. Here's a note off the back of Adrian Anderson's book of research on "Vidar and the Flame Column, According to Rudolf Steiner": "In 1910, Rudolf Steiner told an audience in Oslo, Norway, that a deity known in the Edda as 'Vidar', was an Archangel known from ancient times, and who now provided the spiritual essence of anthroposophical wisdom. He also mentioned that the Druids had made a carving of this deity..."
Vidar was the guiding spirit who was the inspiration behind the esoteric Christianity of the Grail and Rosicrucianism. Steiner describes him here: "Now what became of the Archangel of the Celtic peoples, when he had renounced becoming a Spirit of Personality? He became the inspiring Spirit of esoteric Christianity; and in particular of those teachings and impulses which underlie esoteric Christianity; the real true esoteric Christianity comes from his inspirations. The secret, hidden place for those who were initiated into these Mysteries was to be found in Western Europe, and there the inspiration was given by this guiding Spirit, who had originally gone through an important training as Archangel of the Celtic people, renounced his further ascent, and had undertaken another mission, that of becoming the inspirer of esoteric Christianity, which was to work on further through the Mysteries of the Holy Grail, through Rosicrucianism." (Mission of Folk Souls)
Vidar is working to reconnect humanity to the elemental world and to lead people to the experience of the Etheric Christ--the "Living Christ," through the experience of nature and the seasons. He is the new guiding Archangel of the youth forces connected with the Nathan Soul, since Archangel Michael's elevation to Time Spirit, with the task of inspiring the esoteric church to replace dead with living thinking--by restoring the Logos: the Lost Word. He is working to lay the groundwork for collaborative endeavors among highly individual spirits as forerunners of the diverse Philadelphia culture of the sixth epoch. Marks of his activity will be renewal that manifests unity-in-diversity with active elemental, life-forces. The old authorities of "teaching and teachers" (Petrine Popes and Pastors) will be replaced among Vidar's followers by their own spiritual guides under his unifying leadership. Vidar plus Christianity is the formula for a new "Christian Paganism," similar but different from (a variation of) Christian Hermeticism.
I have five essays published on Vidar, which it appears will be the beginning of my first book in a series called: "Vidar, Archangel Michael's Successor: How Can We Know Him?" A final chapter/essay (almost done) may complete this series, but I'm not quite sure yet. Completed chapter/Essays can be seen here: https://languages-uconn.academia.edu/BillTrusiewicz/Vidar-Papers
It saddens me that the simple mediatorship of Jesus of Nazareth that brings us the knowing of the Father and the Holy Spirit seems inadequate or unreal or inaccessible for so many. That becoming like a little child in this area is such a challenge. An unbelief that he has come in the flesh and said “I am with you always even unto the end of the age” and “I will never drive away any who come to me”
Some fun, me dressed up as Saint Patrick in 2015 in our town’s Saint Patrick’s Day parade. Scroll down to see the picture. Over the years I have repeatedly dressed up as him and told his story first person taken from his own writings. My current outfit is toned down, more “natural” not full on Roman Catholic style bishop. People would tell me I looked like a green pope in that particular outfit. Not a message I want to present! https://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/picture-gallery/news/2015/03/14/green-wearing-revelers-take-over-downtown-visalia-in-st-pats-parade/24764497/