A common theme I am seeing, as we do our readings of Myrtle's actual words, is how much her childhood Methodism made a lasting impression on her. In classes on the Unity movement-- and other SEE courses-- I learned that Myrtle was raised in a very strict Methodist home, and her father's church preached original sin and hellfire and damnation. We were, of course, told that Myrtle rejected these notions of God.
But I think that one can see in Myrtle's writings an interesting Methodist influence. For example, in last week's blog I suggested that Myrtle took the Methodist idea of the Trinity and used it to construct a theology in which God-- Spirit-- is both within one and outside of one at the same time. Also, I believe that Myrtle saw a complete Unity between this God within and without.
By the same token, I think Methodist ideas about the Christ (and one's relationship to the Christ) also strongly influenced Myrtle. Consider the Wikipedia entry for John Wesley (one of the key founders of the Methodist movement). Wikipedia says that John Wesley "was not a systematic theologian." (Isn't this in many ways also the case for Myrtle. She does not appear to be a systematic theologian. Sometimes Myrtle seems to be like the character from a Lewis Carol story who says: "Words will mean exactly what I want them to mean." Maybe it is a hopeless task to try to make systematic theologians out of both John Wesley and Myrtle Fillmore. Instead we might be better advised to appreciate both of them for what they are: great teachers who were concerned with creating a vital spiritual experience that could alter lives.
Wesley was a great proponent of the second baptism of fire-- where one directly experiences a deep and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In the process the believer has -- in Wesley's words-- "an inward impression on the soul where the Spirit of God directly testifies to their spirit that they are children of God." To this day, the Methodist logo shows a cross with "tongues of fire" a la Pentecost.
I believe that Myrtle picked up this concept of direct experience with the Christ-- and that it should be a vital and alive relationship-- if healing and spiritual growth is to take place. I don't believe that this process of "picking up" was always conscious on Myrtle's part. My religious roots are Jewish. I am willing to bet that I often see a relationship with Spirit much more in terms of a covenant and spiritual laws than many of my friends in Unity. This might not be because I am always conscious of my Jewish roots. It's just that these are themes and models––and ways of speaking about religious matters––that I was raised on. I may have rejected certain things about Judaism, but these Jewish roots still have a lasting influence on me.
Myrtle writes: "But 2000 years ago there came a manifestation of human life so conversant with the great Causing Power of life that He called that power "Father" and it was said of Him, "The word became flesh.'... It was He who demonstrated that the problems of life are within every man's power to solve." (p. 29-30). She also states, "Our teaching is that Jesus Christ is ever with us and is able to handle all these overcomings in the right way... God is there, Jesus Christ is with you." So far what Myrtle has said about the personal and transforming relationship that one can--and needs to-- have with Jesus Christ could've been said (and in fact was said) by John Wesley.
But then Myrtle takes this theme (by Wesley) and performs variations on it as beautiful as the variations that Brahms performs on the theme by Hyden. Wesley and company saw Jesus Christ as the exception to the rule and unique. Myrtle sees a distinction between Jesus --the man and enlightened master-- and the Christ. She also views Jesus as being the rule (and not the exception to the rule). Jesus found our essential spiritual nature and told us that this Divine Spark was inside of all of us, she notes. Jesus was not unique-- we all have this Christ light and Divine potential, she adds. Myrtle writes, "Our salvation is in our living by the Christ pattern––not only by the teachings of the man Jesus Christ but by the Christ Mind within us." (p. 57) "Christ means Truth," she insists. (p. 40) I was also very struck by how Myrtle leaned on concepts from Plato.
What Myrtle has done in terms of explaining the central role of the Christ is very much like great artists who pick up themes from past masters. But then these great artists start to develop their own voice, and they are able to take themes from the past--be they from Wesley or Plato--and weave them into rich and new variations.
What a thoughtful share. I have really wondered about whether it is "a hopeless task to try to make systematic theologians out of both John Wesley and Myrtle Fillmore. Instead we might be better advised to appreciate both of them for what they are: great teachers who were concerned with creating a vital spiritual experience that could alter lives." For now, I think that both are important. First, I think that it's vital to focus on Myrtle's teachings as pragmatic, designed to point us toward an experience of God. At the same time, these teachings still have a framework--one that is different from Hinduism's, Buddhism's, etc., so it doesn't mean that we don't look at her languaging at all. While we might never be certain what she meant, perhaps we are "Unity" folk to the extent we continue to grapple with her words. Also, I want to add that I love your personal reflection on how your Jewish heritage impacts how you frame new knowledge. It's so true that the more AWARE we are of our lens, the more readily we can choose a different lens or to consciously compensate for the lens. For instance, when I know that my car mirror makes things appear closer than they are, I can compensate by reminding myself they are farther away than they seem to be to me through my eyes.... Blessings! And thanks again for another insightful reflection!
ReplyDeleteThanks Nhien!
ReplyDeletePlease remember that it was Wekipedia that said that Wesley was not a systematic theologian. Similar to 'systematic theologians' it is sometimes hard to find 'systematic economists.' Great modern economists-- such as Paul Krugman and Paul Romer (to pick from both the liberal and conservative spectrums)-- are systematic.
But most political leaders-- who are trying to run a country or get elected-- are not systematic in their statements about key economic issues of the day. They may have flashes of brilliance about a specific matter, but their comments do not add up to a comprehensive and logical paradigm in most cases. So it is often hopeless to try and find a comprehensive and academically logical theory in their writings and utterances.
I think John Wesley and Myrtle FIllmore turn out to be more like a great political leader-- who can move millions-- than like a Krugman or a Romer.
Even in the case of a great economists-- like Keynes-- they often make shifts over time concerning their views (as I bet Wesley and Myrtle did). On day when Keynes was giving a talk, a listener stood up and said: "Dr Keynes. What you are saying is very different from what you told us a few years ago."
Keynes responded: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
:) Great anecdote. I'm going to use this line in a talk one day...perhaps soon!
Delete"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Demonstrates the difference between Keynes and "mere mortals" like me. I would likely look for different facts.
DeleteI especially liked your comments on Myrtle's beliefs in an experiential relationship. It seems Myrtle was adamant that this Christ nature was to be experience and not just thought about intellectually. She wrote that Christ connected so much with this relational concept, He call God, the "Father." She seemed to stress that Jesus and the "Father" had a strong, powerful, intimate communal relationship. To put it lightly, they were like two peas in a pod.
ReplyDeleteRick- I’m on the bus with you, and not just to Camp Ramah. I also found Myrtle’s Christoloigical contrivances hard to take seriously. You state the case very well. I know very little about Wesley and wouldn’t know a systematic theology if one bit me. I only know what I know, and I know she did not persuade me. Myrtle purports to give us facts, delivering interpretations of her Jesus instead. She knows this Jesus through scripture, giving authority to him as if he had been quoted. I read those chapters shaking my head at Myrtle’s level of comfort with the embedded theology of her traditional Christian upbringing. Perhaps what she could have done first was convince us about how to read Bible the way she does and why. Instead, she assumed too much.
ReplyDeleteLesley, a few years ago my wife, Debbie, had cancer. We read and listened to many things by and about Myrtle. They were golden to us. We did what Myrtle suggested. Debbie is now cancer free-- and before we headed out to Unity Village, Debbie had a ton of tests again-- and there is no cancer in her!
DeleteYes, Debbie also had good doctors, etc. But Myrtle Fillmore will always have a very special place in my heart and soul. What she suggested we do, we in fact did. And it worked.
When facing cancer, unemployment, and you can name it, I much rather have a Myrtle Fillmore and a John Wesley besides me than a systematic theologian-- and great if one person can be both. I say this as a "card carrying academic:)))
Praise God for healing and answered prayers! It’s pretty awesome how it works. Isn’t that why we’re in Unity ministry--we want everyone to have more of the good that is always at work in us and less suffering. I share your joy for Debbie’s heath and well-being.
DeleteAfter some hefty external remodeling, I too am cancer free. More healing happened later. Through prayer and deeper consciousness of the unforgivenesses I kept unaware in my body, five large tumors shrank and disappeared! I remain pain-free and the hysterectomy was cancelled. The growth on my eyelid shrinks as I stay conscious of seeing others with greater love and compassion, and returns when I forget. Other teachers appeared for me the way Myrtle helped you and Debbie. I appreciate hearing about your experience. As I change my ideas about her, I’m sure she will show up to bless me too.
Richard writes: "I believe that Myrtle picked up this concept of direct experience with the Christ-- and that it should be a vital and alive relationship-- if healing and spiritual growth is to take place. I don't believe that this process of 'picking up' was always conscious on Myrtle's part."
ReplyDeleteAnd Nhien writes: "I have really wondered about whether it is 'a hopeless task to try to make systematic theologians out of both John Wesley and Myrtle Fillmore.'"
My response to both: Right! Wesleyan thought was called "Methodist" because their way of doing spirituality was methodical, not because their methodology was air tight. We cannot accuse either of them of being systematic theologins, but that doesn't absolve us from approaching their work from the perspective of systematic theology, i.e., asking if it hangs together; what connections does it make with other sources of knowledge; is it internally consistent, etc?
Also, Nhien, your observation about the value of awareness to the lenses we wear is brilliant: "I know that my car mirror makes things appear closer than they are, I can compensate by reminding myself they are farther away than they seem to be to me through my eyes.." Well said. (I may steal it.)
Beth: Did Myrtle differentiate between the historical Jesus of Nazareth and the universal Christ, whom she seemed to find everywhere?
Lesley: No, no, no. You do not escape with a snarky-biting remark about systematic theology without a reminder that YOUR methodology is precisely what systematic theologians attempt to accomplish, i.e., to find coherence, connections, and links among ideas to determine whether the thoughts presented actually work. Hooray for you, a systematic theologian wrapped in mystical clothing. :)
Rick: A final thought--your comments are pure gold: "Myrtle Fillmore will always have a very special place in my heart and soul. What she suggested we do, we in fact did. And it worked."
Theology must always bow and step aside, aware of its limitations, when mystical truth demonstrates the power of God. Nevertheless, even healing and miracles, once they have transpired, are subject to review by theology, if only to allow the theologian an opportunity to say, with Keynes, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Thinking I may be late to the party here but I don't agree with the John Wesley and Myrtle comment when Richard states that Myrtle was not a "systematic theologian". I actually thought there to be evidence that opposes that point of view. Myrtle was an educated woman, a trained teacher and she respected factual data. Specifically she respected the fields of science and mathematics. I believe she was attempting to justify her religious beliefs based on what she found to be true in other modalities and she attempted to apply them in her life so that they made sense to her. Right or wrong thats what I believe she was attempting to do.
ReplyDeleteI did not doubt her education-- and please read above as to what Myrtle means to me in terms of the healing of cancer in Debbie (my wife).
ReplyDeleteBut John Wesley and Myrtle in a way seem to be like a political leaders who "want to get government off our backs and out of our life." And yet they also want the government to hold the price of corn to $4 per bushel through government price supports. Some political leaders who give more talks about "free trade" are the very ones who use tariffs, quotas and other forms of protection when they are in power.
Is Myrtle a monist? I could give quotes in which she sounds like one. But I could also give you quotes where she sounds like a traditional Methodist. This doesn't reduce my high regard for Myrtle, it just means that she did not have "unified field theory' in the area of spirituality. Thanks,
Rick, perhaps Mrs. Fillmore's writings was not influenced by her Methodist roots, but rather by her exposure to the Episcopalian church which she attended while living in Pueblo, Colorado. We know that she did not embrace the doctrine of Methodism and while she attended church with her parents she never became a member of any Methodist church. I would agree with Christine who says " I believe she was attempting to justify her religious beliefs based on what she found to be true in other modalities and she attempted to apply them in her life so that they made sense to her."
ReplyDeleteI have had associations with High Church. What Myrtle is talking about is more of a Meyhodist Camp Meeting than High Church. She may have rejected the hellfire, but other parts of her Methodost made a lasting impression.
DeleteIt is like James Joyce leaving The Church. In one sense her never left The Church.
Rick - For me the Christology of Myrtle appears to be summed up in your quote: Myrtle writes: "But 2000 years ago there came a manifestation of human life so conversant with the great Causing Power of life that He called that power "Father" and it was said of Him, "The word became flesh.'... It was He who demonstrated that the problems of life are within every man's power to solve." In Myrtle's view, Jesus was a man from Nazareth, with the nature of a human and the potential for the divine as all other men and women.It was in his being "so conversant", so aware, so connected that resulted in Jesus Christ, the way-shower. Although at times clouded by Bible references, Myrtle's Christology of Jesus as human with divine potential appears most prevalent. Thanks for a great share. Your writing is "like butter" to read.
ReplyDeleteIt is a great quote. But this quote does not answer the pesky questions that Dr Tom has been asking. Such as: if we are all Divine, then why do we need Jesus? Or...Is Myrtle dressing up Easyern ideas in Western garb with Jesus?
DeletePlease forgive my wording mistakes and typos--- we are moving to Unity Village this week. And all I have are big fingers and a small iPhone:))
Delete