http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/burroughs-pkd-and-ligotti/

http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/448/

However, the “God in the gutter” isn’t simply the idea of a hidden God. There is also an element of the Gnostic/Kabbalah notion of the divine fallen into the world. The divine, in this sense, isn’t tame, isn’t controllable. The divine is loose in the world and it’s probably to be found where ever you’re least likely to look for it.

This view of the divine reminds me of a vision of God Jung had as a child. It involved God sitting on a throne above a cathedral.

http://www.woodka.com/2008/07/16/carl-jung-and-the-cathedral/

There is something about the interplay between destruction and creation that intrigues me. To Philip K. Dick, God has to fall into the world in order to remake the world. It’s a fecund vision of transformation.

There is a feeling of danger and forbidenness in this portrayal of God. This God isn’t just love and light. Maybe there is even a connection to the Hindu portrayal of Kali dancing on Shiva’s corpse. Anyways, it’s a view that doesn’t easily fit into traditional/mainstream Christian doctrine.

Jeff is right – Bill Johnson is a major influence on John, and there do, indeed, seem to be a lot of miraculous phenomenon happening around his ministry…not just in church buildings, but on the streets. It doesn’t hurt that Johnson’s theology is a lot more gracious and life-affirming than many of his fire-breathing charismatic counterparts…a sample of his preaching can be seen here.

I would have to spend more time thinking, and preparing, in order to respond in much depth to the ideas about God and mysticism. And I could really go off on a tangent about Jung – that is where most of my study has been.

But what I know is The Chronicles of Narnia. I grew up with and on these books, rereading them every summer for a dozen years or so, reading them to my children and just this past summer listening to them on CD (beautifully read by a variety of British actors) and thus introducing them to my husband.

Aslan is not a tame lion. And who would want a King that is tame? Not me. His mystery is not magic and his wildness is not reckless.

And that is the divide between the human and the divine. To me. God is wild, not tame. Unlimited in possibility, scope, love and fire. Human beings are, by nature, limited. And to get the idea of such divine wildness being possible in such a vessel seems (to me) to cry out for a painful result.

The mystics that I’ve read all have a depth of understanding of this fine line, and never do I get the feeling that any of them sees their wildness or their fire as Godlike. Rather it is God love.

I’ve not read The New Mystics. I’m not sure I will – but I will definitely read Prayerfulness.

For me, the world at large offers plenty of ungrounded, literalist readings of the Bible that are fraught with scary paths leading folks to believe something far different from the admonition from that untame God “be still, and know that I am God.”

Just my off-the-cuff thoughts upon returning from four days of peace and tranquility.

My own sense of spirituality is informed by some more ‘wild’ thinkers: Carl Jung, Robert Anton Wilson, Terrence McKenna, William S. Burroughs, and Philip K. Dick. I’m also fond of many ‘tame’ thinkers, but it’s hard to say who is ‘tame’. Is Ken Wilber ‘tame’? Is Jiddu Krishnamurti ‘tame’? Certainly, Rumi isn’t ‘tame’.

Mysticism seems to be one of the most central themes of McColman’s blog. And an interest that I share. Any mystic worth their salt probably isn’t ‘tame’. But outwardly a mystic may appear ‘tame’.

Partly what I meant in labelling McColman as tame is more about the subject matter of this blog. This blog seems to have a very clearly defined focus and McColman doesn’t seem to stray from it. My own mind wanders far and wide. The difference maybe simply be a difference of personality.

Some people see the purpose of religion (specifically religious practice) as a way of taming the individual (taming the senses, the desires, the will, or the mind), a way of training, of elevating, of directing human aspiration towards lofty ideals.

I understand that perspective, but it doesn’t overly appeal to my own sensibility. I’m more of a “God in the gutter” kind of guy. I’d probably be happier if I were more tame (i.e., disciplined and focused), but as it is that isn’t the way my life is. To me, spirituality feels more like a hunger that can’t be sated.

I have little doubt that “Wicks’ mature, grounded spirituality is better suited for the long haul than Crowder’s colorful but miracle-hungry vision.” Even so, it’s just not my way to be cautiously concerned about the long haul. Not every path is easy, but every person has to follow their own path where ever it leads.