October 28, 2005 3:44 PM Friday Examples of liberty from law and from dogma (and sacred history).

Let's examine an extreme case of the liberty of the Gentile Christian from all law.

We will conceive of the gentile Christian, in the guise of two guys who are married and totally dedicated to the vow of chastity with regard to their respective unions, and yet who happen, oddly enough, to be turned on by two interrelated images, the one as a slave to a man and the other as the master of a boy. Now what they did was this: they agreed that masturbation was not unclean, they not being bound to any law, being gentile Christians (and thus with no need to reference in external law book, e.g., the New Testament as understood by many). And so what they did was this: they would visit with each other and take a weekend off together, and the one would serve the other as his slave with the single proviso that neither might lay hands on the other, although both wished for that to happen (as the extreme fulfillment of slavery and mastery). They wished it would happen, but they willed themselves apart, under their vow to their wives.

Now it so happens that the wife of the one knew him as a professed reformed homosexual before marriage and was willing that he go spend time with some other mature and responsible male and play together. And this included the other Christian guy. She came from a peculiar culture of extreme rationality and where everything was done for the sake of the vowed family.

But still they could not touch each other, for the vow of each was a vow in Christ and in truth and so could not be violated. No same-sex contact, for it was considered unclean and prohibited in the eyes of one of the two fleshes represented here, while both spouses tolerated self play, the understanding was that it was without contact with any other flesh.

And so they enjoyed a weekend occasionally where one played slave and the other played master, and which was so enjoyable that it removed much of the sting of the slings and arrows of an evil world, and each was able, he honestly felt, to function more clear headed in the midst of troubled waters, each therefore more functional to their respective common flesh, husband and wife. And they never touched each other, not that that was forbidden on its own (as though that were unclean), but only by virtue of the common understanding of the respective vow. I.e., two single men need not have been impaired by a rule of no physical contact. Nor two married men if both were permitted by wives to play or visit with a friend.

Otherwise, there is no rule, and it is all up to the master to decide what the slave will do with his body in the presence of the master. E.g., stand on his head.

That’s an example of the gentile Christian in practice, in a specific case. That is what we could call practical gentile Christianism.

OK, now we need an example of the Christian who is free from any dogma and any sacred history.

Let’s say we admit a Zachaeus type to our church and he participates in the rituals morally, i.e., in solidarity with the dominant believers (in the resurrection, etc.), and is eager to consider the parables and teachings of Jesus and to learn from them and want’s to incorporate into his own psyche that he is such a person as this righteous and wonderful man, but he must always admit: look, while I admit that anything is possible, I just find it too difficult to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. I can’t make myself believe that.

Then we (believers) reply: join in with us, for you are one with us in spirit, and take part in our activities and we will also, incidentally, try to convince you of the reality of our faith and to convince you to believe these stories of our sacred histories, in order that you might not only be righteous, which you seem to be, but also at peace and in joy which is the guaranteed promise of all who can be touched by God and blessed with the realization of the truth of the faith, which is found in the experience called the Abba/Father/Daddy consciousness which can only be attained through faith.

Note: this is perhaps a way to open the door to those who are going to want to find some alternative to Islam, invite them into one of the congregations of the church established by Jesus himself. Then we can sidestep all the “funny issues” that plague Christian evangelists, e.g., trinity (easy enough to “justify” as the fact of two different hands--which is also inexplicable). “you don’t have to get involved with all the creeds and sacred histories, for there is the Zachaen Congregations which is the pure church of Jesus himself, the one he actually established as a visible church, along with Peter as the rock, but where there was no knowledge and thus no belief in an atoning death and a resurrection.

If Zachaeus should eventually be convinced that the creeds and histories are true then he would be comfortable in this or that believers congregation, depending on how suited it is for the church itself, to encompass to while without hindrance of law or dogma. It was always to be remembered that what pleases God is a heart and spirit which is turned toward righteous,, and all else is a sort of chaff. It may be true that Jesus died for sinners and was raised from the dead and which can then retained for ever as a fact, but that belief does not endear one to God, but rather only the heart and spirit which is naturally attuned to God, and which is a heart that God gives to those who commit themselves to his ways, i.e., it will become a nature (a Wesleyan stress).

And so then there is one congregation which has dogma and sacred histories but no law (the Paulian gentile congregation) and we have one congregation which has dogma and sacred hstories and law (the Peterian or Jewish) and then finally we have a congregation which has none of these, the Zachaeen congregation (something rather new in idea).