Myrtle Fillmore's spiritual life focuses on human
relationship to God as Father. This focus ranges from the metaphorical to the
seemingly literal. This relationship leads her to define Jesus as the
"ultimate child." In chapter 1 of How
to Let God Help You, she says, “we are really God’s children and that we
have inherited from Him a perfect mind which is capable of unfolding the
wonderful Christ qualities, as Jesus Christ unfolded His God Given Mind.” This
statement reiterates the image of “child of God,” and introduces the idea of
Christ holding a meaning other than a surname for Jesus. She never defines the meaning
of this word. We are left to assume her definition of Christ is similar to Charles
Fillmore’s which is recorded in the Metaphysical
Bible Dictionary. I won’t repeat this extensive definition here, but it
essentially describes the perfect potential of the divine in all humans. Christ
is an adjective and noun always implying a potential in all humans reached by
Jesus, the man from Nazareth.
This description of Jesus removes the mantle of “only begotten
son” (John 3:16) affirmed by the creeds of Catholic and Protestant Christians. Not
to be sidetracked, but this phrase seems to be a response to Bishop Arius.
Arius claimed that Jesus was made and not begotten and that the author of John
actually wrote that Jesus was a “unique son.” Mr. Fillmore doesn’t discuss the
Arian heresy, but suggests that the only begotten is the Christ that is what
the author of John was writing about.
Occasionally, Myrtle seems to substitute Christ for Jesus
and vice versa. As an example, “The mistake some of our teachers makes is that
they believe in Christ intellectually and deal with his truths intellectually—whereas
spiritual things must be “spiritually judged.” (Chapter 1). She seems to be
talking about Jesus rather than The Christ. This inconsistency appears to be a
component of her embedded theology. Remembering that these are letters rather
than academic papers requires some latitude in interpretation.
As a spiritual teacher and Wayshower, Mrs. Fillmore’s Jesus
is very personal. She even claims oneness with Him and feels his presence. This
connection gives a sense of power to her. She writes, “Our teaching is that
Jesus Christ is ever with us, and is able to handle all these overcoming in the
right way. When we identify ourselves with Him and seek to think, speak, and
live in harmony with the ways of Jesus, we get along nicely, and are able to
handle each and every situation in a splendid way.” Myrtle teaches us to have a
“personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” This phrase is deeply ingrained in current
fundamentalist language and often causes Unity folks to stop listening.
Although Myrtle occasionally appears to use Jesus, Christ, and Jesus Christ
interchangeably, I think she’s deliberate here. She is calling on us to accept
our oneness with the person Jesus through the Christ common to us all. She
wants us to be so close to his teachings that we feel like he is whispering in
our ear when a challenge arises. Like Myrtle, I am comfortable in my personal
relationship with Jesus and might even wear a WWJD bracelet—I will not give
this away to my evangelical brethren.
Don - Thanks for coming back to play. It takes 9 to field a team. Oh, wait. Wrong game.
ReplyDeleteYou shared: "[Myrtle] writes, “Our teaching is that Jesus Christ is ever with us, and is able to handle all these overcoming in the right way. When we identify ourselves with Him and seek to think, speak, and live in harmony with the ways of Jesus, we get along nicely, and are able to handle each and every situation in a splendid way." Myrtle teaches us to have a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ…. She is calling on us to accept our oneness with the person Jesus through the Christ common to us all."
First of all, I’m not seeing how what Myrtle wants us to do describes her Christology. I am hearing that her Christ is not so much the Jesus of history, but a divine expression of the Christ idea. In that, aren’t we all one? Perhaps we agree on that. Reading your selection further, I hear Myrtle’s own gentle voice affirming harmony, getting along nicely and handling each situation in a splendid way. She is so precious! Myrtle’s Jesus is splendid because her personal expression of her own unique Christ nature is splendid. Her relationship is an individual one. How can we all be one with that if it’s a spiritual experience unique to her? My point is that while experiencing the Christ in a personal way may be a common experience, the experience cannot possibly be "common among us" because it is by necessity an individual experience! Does everyone with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ experience harmony and gentleness? Sometimes. Maybe. We can individually identify with parts of her description, but net net it’s hers. In Myrtle’s Christology we observe her personality, her uniqueness. I’m more and more understanding my own Christology (yes, I have one and it is positive, loving and salvific, contrary to popular opinion), understanding it as my projection onto a Christ of my understanding--a Christ we each come to in overcoming our challenges or that we identify with as an ideal we aim to express in ourselves. Myrtle can’t “teach us" to have a personal relationship with that. The best she can do is affirm the ever-present process unfolding as the journey of a soul opens to it... or not. As for a “Christ common to us all,” I’m not getting how that is possible outside history about the man who lived called Jesus--and there are precious few facts about him. I am also comfortable with my personal relationship with Jesus. Why wouldn’t I be? Jesus shows up not to scold or punish me but to offer love, guidance, wisdom, strength, forgiveness and acceptance, etc. I submit that ‘WWJD" cannot be globalized. Just try putting your band on someone else and telling them what Jesus would do. Those answers are strictly individual because Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus exists only at the point of an individual’s consciousness. The trick, as Myrtle well knows, is a psychological process: “identifying ourselves with him,” rather than another idea of who we are or how we are supposed to be. Let’s please leave the idea of accepting “our oneness with the person Jesus” to the fundamentalists.
Glad you decided to stick it out. The minister from my home church went through the field license program, and he is one of the best ministers I have ever had.
DeleteYou assume that Charles Fillmore's views about the Christ were the same as Myrtle's. I have found that this is not always a safe assumption to make. For example, in the area of death, Charles and Myrtle had very different takes on how to make their 'transitions.' Myrtle in 1931 was ready and willing to make her transition, while Charles in the 1940s tried to hang on for dear life.
Myrtle very much had a mind of her own!
I think that Myrtle was claiming that the "Christ" is common to all of us. This can be a spark of divinity, our divine self, whatever is within us that is divine.
DeleteI didn't suggest that WWJD could be generalized. I was making a personal statement about my personal view of Jesus the man as an example human for me to follow.
Don ~ After reviewing some of Myrtle's more traditional language, which as you addressed, sometimes stops the more liberal listener in their tracks, you followed up with a stunning statement: "She is calling on us to accept our oneness with the person Jesus through the Christ common to us all." I could not agree more.
ReplyDeleteI, too, believe that was Myrtle's intention, even though it is sometimes fuzzy and muddled. Her language is often intertwined with language that I tend to dismiss because it does not match what I choose to hear or with which I agree. Just like the "liberal listener" I referenced in the 1st sentence, I can be guilty of the same. Yet, Myrtle's language, when in agreement with what I believe ~ is so grace-filled and personal.
Thanks, Don, for hanging in there with us. :)
Glad to see your post, Don! I appreciate your thoughts & insights! I also wan to say that I, too, considering dropping the class (because I don't "need" the credits) and I have other projects that are keeping me well occupied. It was a stretch for me to be willing to show up here--on a public forum--writing on topics I would normally take 10x the hours I've spent on my blogs, to ensure adequate research and such. I resolved to just let myself "think aloud" about the readings here, on the idea that I may not be showing my BEST schoolwork but I'm SHOWING UP and even posing ideas I might not wholly believe myself but am making space for myself and others to entertain such ideas.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, this said, I'll play a bit of devil's advocate here and remark that when you write the following, I wonder if this is another case of Myrtle's vagueness about Jesus vs. Christ etc. I mean, is Mrs. Fillmore's Jesus very personal--or is it the Christ that we each experience personally? I don't know. Hmm. IS she saying we each have a personal relationship with the man Jesus? Or that the man Jesus merely pointed us toward our personal relationship to God, which is through the Christ in each of us? It would be interesting if she meant BOTH...? Hmm... I dunno... :)
"As a spiritual teacher and Wayshower, Mrs. Fillmore’s Jesus is very personal. She even claims oneness with Him and feels his presence. This connection gives a sense of power to her. She writes, “Our teaching is that Jesus Christ is ever with us, and is able to handle all these overcoming in the right way. When we identify ourselves with Him and seek to think, speak, and live in harmony with the ways of Jesus, we get along nicely, and are able to handle each and every situation in a splendid way.”"
Don, so glad you decided to hang in here with us. Since you're a spiritual leader of a congregation, you add a lot to the conversation that benefits all of us! Above, you said, "We are left to assume her definition of Christ is similar to Charles Fillmore’s which is recorded in the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary." I guess that's what we're trying to figure out and I want to assume it with you. Yet, the proof is slippery. What I keep coming back to in my mind is this question. Did the Myrtle and Charles arrive at that definition (if she did) simultaneously, or did one or the other get there first? All my earlier study left me with the feeling that it was Charles' ideas here. Now I'm wondering if it was in fact Myrtle's. I've commented on this in another blog. I'm really curious. Also, you said, "Although Myrtle occasionally appears to use Jesus, Christ, and Jesus Christ interchangeably, I think she’s deliberate here." Interesting insight. You might have nailed it. Otherwise, her use of terms might appear to be sloppiness - but that's the last thing one would expect from her.
ReplyDeleteDon, Thank you so much for sharing part of your "real life" with us. Also, so glad you are paying attention. Don't you just love how Spirit works in, around and through us?
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you mention this today "Myrtle seems to substitute Christ for Jesus and vice versa." I was taking a walk this morning and listening to an audio version of Healing Letters and I thought perhaps I had heard it wrong. I didn't take the time to replay that chapter but I will be paying attention to that now in the future... I love the connection you made to her embedded theology. Yes! I agree
How can one type up a whole post only to find it's disappeared in process of being published?
ReplyDeleteDon, Thank you for your authentic post. I love the rant and can identify. Don't you just love the way Spirit work in and through us when your student asked you how Jesus factored in? I love how you got it immediately. No accidents here my friend. Welcome to ministry. :)
Today I was listening to Healing Letters on my IPod and I thought I heard Myrtle using the name Jesus Christ instead of Jesus and I thought perhaps I missed something... But when you said "Myrtle seems to substitute Christ for Jesus and vice versa." I realized I was not imagining what I had heard. I will need to pay closer attention when racing her work now. Interesting... Also I appreciate you recognizing Myrtle's embedded theology in that. I agree!
Don. You certainly have a lot on your plate. Where do you find the time? It is clear that Mrs. Fillmore had a personal relationship with Jesus. What I find interesting is that you equate this personal connection that she had with Jesus to that of giving her a sense of power. She wants us to also have a personal relationship with Jesus. Does this mean she wants us to experience this sense of power as well?
ReplyDeleteKeep swimming, my friend, until you're tired, then dog paddle; then float. You'll get to the far side of Lake Myrtle this summer.
ReplyDeleteEverybody, give Don a round of applause. We'll make a world-class theologian of him yet!