How to Serve the Word in Christianity

[Ella S.]

We imagine ourselves in his place if we want to follow him. When we serve the least, yes it is degrading because what we serve, we will embody. What belongs to the father belongs to the son. Likewise, what belongs to the master belongs to the servant.

The least is the one who is degraded. If the one we serve is not degraded, then it is not the least.

The idea that serving something means you embody it sounds like an example of magical thinking to me, specifically contagion. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

The idea that serving something means you embody it sounds like an example of magical thinking to me, specifically contagion. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

In other words, what you serve you will become like. I don’t know what else to say about it. It’s just how reality works.

Because of this, to serve the least is a test of faith. Following Christ will test our faith.

 

[Palehorse]

An essential aspect of the Word has to include the way to receive the Word. If I don’t know how to receive the Word, then how can I keep and follow the Word?

Holy scriptures, teachings, and rituals are in service to this task. They assist in the question of how to receive the Word. Once you can receive the Word, what else do you need besides the Word? “In the beginning... ... and the Word is God.” Is the Bible God? Is liturgy God? Or do they assist in relating to God, relating to the Word?

Christianity can be simply understood as people looking to Christ and asking, “How do I receive your Word?” In the Bible, Christ is clear that in order to serve him you must serve the least. In other words, serve the least and then you will receive the Word.

If you still haven’t decoupled the Word from the Bible, from liturgy, from the words of your priest/pastor, then you have yet to figure out how to serve the least.

I often wonder when the scriptures were converted from Hebrew and latin....or Latin to hebrew....that and was an I...the website converted it to to...lol....

 

[Windwalker]

Are you reacting this way because “lowering self” seems unpleasant and inconvenient to you? If so, that is exactly what I mean. It is a struggle.

No. What I'm saying is pretty straightforward. There are better word choices you could use. But don't take my advice. I wouldn't expect you to lower yourself to taking advice from me.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

No. What I'm saying is pretty straightforward. There are better word choices you could use. But don't take my advice. I wouldn't expect you to lower yourself to taking advice from me.

I’m fine with “humbling yourself” with the caveat that there is a reluctance or resignation to it that feels like a sinking feeling. You have to dig down into yourself, which is why I describe it as lowering yourself.

 

[Windwalker]

I’m fine with “humbling yourself” with the caveat that there is a reluctance or resignation to it that feels like a sinking feeling. You have to dig down into yourself, which is why I describe it as lowering yourself.

I disagree. If you are humble, you just are. Otherwise you're trying to be humble, which feels like "lowering yourself". In other words, lowering yourself is the ego. Not genuine humility. Genuine humility doesn't think of itself as higher needing to lower itself.

I hope that helps clarify.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I disagree. If you are humble, you just are. Otherwise you're trying to be humble, which feels like "lowering yourself". In other words, lowering yourself is the ego. Not genuine humility. Genuine humility doesn't think of itself as higher needing to lower itself.

Yeah, it’s easy to get stuck and stay stuck in the place of detachment and “letting go” and “just be”. Let’s see, what are the other mottos from that space. A lot of talk about ego definitely.

I’ve been there brother. You probably can’t hear me now, but you are stuck. There is a path and you will find it again when you consciously choose to throw yourself back into the fire. We didn’t consciously choose to enter into this world, but where you are, you have to consciously choose to re-enter the world. It is part of the story.

 

[PearlSeeker]

An essential aspect of the Word has to include the way to receive the Word. If I don’t know how to receive the Word, then how can I keep and follow the Word?

Holy scriptures, teachings, and rituals are in service to this task. They assist in the question of how to receive the Word. Once you can receive the Word, what else do you need besides the Word? “In the beginning... ... and the Word is God.” Is the Bible God? Is liturgy God? Or do they assist in relating to God, relating to the Word?

Christianity can be simply understood as people looking to Christ and asking, “How do I receive your Word?” In the Bible, Christ is clear that in order to serve him you must serve the least. In other words, serve the least and then you will receive the Word.

If you still haven’t decoupled the Word from the Bible, from liturgy, from the words of your priest/pastor, then you have yet to figure out how to serve the least.

There is the external word (what you hear and read) and there is the inner word/seed.

“The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart.”

 

[Windwalker]

Yeah, it’s easy to get stuck and stay stuck in the place of detachment and “letting go” and “just be”. Let’s see, what are the other mottos from that space. A lot of talk about ego definitely.

I think you have some confusion about what these terms means, and hence why you mistakenly view these as being "stuck".

First, let's address your using the word "detachment" to describe what is better stated as "non-attachment". Detachment carries the meaning from psychology of "a psychological condition in which a person is not able to fully engage with their feelings or the feelings of others." This is considered to be a dysfunction, and not something one should desire as a quality.

"Non-attachment", on the other hand, which is something Buddhism speaks of, has more to do with not clinging to experiences which have meaning to us. While we may be fully engaged emotionally with someone or something in life, the goal is to hold these with an open hand, and not trying to hold onto and preserve them as the source of happiness in our lives. It basically means getting unstuck. Getting stuck is what we do when we cling to events or feelings as the source of our happiness.

The image I like to see this principle of non-attachment, or non-clinging, or non-grasping to, is that of a bird landing on the palm of your hand. That experience can bring great joy as you see its beauty and participate in it as it perches in your hand. But the second you try to seize it for yourself, to clutch it with your first, to grasp it and hold on to it, you destroy its natural beauty and the gift it was giving to you, by imposing your own will and desires upon it. "Mine!", is the opposite of principle of non-attachment, which simply allows the world to simply "be", which we get to fully participate and receive from as we allow it.

Letting go, allowing, let it be, and so forth are all just saying that exact same thing. This is a positive, spiritually liberating practice, whose ultimate goal is to simply be "present in the moment".

Now you may have some aversion to this because it sounds "Buddhist", or something, and hence why you dismiss these as you seem to interpret these as negatives. But these are found in Christianity as well in the teachings of Jesus and elsewhere. "Consider the lilies of the field..." behold their beauty, contemplate them, be present with them in the moment, and see their glory, greater than all the great human acheivements. Particpate in their Beauty, and see God. And then add to this, "take no thought for tomorrow" - be present in the moment, set your thoughts on things above, see the Beauty from God before you, don't cling to it and try to preserve it for yourself tomorrow to find your happiness, and so forth.

If you look deeply enough into your Christian faith, you should see these exact same principles in there, just worded differently. Don't worry about tomorrow, see the Beauty in the present moment, don't cling, "those who seek to preserve their lives shall lose them", compare with the Buddhist teaching, "clinging creates suffering".

I could say considerably more to this, should you wish to discuss this with me.

I’ve been there brother.

I don't think you have, actually. Maybe in how you misunderstood and misunderstand what those mean, perhaps, but that would not reflect my understanding of them, let alone practicing these spiritual principles which yield great spiritual fruit.

I would be curious how you have understood these in your past, and what you really think they mean.

You probably can’t hear me now, but you are stuck.

Be careful about pronouncing judgements on others when you really don't know anything about who I am. Who I am is anything but stuck anymore.

There is a path and you will find it again when you consciously choose to throw yourself back into the fire.

The metaphor I uses is to simple fall back into the Ocean, or "God". It's interesting you use the term fire. By that do you mean simply to fall into trust, and let it burn off the ego, through that process of "letting go"? Or do you mean something more sinister?

We didn’t consciously choose to enter into this world, but where you are, you have to consciously choose to re-enter the world. It is part of the story.

Sounds like "letting go" to me. Again, it would be interesting to hear how you have interpreted what these things mean in your past, which you are carrying forward with you in what I hear as a misunderstanding of them.

 

[Windwalker]

I’m fine with “humbling yourself” with the caveat that there is a reluctance or resignation to it that feels like a sinking feeling. You have to dig down into yourself, which is why I describe it as lowering yourself.

Well yes, the ego is always resistent to you not giving it center stage. We have within us our spiritual nature and our fleshly, or egoic nature to use the psychological term. This is that war of the inner man that Paul spoke of.

So yes, I'll agree there is "sinking feeling" in a sense, which is more "I live, and yet not I, but Christ in me", or the spiritual life of the Divine within us taking the lead roll, instead of that egoic "I", as it does normally.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I think you have some confusion about what these terms means, and hence why you mistakenly view these as being "stuck".

First, let's address your using the word "detachment" to describe what is better stated as "non-attachment". Detachment carries the meaning from psychology of "a psychological condition in which a person is not able to fully engage with their feelings or the feelings of others." This is considered to be a dysfunction, and not something one should desire as a quality.

"Non-attachment", on the other hand, which is something Buddhism speaks of, has more to do with not clinging to experiences which have meaning to us. While we may be fully engaged emotionally with someone or something in life, the goal is to hold these with an open hand, and not trying to hold onto and preserve them as the source of happiness in our lives. It basically means getting unstuck. Getting stuck is what we do when we cling to events or feelings as the source of our happiness.

The image I like to see this principle of non-attachment, or non-clinging, or non-grasping to, is that of a bird landing on the palm of your hand. That experience can bring great joy as you see its beauty and participate in it as it perches in your hand. But the second you try to seize it for yourself, to clutch it with your first, to grasp it and hold on to it, you destroy its natural beauty and the gift it was giving to you, by imposing your own will and desires upon it. "Mine!", is the opposite of principle of non-attachment, which simply allows the world to simply "be", which we get to fully participate and receive from as we allow it.

Letting go, allowing, let it be, and so forth are all just saying that exact same thing. This is a positive, spiritually liberating practice, whose ultimate goal is to simply be "present in the moment".

Now you may have some aversion to this because it sounds "Buddhist", or something, and hence why you dismiss these as you seem to interpret these as negatives. But these are found in Christianity as well in the teachings of Jesus and elsewhere. "Consider the lilies of the field..." behold their beauty, contemplate them, be present with them in the moment, and see their glory, greater than all the great human acheivements. Particpate in their Beauty, and see God. And then add to this, "take no thought for tomorrow" - be present in the moment, set your thoughts on things above, see the Beauty from God before you, don't cling to it and try to preserve it for yourself tomorrow to find your happiness, and so forth.

If you look deeply enough into your Christian faith, you should see these exact same principles in there, just worded differently. Don't worry about tomorrow, see the Beauty in the present moment, don't cling, "those who seek to preserve their lives shall lose them", compare with the Buddhist teaching, "clinging creates suffering".

I could say considerably more to this, should you wish to discuss this with me.

I don't think you have, actually. Maybe in how you misunderstood and misunderstand what those mean, perhaps, but that would not reflect my understanding of them, let alone practicing these spiritual principles which yield great spiritual fruit.

I would be curious how you have understood these in your past, and what you really think they mean.

Be careful about pronouncing judgements on others when you really don't know anything about who I am. Who I am is anything but stuck anymore.

The metaphor I uses is to simple fall back into the Ocean, or "God". It's interesting you use the term fire. By that do you mean simply to fall into trust, and let it burn off the ego, through that process of "letting go"? Or do you mean something more sinister?

Sounds like "letting go" to me. Again, it would be interesting to hear how you have interpreted what these things mean in your past, which you are carrying forward with you in what I hear as a misunderstanding of them.

I was flippant in my description, but I have been there. You have described it very well. It is a chapter in the story.

Where you are is not the Kingdom of Heaven, which there is a part of you that still desires. No matter how at peace you think you are, you’re surrounded by a world full of suffering and death. Justice must be served and the Kingdom is to be established throughout the entirety of the Earth.

 

[Alien826]

In other words, what you serve you will become like. I don’t know what else to say about it. It’s just how reality works.

Because of this, to serve the least is a test of faith. Following Christ will test our faith.

It sounds as if you are saying that if I serve (help?) a drug addict I will become a drug addict.

I feel that can't be what you mean.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

It sounds as if you are saying that if I serve (help?) a drug addict I will become a drug addict.

I feel that can't be what you mean.

We need to be precise. If you are serving the worldview and desires of the drug addict, then you will begin to embody them. If you are serving the potential and promise of the individual who happens to be struggling and suffering, then you will begin to embody that.

I’m guessing you mean the latter when you imagine serving the drug addict, right?

 

[metis]

It's not good enough to just believe in Jesus, you must also abide by his teachings and do as he did.

Amen, and Jesus said as such in his Parable of the Sheep & Wolves. A great many believe somethings about Jesus, but the important question is do they believe in him?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Most of the time, people are largely unconscious to what/who they serve because they have a limited amount of conscious intervention into the process and because the origins of the archetypes / images provided to us are at least partially hidden. We begin to serve from a low resolution place and become more aware + discerning over time, if we are doing it right.

Most of what we are serving is our past conditioning, unless we intervene.

 

[Alien826]

We need to be precise. If you are serving the worldview and desires of the drug addict, then you will begin to embody them. If you are serving the potential and promise of the individual who happens to be struggling and suffering, then you will begin to embody that.

I’m guessing you mean the latter when you imagine serving the drug addict, right?

Yes.

 

[idea]

An essential aspect of the Word has to include the way to receive the Word. If I don’t know how to receive the Word, then how can I keep and follow the Word?

Holy scriptures, teachings, and rituals are in service to this task. They assist in the question of how to receive the Word. Once you can receive the Word, what else do you need besides the Word? “In the beginning... ... and the Word is God.” Is the Bible God? Is liturgy God? Or do they assist in relating to God, relating to the Word?

Christianity can be simply understood as people looking to Christ and asking, “How do I receive your Word?” In the Bible, Christ is clear that in order to serve him you must serve the least. In other words, serve the least and then you will receive the Word.

If you still haven’t decoupled the Word from the Bible, from liturgy, from the words of your priest/pastor, then you have yet to figure out how to serve the least.

Faith without works is dead.

If you hear words - " watch out! run!" I suppose receiving = acting

In Buddhism, words are like a finger pointing to the moon, don't start at the hand, look towards what it points to.

Words are just symbols, pointing to what is real. Seek what is real.

 

[idea]

We imagine ourselves in his place if we want to follow him. When we serve the least, yes it is degrading because what we serve, we will embody. What belongs to the father belongs to the son. Likewise, what belongs to the master belongs to the servant.

The least is the one who is degraded. If the one we serve is not degraded, then it is not the least.

The least is not degraded.

The selfish, the oppressor, the onlooker who does nothing, that is who is degraded.

 

[idea]

Most of what we are serving is our past conditioning, unless we intervene.

Most of what we serve is ourselves.
We may think we are serving others, but in reality we are exercising our own work ethics, fine-tuning our talents, refining our own character - the greatest benefit is to ourselves.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

The least is not degraded.

The selfish, the oppressor, the onlooker who does nothing, that is who is degraded.

It depends on what page of the book you are focused on. The humbled / degraded will be exalted. Those who are exalted will be humbled. Etc.