Lost in the land of “And”

Duality is the blight of mortals. It affects all that we see, do, touch, taste, smell, and hear. It permeates every institution developed for the advancement of humanity. It has so stained our lives that any attempt to call attention to its trickery is often met with ridicule. I am not here to rail either way about the pros or cons of this matter. No, this is simply a finger pointing at where it all began. And…

This is rather a simple innocuous word you might think, however, this is where the whole debacle of duality beings. Back in the day when they used to teach grammar in an English class, teachers could be found instructing children how this word, “and,” is what is known as a “conjunction.” The purpose of this type of word is to join elements together into the same grouping or take two thoughts and join them together. (You know what they call two or more thoughts of anything? I’m not going there.)

You might think that this is not a big deal, right? Consider what occurs when you connect two subject matters which are opposites with this little word. Hard pressed to do such a task? Let me help you. Sweet and sour. Fire and water. Rich and poor. There is a plethora of examples but let’s not neglect the most important of all: Good and evil.

And it Begins

Have you recently read the first chapter of Genesis? In the 31 verses of that chapter, “and” appears in every single verse, often as the first word, followed by “God.” Furthermore, the commission which God assigns to the man is peppered with “and.” What is interesting also is how in this chapter of the creation narrative, “good” seems to be the standard for all things created. What can we gather from this?

The writer/interpreter seems pretty certain that all the events described were joined together as One cause conducted by One Person, namely God. The entirety of creation, including the animals and man, are seen as being One in, and with, God in this description. God determined how all the works done were “good” and “very good” at the conclusion of the chapter.

Even into the first three verses in the second chapter, “and” plays a prominent role following the same format from the previous chapter joining the seventh day to the prior days; sanctifying it as a day of rest for God and all creation. At no point does the appearance of an “opposite” or “another” enter into creation. Then comes the fourth verse of the second chapter where the entire narrative takes a turn.

In theological circle there are those who will expound on the opinion of how the writer of the first 34 verses in Genesis was written by someone different than the writer(s) who penned the remaining story line. There are those who will also claim that the second chapter is merely an expanded version of the sixth day of creation. Honestly, I don’t care because once you start going down any of these roads, you soon find how you’re more than lost in the land of “And” it’s more like lost in “And 2.0” on steroids.

What I want to bring out from this point is how the “new” writer is the first to form the conjunction between good and evil. Now this might not seem like a big deal until you consider how prior to the development of this association found in the seventeenth verse, everything was “good,” there was no opposite present (this includes the woman). It seems this “new” writer is shifting the reader from an OMNI-God to a God who is up-there and out-there somewhere during the day and can somehow be influenced by this new association of opposites.

Lost in the Land

We all know the story of how the woman is enticed by the serpent to eat the forbidden fruit and then the man partakes of it also. This confers upon them the knowledge of good “and” evil. Since all things prior to the bite were in the complete state of “good,” it is probably safe to assume that they already had this knowledge established in their consciousness. In my opinion it was “evil” that became the new knowledge. This evil was simply the recognition of doing the opposite of what they had been told not to do, or in other words, not listening to and following what God said.

This very simple act of self-rule required God to place both the man and the woman out of the garden created by God and into land of wilderness. They were now lost in the land of “and” knowing that they once inhabited a place which was the opposite of their present habitat. Seared into their consciousness was the dichotomy of “good” and the effects of self-rule.

Generation after generation would be told a dimmer and dimmer story about the land of “good” as a foil to the hardships each generation faced in the wilderness of the multiplicity of self-rule. The deeper humanity succumbed to self-rule in the land of “and” the farther it appeared God departed from the very creation He founded. Eventually humanity would be deemed “lost” needing to be “found” and “saved.” (Notice the “and” there.) Yet are they truly lost?

The Peek-a-Boo Syndrome.

I find it interesting how adults will play peek-a-boo with an infant for no reason than to try to set up the child into thinking somehow they can disappear. The infant is lying down or sitting up with the adult closely right in front it. The adult takes its hands and places them over their eyes for a brief moment and then quickly removes them while saying, “Peek-a-boo, I see you!” This may also be done with a cloth being placed over the eyes of the infant and then quickly being removed while exclaiming the same line, “Peek-a-boo, I see you!” This ritual will continue for several minutes much to the delight of the adult who is joyful how the infant laughed during the matter.

This same scenario is played out with God in the land of “and.” We treat God as the infant while we “hide” ourselves behind anything we believe God can’t see us. Then we go to some weekly religious service and for the briefest of moments exclaim joyously how God showed up. “Peek-a-boo, I see you!” But is God laughing with us or at us?

All of Thee

In the fourth gospel Jesus broke through the land of “and” when he exclaimed, “The Father and I are one. . .If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” How, you might ask, does this “break through” the land of “and?”

The purpose of a conjunction is to join two or more parts together. In the land of “and” the parts come together but retain their individuality, their own self-rule. In the land of “and” there is me and, you and, they and, we and, not me and, nor you and, nor us and.

To the religious leaders present when Jesus said that he and the Father are one, they believed that Jesus was saying he was equal with the Father. This is a typical reaction in the land of “and” where self-rule is the predominate belief. Each person is equal to another in every characteristic and capacity. “Equal” is the result of “and” just like in math. But that is not what Jesus was proclaiming.

In this one statement Jesus rips the veil from the land of “and” revealing how all along there has not been a multitude of beings lost in the land of “and.” Being “one” is not a declaration of self-rule but a broadcast of the reveal of a kingdom established by an omnipresent God. There is no God “and” in this kingdom. There never has been or will be. Omnipresence insures this. The moment there is an “and” there is no God.

Believing Truth

Herein lies the horror of the land of “and.” Self-rule negates God’s ability to function through the mechanism of one or more “beliefs.” The primary belief is that there is “me and” God. From this belief springs forth a multitude of other beliefs about the relationship of “me and” God; “me and” my ability to see, hear, touch or know God; “me and” my walk with God versus those around me; “me and” how I get God to heal me, feed me, cloth me, prosper me, keep me in peace; and whole host of “beliefs” about the nature of God crafted on the “belief” that we are created in His image so He must act just like we do.

All of these beliefs, and those not mentioned, stem from our experiences in the land of “and.” There is not a single truth found in any of them. How can I make such a claim? Simply because in the land of “and” we failed to comprehend the magnitude of omnipresence. Missing this crucial element required us to “make up” beliefs on how it always appears that God is up-there, out-there, while focusing on the physical realm with all of its difficulties and the dichotomies of good “and evil.”

Jesus said that we need to worship the Father “…in spirit and truth.” Never did he say in spirit and “belief.” Yet every religious institution since those words were uttered has maintained that their “belief” is truth. How lost we have become in the circle logic of such thinking! In this we wrestle with the thought of an Omnipresent spiritual Creator which still asks, “…WHO told you…”

The truth is, “. . . for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.” Until you can remove your self-governing belief in and on “and,” this truth will evade you. Omnipresence demands you to be one. However, it will not force you into it, this action must be undertaken in the quiet desperation of needing ALL of Him more than any of you “and” what you’ve clothed yourself in.