(I can’t let it go, can I? I blame the recent controversy surrounding Amendment One to the NC Constitution and the fact that I’m reading “Under the Banner of Heaven” by Jon Krakauer.)
Here’s a thought. If we start a new religion and want to give the leaders/moderators/facilitators a title, instead of “minister” or “reverend” or “pastor,” what if we call them “agent.”
I know, spies, insurance, IRS, KGB, all kinds of craziness.
But just hear me out while I explore the definitions and what they might imply.
(I’m perfectly willing to be talked out of it, but you have to actually do the talking to make that happen!)
The definition of “agent” according to Websters is
“1 a: something that produces or is capable of producing an effect.” Thus our agents are active participants in things, getting down on their hands and knees to do the dirty work, jumping out of their seats to come to the assistance of someone, never resting on their laurels (although everyone is entitled to a break now and again!)
“1 b: a chemically, physically or biologically active principle.” So our agents have a link to reality, to the physical earth.
“2: one that acts or exerts power.” Again, active participation.
“3: a person responsible for his acts.” Put a star next to this one! No matter what one of our agents does, they will have to accept personal responsibility for their choices. There’s no pope to point to and say, “He made me do it!”
“4: MEANS, INSTRUMENT” I think these synonyms imply that the agent is channeling another power, is acting as a conduit for another purpose, although, as stated above, they are still held accountable for their participation.
“5: one who acts for or in the place of another by authority from him, as, a: a representative, emissary or official of a government, b: one engaged in undercover activities.” I think this would clearly represent that we as agents would be assuming (hoping?) that God/Tao/Oneness has sanctioned our intent to help, heal, console, teach, inspire, or whatever loving activity we had decided to engage in.
If you think of agents, whether insurance, advertisement, government or spy, they are a go-between, they are supposed to be serving two parties to get them both what they need (okay, well not the spy, that’s pretty one sided, but the other ones…) I feel like if a person claimed to be a spiritual leader, they would be serving as a go-between for God/Tao/Oneness as well as the individual who is suffering from the illusion of separateness.
And the goal would not be for the individual to become dependent on the go-between, but for the agent to restore agency to that individual. To help them take power over their own lives, to get them to a place where they can move forward by making their own choices, with the love and support of a community.
I guess I’m thinking the religion will be that community. The agents will be the facilitators, the servants of both the Oneness and the people, to bring both together in harmony, humility and compassion.
Please point out where I’m seriously trippin’, because a lot of this starts to make real sense to me.