Searching for God # 96

 I would like to offer a quote from Rollo May, whose book, Psychology and the Human Dilemma, published in 1967. That date may render the book both outdated and therefore out of touch to many readers. Nevertheless, as the cliché goes, please bear with me and check it out.

The ultimate self-destructive use of technology consists of employing it to fill the vacuum of our own diminished consciousness. And conversely, the ultimate challenge facing modern man is whether he can widen and deepen his own consciousness to fill the vacuum created by the fantastic increase of his technological power. It seems to me, and not the outcome of a particular war, is the issue on which our survival depends.

There is, however, a particular dilemma we need to mention which is made more difficult by modern technology. This is the phenomenon of the ‘organization man.’ Increasingly in out time,--this is an inevitable result of collectivization—and it is the organization man who succeeds. And he is characterized by the fact that he has significance only if he gives up his significance….One becomes the man who works well in an organization, the harmonistic ‘team man,’ the worker who maintains protective coloring so that he won’t be singled out and shot at. To this extent you are said to be significant, but it is a significance that is bought precisely at the price of giving up your significance.

The loss of the experience of one’s own significance leads to the kind of anxiety that Paul Tillich called the anxiety of meaninglessness, or what Kierkegaard terms anxiety as the fear of nothingness….Now such anxiety is endemic throughout our whole society. (May, op. cit. p. 37)

From christianscholars.org, in a piece entitled, “Good Work, Done Well for the Right Reasons and with an End in Mind: Playing at Work,’ by Margaret Diddams, August 22, 2024, we read:

…(T)heologian Jurgen Moltmann, in his ‘Theology of Play,’…contended that in twentieth century Western culture, the root causes of both meaningless labor and alienated play could be found in the control of the ruling political authority; they had become the servant of the oppressor. Worse still, he argued, play had become modeled on the emptiness of work, diminishing its hopefulness. Play, if it was to become authentic and regain its joyfulness, must be separated from earthly powers and refocused on the eschaton. Moltmann, seeing no similar hope for work, does not make a similar plea to the eschaton for its redemption…..

With respect to the person focused on work-and-play which theologians have generally regarded as complementary to each other, Theologian Brian Edgar refers to this focus as a person’s ‘playfulness,’ incorporating freedom, delight, and creativity. He suggests that a playful attitude ‘lies at the very heart of spirituality and is critical for the whole of life. Play isn’t so much about what we do as who we are…Play has one more important attribute: its role in the eschaton. A realized eschatology recognizes that God’s kingdom, while not yet perfect, is present among us and gives reason for hope not just in an afterlife but in the here and now. As Albert Wolters writes, redemption of God’s kingdom has already begun since the ‘healing restoring work of Christ marks the invasion of the kingdom into the fallen creation. Subsequently, the eschaton is also about ‘those things which possess finality and ultimacy of meaning. Yet, God is not saving His end purposes for the end times alone. Both the Old and New Testament are full of parties, dancing, feasts, festivals and songs of praise that will culminate in the ultimate restoration of God’s kingdom. If play is part of God’s kingdom and the eschaton is associated with ultimate meaning then play must be part of that ultimate meaning. Theologian Jurgen Momltmann drew just such a conclusion. After publishing his view of realized eschatology in ‘Theology of Hope’ in 1964, Moltmann came to realize the importance of play in his view of the eschaton that is both present and future oriented, publishing his Theology of Play in 1972. As he did in his ‘Theology of Hope,’ in ‘Theology of Play’ he argues that the eschaton is present now. In consequence, we should strive to life spontaneously, as if playing, which gives a foretaste of the joy we will experience in the fulfillment of God’s kingdom. Edgar echoes this, writing, ‘a playful attitude, I suggest, lies at the very heart of spirituality and is critical for the whole of life. It will enrich our lives if we come to see that play is essential and an ultimate form of relationship with God. Play as part of God’s kingdom has redemptive purposes.

A playful attitude amidst the daily requiem of news of death, however, may seem both incongruous and immature, unconsciously disrespectful and even irresponsible. Moralising and  judging too, seem incompatible and incongruous with a ‘serious’ adult, socially and culturally ‘fitting’ attitude, especially the attitude May depicts as one of ‘organization man’. Giving up one’s identity by fitting into the organization is never more evident and depressing that at a church retreat for aspiring, naïve, innocent, and idealistic candidates for postulancy for ministry.

In my experience, having been required to submit a biography to those who will be conducting ‘audition’ interviews as the gatekeepers of the organization, and then having one of the those ‘adjudicators enter the room to interview me and opening with this line, “Having read your biography, I was afraid to come in to interview you!” Stunned, and yet determined to ‘fit in’ I somewhat meekly responded, “I am here to answer whatever questions you might have.” After some forty-five minutes, I asked, “Do you still feel the same way you did when you entered?” and heard, “No, I feel quite comfortable now! And, would you like another interview?”

Having already sat for three interviews, I noted I would prepared for a fourth, but did not personally seek a fourth. As I was then recently (60 days) separated from a 23-year marriage, I can only suppose that, in 1987, candidates with that ‘scar’ on their resume were considered ‘dangerous’ for a church that prides itself in being part of, if not the symbol of, ‘the establishment.’ The adage ‘The Anglican Church is the Conservative Party at Prayer’ is, or at least was in the late 1980’s, very close to the bone of truth. Certainly, admitting prospective candidates for ministry was then, and likely is still today, the antithesis of play.

Similarly, while attending seminary, I found that issues of power and authority obedience to bishops, gender relationships, and internship assignments had high priority. Earnestness of fellow classmates, eagerness, serious discussions, sermon preparations and delivery in chapel, written assignments and meetings with a faculty advisor were all important; levity, playfulness and even imagination were not much in evidence.

Doubtless, there were moments of levity among individuals; the institutional demeanour and culture, however, were anything but playful. Indeed, the seriousness of the prospect of completing seminary, much of it by ‘fitting in’ and certainly ‘not asking too many questions in class’ hung like a shroud over those years.

Sunday school picnics, including various games, even potluck suppers, and choir and young peoples’ parties, while infrequent, did occasionally find their appropriate, if infrequent, entry on the calendar of an adolescent in the 1950’s.This business of surrendering to God, of adhering to his precepts, demands, expectations and the concomitant consequences of compliance or defiance was all shrouded in seriousness, and  with high moral expectations came the inevitable gossip among church community members.

On reflection, I have to surmise that, in those circumstances, the kingdom of God was generally considered to be ‘separate’ from the life here on the earth. Those in charge had been ‘raised’ and ‘encultured’ in a somewhat sanctified ethos. Clergy were generally considered ‘serious men’ (no women at all back then) and the business of serious illness, death, baptism, marriage, and the liturgies of funerals cast a level of darkness over the whole religious enterprise. Even the installation of the carillon bells, while a celebration, seemed to be considered more of a ‘status’ thing within the community. Certainly no other church, protestant or catholic exhibited such musical capacity, daily, at five o’clock every weekday afternoon. Predominantly what were then considered ‘chest-nut’ hymns, (such as the Old Rugged Cross) were beamed out across the little town.

This matter of the relationship between and the connection between the life here and now and the prospect of a life at the end of times, is and has been a matter for considerable confusion, debate, discussion and uncertainty. Theologians have reflected and written about this matter from the beginning. And, for this scribe, the issue has relevance as ‘metaphor’ and image of a world beyond human conception, human expectation, but not beyond human anticipation.

And it is in the anticipation, whether felt and believed to be credible (not literal, not historical, not married to a calendar or a time clock, indeed, totally dis-connected by both calendar and clock) that Moltmann expresses in his phrase, ‘hope when there is no sign or hint or foreshadowing of hope’….

And that is where one’s faith either rests, or does not rest. And for this scribe, that is another of the many ‘beyond one’s capacity to perform, to imagine, to expect and to be worthy of’ that embodies, not so much in a physical, literal, historical or empirical way, but rather in another dimension of which only glimpses might be accessible to many of us humans.

And, even in that imagined anticipation, one’s tilting toward playfulness is being expressed.

The church has much re-visioning to consider if it is to be open to many of the thoughts and perceptions, attitudes and tendencies in this space. Is that another of the many pieces of evidence that whatever theologians might be thinking rarely if ever finds its way into the few moments in a church liturgy, and especially into a cleric’s homily. Playfulness, however, is not anathema or counterintuitive to scholarship. Indeed, it may be that scholarship itself could use some serious injection of playfulness.