Searching for God # 110

No matter its name, religion usually embraces three elements: faith in a divinity, rites and rituals honouring that faith, and an inviolable moral code.

Such things light the way for a lot of good in this dark world, most of it done quietly, away from the headlines. Marginalized people are fed and cared for, the distressed are comforted, souls searching for meaning are offered purpose and hope. And the gift of religious inspiration in the arts is available to everyone. You don’t have to believe in God to feel the yearning human spirit in Mozart’s “Ave Verum.”

And yet the soul of all this is abased and abused by con artists twisting religion to fit insufferable egos and despicable political ends. (Janice Kennedy, Toronto Star, April 29, 2026, in a piece entitled, ‘Religions all over the world are being blasphemed and perverted.’)

While it is obvious that much good-samaritan work is continuing to be carried out in the spirit of religions, Ms Kennedy rightly highlights the perversion and blasphemy that betray all religious faiths for a variety of nefarious human motives.

From a lay-Christian perspective, her ‘three elements: faith in a divinity, rites and rituals honouring that faith and an inviolable moral code’ make sense….except for that one word, inviolable.

Defined as ‘never to be broken, infringed, or dishonoured,’ the perspective and attitude, and even the conventional ubiquity of perfection that comes with ‘inviolable’ is both a rock and a whirlpool on which religion can be, and often is impaled.

Aspirational, inspirational, ideal and metaphorically stretching and even psychologically compelling, as one’s faith can be, one’s faith can also become one’s personal crutch, high-powered assault rifle, political and professional ‘alb’ of the appearance of piety, righteousness and social status and trust in a world consumed by literal, empirical perceptions, definitions and appreciations of reality.

Conventional conversations in all areas of human endeavour are dedicated to the sensate, literal, empirical ‘take’ on whatever is going on. This includes the highest and most honourable and ethical professions like law, medicine, science, the academie, and, to varying degrees many religious institutions. We are moved when we learn stories of various, deplorable and preventable human catastrophes, whether they are natural disasters, pandemics, economic drought or the multiple iterations of the abuse of power by some on others. Something ‘inside’ says ‘this is not right’ and sometimes we seek to make a difference. Philanthropics abound, thankfully, from such a deeply embedded instinct. And, whether those ‘helping’ and ‘rescuing’ initiatives have a religions base, formally, they do have one informally and almost unconsciously. There is also a highly impactful emotional, psychological, and even intellectual gratification from doing honourable, somewhat hidden and private, non-publicized ‘helping’ of others, again whether those engaged have a faith/religious connection, motivation and foundation or not.

Changing the world, making a difference, serving our fellow humans, the spirit of altruism, generosity, compassion, advocacy, healing, especially in a world that seems to be blind to that ‘spot’ on the compass of human ‘geography’ is and continues to save lives literally as well as metaphorically. Some of that work is indeed conducted under the auspices and aegis of religious faith-based institutions. And, as the ‘Canadian Blood Services’ advertising reminds us, those who give benefit as much or more from the giving as the intended recipients.

Social service clubs and agencies, learning centres, even free medical and legal clinics dedicated to a plethora of human needs, with the support of public dollars as well as private tax-deductible donations, attempt to address some of the human needs that continue to remain outside the purview of government. Many of those men and women have either a formal and continuing relationship a religious institution or have associates with that continuing relationship. God be with all of them! They are a blessing and they convey a level of care and commitment that, as John McCain used to remind us ‘commits them to a cause bigger than self.’

While some of those philanthropics can and frequently are sabotaged by the various human moral failings, generally they operate honourably, ethically, and both transparently and accountably.

The religious aspect of our lives, however, at least in theory and hopefully in praxis, is about something quite different, although not precisely disconnected from altruism, ethics, morality, compassion and care. The religious aspect, in its purist form seeks to awaken, to transform and to radically alter the conventional social, political, economic and legal aspects of our lives in and through what some call ‘transcendence’….a word that has gathered the imprimatur of psychedelic and mind-altering interventions.

In a universe defined, perceived, analyzed, dissected and philosophized over from a literal, empirical, rational perspective, for the most part, the ‘inner life’ of each human tends to attract attention in what James Hillman calls ‘in extremis’ moments. It is in such moments that we have all heard others, uttered ourselves and even imagined ourselves screaming, “Oh my God!” And yet, is that only when the matter of our relationship with God has any meaning or relevance? While crises naturally provoke and invoke a re-visiting, re-framing, re-structuring everything we have previously perceived, believed and held as important. These moments are ‘transformational’ and although we consider the ‘bottom of our world to have fallen away’ somehow, with the presence help and patience of others, including a God, never absent and never failing to uphold, we ‘begin again.’

The question of how our faith relates to our more ‘regular’ non-cataclysmic routine, however, generally, for most people, remains in the ‘literal, empirical and rational ‘frame’….we are after all highly practical, sensate and also potentially rational beings. At the centre of  that ‘ordinary’ life, for most, the ‘ego’ and its perceived needs, aspirations, dreams, and fears tends to dominate. We are, so we are consistently reminded, in a dog-eat-dog world, where competition, discipline, and also the ethic of compassion still warrant our attention.

The politics of religion, however, is a subject with which the church (all mainline Christian churches at least, and likely also the other Abrahamic faiths, Jewish and Muslim) have to reckon on a daily, hourly basis. And while everyone of us continues on a unique path toward whatever we consider, believe and imagine to be our ‘better angels’ (to borrow a Jon Meacham favourite), we might benefit from how we relate to others.

In this space, reference has been made to a piece of theological writing by James Alison, entitled, The Joy of Being Wrong, in which he articulates a highly sensitive, provocative and challenging perception and attitude to the parable of the ‘speck and the plank’ with which most are familiar.

Alison posits that if we come to each encounter with another human being bringing to the fore the truth that we all have a ‘plank’ in our eye, before we begin to criticize another for the ‘speck’ in his/her eye, we could and would begin on a note of mutual forgiveness. Such an individual, conscious, deliberate and disciplined approach, while challenging, and even at first appearing ‘idealistic,’ nevertheless has multiple benefits for all.

First, it humbles the one who is contemplating the issuance of a ‘judgement’ of another; second, it changes the ‘playing field’ to one of equality, equity and commonality; third, it releases the fears and anxieties of the ‘targeted other’ and finally, the process has the potential of ‘seeding’ what effectively amounts to a revolutionary tilt to a culture drowning in judgement, much of that judgement based on a kind of theology that, clearly, is the antithesis and the apostasy of any authentic and sustainable theology, of any and all major faith communities.

With respect to a critical judgement of a policy, or a shared, organizational, political, corporate decision or action that is unequivocably, indisputably ‘wrong,’ judged primarily by its capacity to abuse innocent, and voiceless others who are or are about to become victims of that injustice, it is the abuse that demands, in Tolstoy’s reminding, non-violent opposition with force. Personal attacks, serving merely as ad hominum attacks, have the impact of only further embedding those committing the injustice to commit even further to its execution.

All major mainline religions are being perverted, and blasphemes, especially by those whose need to manipulate for their own selfish, narcissistic and narrow purposes and ends, (and all faith communities have their share of such persons. The challenge for all the major mainline religions is to resist our desire, tendency and natural impulse for revenge, for withdrawal and for burrowing into some fortification that separates the faith communities from the rest of the world.

We, all mainline religious faith communities, have a legitimate, humane, thoughtful, spiritual and faith-inspired story to tell. And, while our story is important, it is never to be used as a weapon against another faith or another person who may have no faith at all. Competition among and between faith communities, whether openly acknowledged or more secretly and surreptitiously waged, will only redound on those initiating such a conflict. And such conflicts blatantly and naively display more of a religious neurosis on the part of the instigators.

At the centre of all talk of religion is the concept of ‘power’….personal power, institutional power, national power and international hegemony. God is not signed on to be manipulated by any who choose to hide behind Him in their own pursuit of power….….And those who practice an authentic and humble discipline in their faith life will resist the temptation to take up arms either in what they think is a legitimate defence, or a necessary counterattack, based on some perception of impending ‘loss of control.’ Religious communities, themselves, are not beyond their own blind fears, anxieties and neuroses.

Oh, and as for that phrase, inviolable moral code: as a guide, an inspiration and as aspiration, it holds water. As another weapon to use against another, (see the speck and the plank) above, it betrays a fundamental human truth, as well as a theology that, tragically and impoverishingly, relies on the manipulation of fear in order to attract adherents. Tolstoy’s ‘The Kingdom of God is Within You’ clearly articulates the difference between an absolute inviolable moral code to which none of us has or ever will completely adhere, while we continue to grow in conscious awareness of our own specks….and our own need to face them, as an integral aspect of the discipline of our faith in God. 

Re-visiting the King's visit to America

 From Steve Schmidt, ‘The optics were disgraceful, but the message was not’ Substack, April 29, 2026

The head of the Church of England shouldn’t have had tea with a man who has waged a political war against the Pope, threatened genocide, claimed to be Jesus Christ, stands accused by at least 28 women of sexual assault, and appears in the Epstein files that turned the Duke of York into Mr. Mountbatten Windsor over 38,000 times.

Not now. Not under these circumstances. Not when the means of the American presidency is being contested in ways unseen since the Civil War. Not when the United States’ alliances — the very architecture of Western stability — have been treated with disdain, contempt, and reckless indifference.

The British monarch shouldn’t have appeased the ego of a man who has threatened Canada and Denmark, while insulting the British army and navy, as well as the valor, sacrifice and legacy of British forces.

The King’s visit was an appalling decision, which rebuked his grandfather’s historic visit of 1939, during which the cornerstone of the “special relationship” was laid.

Yet, I must be acknowledge that the King’s words hit their mark in the desecrated American Congress, the worst in our 250-year history. His Britannic majesty delivered a history lesson badly needed in an era of seething ignorance and moral cowardice.

“The head of the Church of England shouldn’t have had tea with a man…..

Prior to this visit, I was in full agreement with Mr. Schmidt that King Charles must not visit the United States under the current administration and circumstances. And yet…

For decades, as an Anglican, I have wondered about the meaning of the structure of the monarchy serving as Head of State and also Head of the Church of England. There is the participation of the monarch in the selection of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as well as serving as advisor to the man or now woman who serves in that capacity, and, upon the coronation of the monarch, him or herself receiving, accepting and reflecting on the blessing and benediction from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the question of the meaning, application and incarnation of the Head of the Church of England, as a religious leader has always puzzled me. It seemed that ritual, performative words and gestures, for example in and through the monarch’s formal words delivered on Christmas Day, as well serving as patron to multiple ‘worthy causes’ were the extent of the public evidence of the Head of Church title and role.

Well…for me things have changed, and it was a rather sudden sort-of “aha” moment that struck me when I read the quoted line from Mr. Schmidt’s substack.

As one of the mainline Christian churches, the theology of the Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England is not the private preserve of  the clergy or the monarchy, the laity or the ecclesial hierarchy. And one of the core tenets of the Christian theology, one that Princess Diana exemplified in her parenting of William and Hency, was the ‘walk, talk, accompany’ model of Jesus with all of the very most unacceptable of his time and place.

From the point of view of politics, history and public morality, (disregarding the 250^th year of the republic) the royal visit seems inappropriate, and effectively an act of appeasement by the monarch of the multiple and growing malfeasances of the current occupant of the Oval Office. There were cries from many quarters that the monarch desist from any planning and from the ultimate decision to make the trip.

Nevertheless, surprisingly, to some shockingly, and to others shamedly, King Charles, both monarch as Head of State, and Head of the Church of England, demonstrated both personal courage and, it has to be noted, considerable Christian faith, not only in and through his presence, and in and through his choice of words, phrases and examples, but also in his ‘ministry’ to the president. Whether or not that ‘ministry’ is even heard and reflected upon by the chief executive remains in doubt.

It is, and will continue to be for forever, a living example of Christian discipleship for this monarch to permit himself and his spouse to enter into the ‘fray’ and the ‘fracas’ that is the United States under the current administration. Not only did the monarch reinforce common shared values, laws, history, and ethics, between the UK and the US; he also leaned into such controversial issues as the need for continuing support for Ukraine against her illegal invasive enemy, Russia. Referencing both Teddy Roosevelt on the need to protect and preserve the environment and Abraham Lincoln for his memorable quote about being remembered, not so much for ‘our words’ as for ‘what we do’….the speech to Congress served so many over-lapping goals, including both the diplomatic ones of reminding everyone of the multiple links, bridges, laws (even and especially the Magna Carta, 1215) between the UK and the US, that it will be impossible for American politicians, including the president, to either ignore or to escape the from the beam of truth and light that King Charles shone on the wider, global situation.

For those of us sceptics, who might have pooh-poohed the ‘head of church’ role as merely symbolic, and who had also considered much of the Christmas messages of years gone by to be somewhat boilerplate, in royal-speak, diplomacy, history, and social empathy, the King seemed to don the mantle of both the prophet and the pastor.

As prophet, he reminded the Congress (and can we hope that the president was watching and listening), that co-operating, collaboration, planetary protection and sharing cyber/digital projects are not undertaken merely as ‘sentiment’…but are all inherent aspects of national security as well as global security. As prophet, he also took the diplomatic wraps off what might have been a ‘forbidden file,’ the war with Iran. Inter-dependence, shared academic opportunities, (some 2300 American students enabled to study in the UK under the Marshall philanthropic program) illustrated his real-life-real-time grasp of the proof of the themes he articulated.

As pastor, and this is the part that caught my attention, given the apparent irony of a monarch adopting the mantle of parish priest, whose daily, hourly, minute-by-minute encounters walk beside those in the deepest pain, the most intractable distress, and the least-hopeful, least inspiring and seemingly dead-end-desperate situations. For many of us, the world seems to be slipping into similar, if not identically described, hopelessness.

Likely for many in the Senate, his words may have rolled off  ear-drums and minds as glossy and hollow and performative. And for those who choose that perception/reception/interpretation, that is all they are or will be. Nevertheless, for those whose faith reaches into those dark, dank, damp and unforgiving caves of hopelessness, we can see and hear and be grateful for the  glimpse of the light of faith in a God whose light will not be blocked no matter how hard we try to turn a blind eye and a dear ear to its hope.

This is not merely optimism, (although I could have and would have heard those words from my own poverty of perception previously). This monarch, we all know ever so well, is far from a perfect human being. Indeed, his biography has caused considerable angst among his own family. Nevertheless, his faith in God and his discipline from his service in the Royal Navy, his loyalty to his family’s traditions and expectations and his life-long authentic vision for a healthy, safe and secure planet for people everywhere were all palpably evident for the world to see, to hear and to digest.

And one of the most significant, of all of the intended audiences of his words, is the president of the United States.

There is a nugget of theology, Christian, from the founder of the Jesus Seminar, Robert Funk, from his book, Honest to Jesus, which seems to have relevance here.

Having intently studies the gospels from the perspectives of many academic disciplines, by men and women of strong faith themselves, as part of his summary of their work Funk writes:

Jesus makes it clear that all rewards and punishments are intrinsic. According to Jesus, reward for loving one’s neighbour is an unqualified relation to that neighbour. However, the church developed a doctrine of extrinsic rewards and sanctions to undergird its power and authority. (Funk, Honest to Jesus, p. 312)

The state and the culture have also adopted a system of extrinsic rewards and sanctions. It is clear, on the other hand, that King Charles, in expressing love for his neighbour, both the president and the United States of America, experienced the unqualified relation to that neighbour, as its own reward for his love. And even the foundational ethic challenges the ‘extrinsic-classical conditioning of the culture, just another way the monarch may well have been attempting to open some hearts, minds and eyes.

Not only has the monarch’s visit challenged some deeply held, if ‘old wine’ perceptions of statecraft, monarchy and politics. He has conveyed a theology that  challenges some of our most deeply embedded stereotypes.

Searching for God # 109

 Luke 6:39-42:

He also told them that parable: Can the blind lead the blind? Will they both not fall into the pit? The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher. ‘Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Central to each of our lives is the unscratable itch to correct and to accuse and to find fault and to demean another. Gallons of ink have been spilled attempting to find the ‘original culprit’ to blame in the Garden of Eden story of The Fall. And the template of that story, whose theme is a fall of some kind from grace, paradise and a utopic garden, is central to the West’s both psychology and theology, irrespective of sectarian or denominational identity. Disobedience and judgement lie at the heart of the myth. And, human fault, responsibility and sin lie at the heart of that dynamic….as millions have been taught and inculcated into believing in Sunday School, as children.

James Alison, in his provocative work, The Joy of Being Wrong, writes:

There is no shortage of ways of talking about Adam and Eve or the serpent that are ways of finding whom to blame for how things are.  To follow the pattern of search for an origin would be to try to understand sin within the framework of blaming someone for the present state of affairs and would be in contradiction with the approach I have been trying to set out, which is that original sin is to be understood only from the coming into being of forgiveness, as that which is being forgiven.

So, instead of this approach to causality, can mimetic theory throw light on the business of searching for an origin? I rather  think it can…….

Luke 6:39-42 teaches about the blind leading the blind, the disciple not being more than the master, and the impossibility of removing the mote in the brother’s eye while having a beam in one’s own. It entirely proposes a mimetic understanding of psychology. That is to say, all our knowledge of each other is projective and relational: our knowledge of someone else is inseparable from our relationality to that other person, and what we know of them depends on a real similarity between the other person and ourselves such that we can properly project from our own experience and begin to understand the other. There is no question here of any possible neutral, objective vantage point onto the other. Relational, projective knowledge of the other is taken for granted by Jesus. The question which Jesus raises is as to the mode of projection. With the teaching concerning the more and the beam, Jesus indicates that there are two ways of approaching a problem in someone else: the first is from the position of someone who is not aware of or maybe in denial of his own similarity to the other, in which case the result is an accusatory highlighting of the other’s problem. It is obvious where this approach leads: the one challenged reacts by not accepting the accusation, will not be led by the one proffering such ‘objective’ criticism, and will proffer criticism in return, and the two will enter into a process of mutual antagonism, which is the same as the two blind men falling into a pit: they have become a skandalon to the other.

The second mode of projection, which is the one which Jesus is recommending in insisting that the one proffering criticism first remove the beam from nis own eye, starts from the acceptance of similarity. It is when one recognizes that he is the same sort of beast as the person he wishes to correct and that he is driven by the same forces to do things which are at least analogous, when they are not identical, that he will be able to approach the other from a position of constructive complicity. That is to say the whole direction of his approach to the other springs from the creation of a relation between the two that is a spreading of forgiveness. The modes of projection are always relational; the question is whether they are accusatory or forgiving; there is no other approach, or ‘third way,’ to the problem of another human being. (Alison, op. cit. p. 241-242)

A little later, Alison elaborates:

The question is not so much how ‘Adam’s’ sin affects us, as how Christ’s forgiveness (which we are charged to make real) affects Adam. To put this another way: there is no properly theological approach to ‘our first parents’ that is not a discourse of love concerning the first people to need the sort of constructive forgiveness that we first discovered ourselves to need. There is no independent anthropological starting point in the approach to original sin. (Ibid, p. 243)

How revolutionary is this shift from ‘ accusatory causality’ to mimetic, relational complicity? Are two thousand years of history, pedagogy and theological theory and praxis able to accommodate such a dramatic and arresting interpretation? Are we, each of us, even willing to contemplate, open up to considering such a proposition? And what would it mean if we were?

To surrender the self-righteous, superior, frankly hubristic stance of ‘being right’ in the face of the other’s ‘wrong’ would seem, at first glance to be a surrender of one’s convictions, one’s character and one’s strength…It takes considerable ‘spine’ and courage to tell another about the speck in his eye, and clearly focuses attention away from the plank in my own. There may even be a substantial amount of ‘objective’ evidence that the ‘critique’ holds water, and the recipient may even come to be grateful, while humbled, in the process of being ‘corrected, accused, embarrassed and exposed.’

One of the hidden ironies about Alison’s approach and theory is that those very things that, like a magnet, attract the critical eye of the accuser, are those same things that are unacknowledged in and by the accuser. Whatever I find so intolerable, objectionable and irritating in the other, ironically and paradoxically, are the very same things that I do not accept or tolerate in myself. Identifying a similar complicity, prior to opening my mouth in judgement, however, is a piece of ‘self-talk’ and ‘self-critical-examination’ for which many of us are either ill-prepared or are simply unwilling to entertain.

Also ironically, the ‘feeling’ of administering a sound, evidence-based critical judgement of another is so ‘self-satisfying’ and fulfilling as to be its own internal motivator. The critique and the critic both, in Western society and culture, have an acknowledged level of both credibility and maturity, stature and enviability, that endears it to others and generates considerable income as well as social and political status. Sins of both omission and commission are so readily and easily observable that many become almost intoxicated in and by their magnetism. Forgiveness, on the other hand, seems restricted, constricted to the ‘confessional’ and to those private, confidential moments between intimate partners, when, after there is no other conceivable path to avoid, to deny, to lie to masquerade, or to wiggle one’s way out of some deeply shameful entanglement of ‘bad judgement’ or…..or…..??

In popular parlance, forgiveness, among many, is considered analogous to the snow-flake image of spineless, wimpish, character-less and justified dismissability. Identification, too, with the ‘sin’ of the other, even before one might consider something akin to forgiveness, is conventionally so ‘absurd’ as to be out of the question for most of us.

The accumulated and even solidified cultural blindness, each to our own Shadow, evokes an image of a giant blob of atmospheric blind unconsciousness in which each of us is enshrouded, as if in a cloud of our own making, only ‘making’ not by design and overt agency, but more through unconscious and unwilling and uncomfortable avoidance and/or denial. Few, if any, would be eager or perhaps even willing to acknowledge an active, conscious, willing and determined motivation to blindness however pressed we might find ourselves.

Alison extends his appreciation for forgiveness and our obligation to extend it in and through his quite sensitive, imaginative and provocative iteration of the Cross and Crucifixion itself. Jesus, in his view, surrenders himself willingly to the unjust, illegal, unwarranted  violence of the mob, as a way of exemplifying opposition to violence and a strong conviction to relationality.

Whether either or both protestants and catholics are open to and willing to begin to re-think both the beam-plank parable, and the Alison memetic, surrender to relationality, remains an open question. Both positions exemplify a creative, imaginative and, from the perspective of this scribe, a serious, challenging and sustainable Christian expectation.

The church’s and the ordinary people’s imitation of the accusatory model of amending immorality, amorality, along with what the church calls sins of both omission and commission, for thousands of years seems to have been an exercise in both futility and dismissal, with both immunity and impunity for the church . It seems more than high time for the church to open to a welcome embrace of some new and different, life-giving, and life-saving relationship-based and relationship-fostering applications and interpretations of the Christian story. It is more complicated, if still true, as POGO reminds us, “We have met the enemy, and he is us!

As in quantum physics, which is beginning to demonstrate how everything, everything, is connected, and humans have been ‘blind,’ while continuing to discern both how that proposition is actually true. Previous blindness is merely a testament to our own determination to rend the shades from our collective eyes, both from our conscious and from our unconscious.

And as Robert Funk espouses, new and creative interpretations of the Christian myth and theology will continue to emerge and provoke us to re-examine what we once held as ‘sacred truth’ that has never really been ‘fixed’ or fossilized, and permanent as many would have, and still do, prefer. Today, we are grateful to James Alison and his rigorous pursuit of his faith.

Aesop sheds light on contemporary conflicts...yes?

 The fundies, of the religious right, a vociferous, adamantine-willed, superfluously funded branch of quasi-Christianity, have, unconsciously perhaps, taken on the mantle of Aesop’s Oak Tree, in what has become an all-out, fight-to-the-death war against so many enemies, it is almost impossible to count.

Among their hated enemies are those ‘woke’ apostates, characterized by their commitment to a trinity of values, (another Christian symbolic tradition) D(iversity), E(quity), I(nclusion), high on the target list of the Oak’s resolute determination to outlast, outshine and to eclipse them into the dust of history.

Also, on their list of hated and evil opponents, are the immigrants, refugees, and desperate rapists, drug-lords and ‘shitty’ people seeking escape from terror, often starvation and incarceration. The sturdy, stately, imperial and regal OAK will stand to defend the nation from these hated infidels, through strong branches of law enforcement, guns, batons, gas cannisters,  and an army of heavily recruited, yet minimally trained goon-wannabe-warriors and, will continually promise to ‘make the nation safe from evil.

Other malignant malefactors on their  list of hated enemies are those other nations whose greed, and narcissism and opportunism and trickery have defrauded the nation of billions of dollars in trade deficits, currency manipulation, and negotiating deceits over decades, perhaps even centuries, generating a situation so apocalyptic that only an all-out trade-war will awaken these minion nations to the unyielding towering timbre of the oak’s spine, its ethical and moral superiority and its historic status among the creatures of the forest.

And then, add to the growing list of hated enemies, the drug-lords and their political camouflages, the presidents and potentates who permit their illicit and lucrative trade to satiate the insatiable appetite of the OAK’s own nationals for more and more of the hated and illicit and lethal doses of chemicals into whose allure and somnambulant daze millions of nationals slump daily, hourly, while the drug-lords’ boats are bombed by the mighty power of the GREAT OAK—determined and steadfast as it is to block, defer, deter and defeat all perceived enemies, from its lofty perch as the GREAT OAK, towering over the forest.

From its towering, and all-knowing position, the Great OAK has also found a cluster of new and cancerous enemies, among them the universities which support those three detested initials, (DEI), the law firms many of which have succumbed to the turbulent and fiscally threatening winds of the GREAT OAK, and also, now the Vatican, supposedly the valiant, supremely ethical, moral, compassionate and spiritual guide and mentor of millions, (or is that billions?). Holding true to its bold steadfast, high-and-mighty self-conceived brilliance and superiority, the GREAT OAK is now warning the Vatican to ‘be careful’ whenever it speaks about theology, the heart-and-soul of its tradition, history, theology and spiritual inspiration for centuries.

There is also another ‘declared, venomous and dangerous enemy of the GREAT OAK, the hated and detested Persians, especially given their claimed right to ‘enrich uranium’ and their determination to eliminate the state of Israel, another of the great, steadfast, invincible and indestructible trees, the Hickory, known for its high density and durability and wind resistance. Given the intimate and some might say collusive and conspiratorial relationship between the Hickory and the OAK, this invincible, indomitable, and religious/historic symbiotic relationship, is determined to demonstrate, no prove beyond a doubt, that their collective, highly enriched, scientifically superior, surveillance and defensive dome, will win-the-day over all enemy combatants….and those promises fill the airwaves across the skies and oceans and continents every hour and every day.

Blind, however, to the imaginative creativity, and determined survivability of each and everyone of these enemies, each of which have openly, brazenly and proudly adopted the age-old mantra and model of Aesop, that of the Reed. As Aesop prophesied, long ago, apparently without the benefit of the eyes, ears, minds and speculations of the OAK and the HICKORY, especially when the winds blew at the behest of the OAK and the HICKORY, the initiators of all the conflicts, The OAK  stood proudly upright with their hundred arms uplifted to the sky,. But the Reeds bowed low in the wind and sang a sad and mournful song.

‘You have reason to  complain,’ said the Oak. ‘The slightest breeze that ruffles the surface of the water makes you bow your heads, while I, the mighty OAK (and my friend the Hickory) stand upright and firm before the howling tempest.’

‘Do not worry about us,’ replied the Reeds. The winds do not harm us. We bow before them and so we do not break. You in all your pride and strength, have so far resisted their blows. But the end is coming.’

As the Reeds spoke a great hurricane rushed out of the north. The OAK (and Hickory) stood proudly and fought against the storm, while the yielding Reeds bowed low. The wind redoubled in fury, and all at once the great tree(s) fell, torn up by the roots, and lay among the pitying Reeds. (From The Oak and the Reeds,  The Aesop for Children, from https://read.gov

The children know that it is the hubris and the deaf-ear, the closed mind and the adamantine will of the OAK (and the Hickory, for our purposes) that are their undoing. They also know that the Reeds will continue to bend, and sway, and bend and sway, in even the most turbulent and destructive of storms, given their ‘groundedness and their humility, and their adaptability, and their flexibility and their determination to out-last all of the many storms, especially those initiated at the hubristic and self-righteous and blinded-by-their-own invincibility OAKs (and Hickories).

And while the pundits parse the details of each of the various ‘encounters’ of the OAKs and the REEDs, as if they were all individual, separate and isolated narratives, the children will, if and when asked, raise their hands to mention that, just perhaps the pundits, and the scribes, the historians and the political philosophers consider each enemy and each encounter a matter of significance, the children will remind their mentors that, when all is said and done, it is and will always be the REEDs that survive.

Whether it is a social/cultural/racial/ethical/moral program for schools, colleges and universities, that is founded on principles of social justice, Christian theology and constitutional principles,

OR a flood of displaced, frightened, even terrified, starving and desperate men, women and children, including infants on their parents back or harnessed to their chests, all of them escaping forces of hate, greed, political oppression, war, drought, poverty, disease, homelessness, unemployment, access to clean water, air and land, and access to a legitimate education….again these ‘reeds’ will invariably continue to bend, and to flow in the ebb-and-flow of various environmental, political, military and illicit powers’ decisions and negligence. And no military, quasi-legal, paramilitary, or even electrified and barbed-wire fences will ever completely stop their marches to whatever their perception of a new life might be.

OR the drug-lords and their political cover and accomplices, who seek to peddle their illicit, lethal and highly demanded drugs into the nation with the insatiable appetite, need and even addiction to and for their products will never be stopped by a few bombs in the Caribbean, or even by the abduction of a nation’s leader, allegedly complicit in the conspiracy…and the Reeds of the desperate men, women and children, primarily victims of a society whose interest in and compassion for, and empathy for the bottom 1% of the people, whose numbers are growing daily, and whose desperation is only enhancing the hubris and the blindness of the OAKs in power….will far outlast whatever turbulent storms are invoked to ‘end the war on drugs.’

As for the universities, and the law firms, some of which have capitulated to the OAK already, while others remain as sycophantic eunuchs to their illicit demands, the strength of the REED-like organizations and firms will outlast the turbulence of the OAK’s venom.

As for the Vatican, itself perceived as an OAK by many religionists, as well as political actors, it too is more like the REED in its historic, theologically-founded, and liturgically enshrined resilience, humility and promise of the hope of the gospel can and will invariably remain as a shining beacon of hope, long after the thundering hubristic OAKs and Hickories have broken and fallen.

And then there is The Persians, who, after many protracted conflicts with the proud OAK of American hegemony, and after having survived and grown stronger in and through those conflicts, (even while allegedly disposing through scandalous murders of thousands of protestors to their own regime), will continue to bend and blow in the face of negotiating positions of the great OAK that say one thing one day and its opposite the next day, knowing that in the long run, their adaptability, flexibility and resilience bred into their bending and their grounding…..and they will outlast their OAK and Hickory enemies.

As a Post note:

Given Henry Kissinger’s knowledgeable perception of the Chinese, it would seem that, centuries ago, the Chinese adopted the REED position of out-waiting, bending, bowing, and offering tempting ‘dishes’ to their western counterparts if and when they came attempting to make deals….the patience, and the awareness of the resilience of bending, without breaking, of humility with hubris, of speaking softly without braggadocio,….the natural way of the REED, will in the end hold the final sway and the final say.

One has to wonder if and when the Americans will pick up a copy of Aesop’s Tales, read them and reflect!

There are certainly some political and philosophical and even theological and religious elements to these conflicts. And there is also an obvious literary, fable-lighted narrative that cannot be ignored or denied.

Searching for God # 108

For those accustomed to spending a few minutes here, they will have noticed a distinctly different kind of ‘copy’ and intent in the last few posts. Quotes about spiritual theology from two professional instructors in the subject, from different theological perspectives, and in different denominationally-founded-and-operated colleges, are, in part a form of reviewing and enriching the learning and the experience of this scribe, hopefully along with those readers who find  the subject interesting.

There is a unique perspective, purpose and intent to the various disciplines associated with spiritual theology, from the perspectives and purposes and intent of such contemporary subjects and activities as ‘yoga’ and ‘meditation’ and ‘retreat’ in a secular context. While there may be overlap and some common threads, trends and perspectives, the theological foundation retains, no, actually emphasizes the search for God….not psychic and emotional harmony and peace for its own sake. And the question of God, evokes, indeed even begs the question, ‘what is theology?’

Britannica.com says this in answer to that question:

Theology: study of the nature of God and the relationship of the human and divine. The term was first used in the works of Plato and other Greek philosophers to refer to the teaching of myth, but the discipline expanded within Christianity and has found application  in all theistic religions. It examines doctrines concerning such subjects as sin, faith, and grace and considers the terms of God’s covenant with humankind in matters such as salvation and eschatology. Theology typically takes for granted the authority of a religious teacher or the validity of a religious experience. It is distinguished from philosophy in being concerned with justifying and explicating faith, rather than questioning the underlying assumptions of such faith, but it often employs quasi-philosophical methods.

Attending church services as children, accompanied by parents and/or guardians, was, ‘once upon a time,’ considered a ‘normal’ and ‘expected’ activity that was an essential aspect of ‘child-rearing’ especially by those parents who had, themselves, been through a similar regime. Whatever might have been the motives of parents/guardians that might have included:

 moral discipline, social interaction, social respectability, transmission/inculcation of cultural stories and myths of the faith and culture, some link of the child to God and the universe, learning to sing in a choir, even perhaps learning to lead….there might have been any combination of these and other motives, whether they were ever articulated or remained silent, they had to under gird the family ‘activity’ and routine.

Words in hymns, biblical verses, homilies, prayers, and liturgies comprised the basic language of the experience of the child and the parent, along with the rhythms and melodies, the moods and atmospherics and the ‘ceremonial’ aspects of what was clearly an attempt to ‘create’ what might be called ‘a closeness’ to God, that was designed to be different than the atmosphere, mood, language, images and perceptions and attitudes of ‘business, schools, hospitals, courts, and political institutions.

The subjects of the words, thoughts, perceptions, attitudes and inherent ‘beliefs’ or shared attitudes, perceptions and opinions were significantly different from the subjects of all other human activities and seemed to have an ‘over-riding’ perhaps ethereal or ephemeral presence ‘in the air’ of all the other human activities, at least for those who considered themselves ‘participants’ of the religious framework.

Those early years of regular participation, irrespective of the degree of attention, concentration, interest, comfort and assimilation of the young person, like a kind of ‘soil-preparation’ for a building or some architectural/infrastructure erection, lie deeply buried in the unconscious of each young person. Consider the experience to be ‘church experience’ as opposed to other kinds of experience, such as participation on a sport team, or a part-time job, or a personal hobby, or even ‘dinner-time at the family meal. Of course, each of these experiential settings carried with it a kind of ‘sensate, as well as perceptual and cognitive/intellectual/emotional impact. On reflection, perhaps we could say that a kind of ‘gestalt’ of images, ideas, personalities, notions, attitudes, words, songs, tunes and rhythms began to flow into something akin to a contemporary ‘soft-ware’ program, overlaid on the innate natural biological, psychological, emotional, and ‘spiritual’ hardware with which each of us is born.

Sophomoric questions like:

·      ‘Is there a God?’

·      Do I believe in evolution?

·      Is there a Hell? A Heaven? And afterlife?

·      What is the meaning and purpose of death?

·      If there is a God, why is there so much pain inflicted by some people on others? Why does God permit such evil?

·      What is the relation between God and evil?

·      Does believing in God make me ‘more righteous’ or more highly judged?

·      Is God part of a collection of myths?

·      What is the difference between myth and history?

·      Does God ‘hear’ me when I pray? …how could I tell?

                                                                                      …….etc….

The innocence, naivety and immaturity of such questions is implicit in their design. And as they continuing to linger whether in our conscious thought, or under-the-surface of consciousness somewhere in our unconscious, we continue, to a greater or lesser degree continue to ponder them as an intimate part of our journey….or at least some of us do.

The issue of science versus religion, emerged for some of us at the time of the Watson and Crick discovery of the DNA molecule when the Zoology professor assured us that such a discovery was not antithetical to a belief in God. Similar scientific ‘discoveries’ have seemingly easily and invariably been accommodated by, or adapted to, whatever fundamentals of whatever form and substance of Christianity seemed to be evolving within, at least in the case of this scribe.

Reading the Bible, which seemed somewhat normal, if not expected, while ingested and digested at an adolescent stage, nevertheless, offered a kind of ‘image’ and perspective that seemed to endorse compassion, empathy, curiosity,  enthusiasm and tolerance, if there was/is any meaning and truth and validity to the notion that God is love. And that concept seemed to be such a basic cornerstone and touchstone to someone seeking love in all of its iterations, faces and places. Such a basic premise, whether it ranks at the top of the values ascribed to God or not, had a prominent place in my perceptions, attitudes, and apperceptions. And, to repeat the narrative, when I listened to a ‘Christian clergy’ utter the unthinkable, “If you are Roman Catholic, you are going to Hell,” I revolted, physically, emotionally and intellectually. This did not come close to comporting with or being congruent with what I had understood from my reading. In short, at sixteen, I unequivocally deemed such a statement ‘heretical’ and unacceptable. I refused to attend henceforth (without a peep of objection, as I recall, from my parents!)

Perhaps that experience of what God was not (implying what God is), that touchstone to which I had ‘attached’ my faith image, has provided fuel for the continuing search for the ensuing seven decades. And almost as if both an inflection point had occurred as well as a ‘trajectory’ for continuing search for the thoughts of others who, themselves were engaged in a similar journey, I seem to have been turned toward more of this ‘searching….for God, for love, for understanding, for integration, for individuation, for meaning, and for whatever might be ‘behind’ whatever the world was talking or writing about.

Moralizing, as compared with foundational political understanding and rhetoric comprised much of the editorializing that went into newspaper columns and radio editorials….although there had to be some hints of a political perspective hidden somewhere therein. Questions too as to whether or not to seek a similar path for our children after they were born, to the one I had experienced from my parents, (about Christian education and church attendance) surfaced as relevant, if not as compelling as decades earlier. Discussions with clergy of various faith backgrounds accompanied and supported my curiosity, and again ‘my experience’ in their company was quite different (at least in my perception) from associating with other professionals including teachers and municipal politicians.

On reflection, it may have been that these men were open to, even enthusiastic about, discussions that explored perspectives, opinions, sentiments, and the intimate relationship between ideas and the human being. Of course, ideas about God were integral to those conversations. Their individual paths, strengths, perceptions, attitudes and even beliefs were like orchestral music to me over coffee, whether in their study or the coffee shop.

Have I been ‘experiencing’ God in these environments? I have and had the perception, and even the attitude that I am/was at least in a search for whatever God might be….without knowing, concluding or certainly not being ‘manipulated’ by or into those experiences. Poems like Paradise Lost, and novels like Canticle for Leibowitz, among others, posed both existential personal questions and similar existential questions for the planet and human race….all of them somewhat and somehow ‘gripping’ in their significance. Was it the epic nature of the Milton poem, and the scope of the Miller novel that grabbed my attention? Have I been, all this while, seeking the unfindable, the unfathomable, the ineffable as a kind of highly attractive (addictive) pursuit that demands more than my mind, my body, my brain, my spirit and my imagination?

It seems as if my mind and perception have a kind of ‘funnel’ into which all of my sensate, ideational, emotional and imaginative experiences are nudged into the ‘processor’ that continues to ask, ‘what does God want of me?” It is not only an intellectual question, or a psychological or philosophical or even a literary question….it includes and exceeds all of those ‘branches’ and even trees of human experience. I rarely, if even, use “God talk” in my personal encounters. I find that both offensive and presumptive. I have never sought to ‘convert’ anyone, either prior to or while engaged in active ecclesial ministry. Nor have I ever engaged with a person whose faith was so ‘offensive’ or objectionable that I felt I had to confront. Once, when asked by another clergy to engage in a penitential for her, after she considered it necessary after having dismissed Mormons calling at her door, I refused, on the premise that her confrontation was both authentic and spiritually and religiously appropriate. Her Christian discipleship had prompted and supported her confrontation, in my view.

I continue to seek the perceptions, attitudes and beliefs of indigenous peoples, as well as those of other world faiths, especially the Abrahamic faiths, from a perspective that seeks to find common ground, without ignoring or dismissing the points of contention. Indeed, I have, in this space,  urged all Abrahamic faiths to join in a world-wide project to rescue as many refugees, migrants, victims and homeless as they can. Jointly, rather than in competition, seems much more appropriate, especially today, than for each to attempt to ‘compete’ and to ‘out-gun’ the recruitment process, as if these faiths were little more than religious corporations.

And while the notion that God speaks to individuals, it is my firm ‘conviction’ that the notion of ‘saving the world’ as a mandate from whatever ‘God’ one worships has never been more front-of-mind, inescapable and ethically, morally, spiritually, religiously. From a ‘faith’ perspective, inspired and motivated by whatever relationship we all consider we have with God, human beings are, it seems without rational proof, to be the case that we are all inherently religious.

Perhaps without in any sense being conscious of wanting to be part of something to which every other human being is an integral and intimate component, I have inherited what Karen Armstrong expresses in her phrase ‘homo religious’. Here are some of her words, from her work, The Case for God:

Religion was not something tacked on to the human condition, an optional extra imposed on people by unscrupulous priests. The desire to cultivate a sense of the transcendent may be the defining human characteristic. In about 9000 BCE, when human beings developed agriculture and were no longer dependent on animal meat, the old hunting rites lost some of their appeal and people ceased to visit the caves (Laseaux). But they did not discard religion altogether. Instead they developed a new set of myths and rituals  based on the fecundity of the soil that filled the men and women of the Neolithic age with religious awe.  Tilling the fields became a ritual that replace the hunt, and the nurturing Earth took the place of the Animal Master. Before the modern period, most men and women were naturally inclined to religion and they were prepared to work at it…..Like art, the truths of religion require the disciplined cultivation of a different mode of normal consciousness. The cave experience always began with the disorientation of utter darkness, which annihilated normal habits of mind. Human beings are so constituted that periodically they seek our ekstasis, a stepping outside the norm. Today people who no longer find it in a religious setting resort to other outlets: music, dance, art, sex, drugs, or sport. We make a point of seeking out these experiences that touch us deeply within and lift us momentarily beyond ourselves. At such times, we fell that we inhabit our humanity more fully than usual and experience an enhancement of being. (Armstrong, op.cit. p. 9-10) 

Searching for God # 107

 From the last post in this series:

spiritual exegesis of the Bible, virginity, monasticism, and the hagiographic ideal….these four topics follow from the last post in this series. Brief introductions to each of these topics follow here, plus an introduction to Origen,  Augustine and spiritual disciplines of ‘reading for holiness, lectio divina, and ‘the pure gold of silence’.

Spiritual Exegesis of Scripture

Even in those first centuries, ‘the fathers of the church were concerned when they interpreted Scripture to uncover a meaning that lay hidden beneath the more obvious literal teaching…The history of the spiritual interpretation of Scripture—sometimes referred to an allegorization—is a complex one. Its first major proponent was Origen, who found three levels of meaning in Scripture-- literal, ‘psychic,’ and spiritual—and set down rules for when a particular passage was not be interpreted in one way rather than another…..

John Cassian, in the early fifth century, distinguished among three different ‘spiritual’ levels of meaning in addition to the literal one: the tropological, the allegorical, and the anagogical. The tropological level carried the moral sense or meaning of the passage, the allegorical pointed to a deeper mystery, and the anagogical raised the mind to heaven…..(A)llegorizers (of the Old Testament)…generally brought to light…simply the mystery of Christ and the Church. They redeemed the Song of Songs for Christian readership, for example, by seeing in the bridegroom an image of Christ and in the bride an image of the Church or the Christian soul. They saw baptism in the Flood, the Eucharist in the manna in the desert, the Trinity in Abraham’s visitors at Mamre, and numerous other Christian truths scattered throughout the Old Testament. Mass and O’Donnell, Spiritual Traditions for the Contemporary Church, p. 35-36)

Virginity

Virgins were exceedingly rare in both Judaism and pagan religions, and such virginity as existed in paganism (of which the vestal virgins are the most famous example) was, in any event, not a lifelong commitment. By contrast, in Christianity virginity was understood to be lifelong and enjoyed wide favor. Virginity was a state in many ways similar to that or martyrdom, with the virgin being explicitly compared to the martyr…The virgin, like the martyr, had an enviably close relationship to Christ. Although either men or women could be virgins—and it is the case that virgins were first spoken of in the masculine gender in the writings of the Fathers—virginity was early on given feminine characteristics. Whether intentionally or not, this allowed for the image of the virgin as the bride of Christ, with its concomitant notions of fidelity and even eroticism, borrowed from the language of the Song of Songs. As the bride of Christ, the virgin symbolized the Church, which was itself virgin and bride. (Ibid, 0. 36)

Monasticism

Monasticism, after all, implied virginity, and the monk’s model, like the virgin’s was martyrdom….(T)he beginnings of monasticism, as we know it in the late third and early fourth centuries in Egypt. Correspond with the discovery of the desert as a place of spiritual retreat. From then on, the history of monasticism and of monastic spirituality is inextricably linked with at least the idea of the desert, if not the reality of it. (Ibid, p. 38)

The Hagiographic Ideal

By this is meant the model of sanctity or holiness proposed by the ancient writers when they portray the lives of the saints…..(T)he saint is close to God. The proximity to the Divine comes through prayer (often characterized as constant) through divine visitations, and through possessing the Spirit of Christ. Intimacy with God is manifested by miraculous powers—sometimes exercised in the most improbable ways, as when Martin stops in mid-air a pine tree about to fall on him. The cultivation of such intimacy demands not only the more usual ascetical practices, such as fasting, but also extended periods of seclusion… Among the saints’ most characteristic virtues are humility, charity, even toward enemies, steadfastness in the face of demonic attack, absolute single-mindedness about divine matters, a precocious maturity and discretion, and a burning zeal for the faith, whether against heretics or pagans…..The saint, as bearers of the Divine, is transparent to God. The elements of the marvelous, the improbable feats of asceticism and deeds of love, are meant to stretch the imagination beyond the particulate martyr or saint to the transcendent God. (Ibid, p. 38-39)

Two figures that stand out in the history of the early church, Origen and Augustine, are singled out by Mass and O’Donnell, for additional explication.

The spirituality of Origen (ca. 185-ca.254)…..is marked by the absolute and explicit primacy of the immaterial and invisible over the visible and material, with the consequent tendency to demean the body. There is for him a whole interior and immaterial world corresponding to the exterior one, especially in the realm of the anthropological, where we may speak of both an inner and outer self, each with itw own faculties. To Origan we own the famous idea of the five interior senses that mirror those of the body. His spiritualizing proclivity leads him to emphasize the invisible word over the visible sacraments and to see the sacraments in terms of the Word who is the second person of the Trinity. (Ibid, p. 39)

Augustine (354-430) is perhaps best known as the author of The Confessions, a spiritual autobiography unprecedented in its own time and unmatched in its genre to this day. In it Augustine establishes, with a sure grasp of  both psychology and theology, the pattern of a conversion to Christianity, with its gradual progress, its fits and starts, and its culmination in the discovery not only of God but of the true self as well. God and the soul, he had remarked, in an earlier treatise, were the only things worth knowing….He isolates pride as the chief of the vices and, as a result, lays great emphasis on humility. Augustine not only is an absolutist with regard to truth, having written two treatises that condemn lying of any sort whatever, but also discovers in truth its affective element, thus removing it from the solely intellectual sphere….Of all the Fathers, Augustine is the most unambiguous about grace and the necessity of grace for accomplishing anything good at all is a theme that recurs throughout his writings, especially in those directed against the Pelagians. The Pelagian heresy, which put the accomplishment of anything good well within human grasp and radically undervalued the role of grace, relied on ascetical practices to achieve what for Augustine, could ultimately only be brought about by a divine gift: grace…..Finally Augustine is the one chiefly responsible for bequeathing to Western Christianity the language with which it customarily expresses mystical experience, that is, that of the soul’s interior ascent to God. (Ibid, p. 40-41)

Part One of this text follows this section on the spirituality of the Early Church, with a practicum in ‘reading for holiness’ (lectio Divina), Monastic Life and a Practicum entitled, The Pure Gold of Silence. Next the authors write about Mendicant Spirituality with a practicum entitled Poverty and Prayer.

On Lectio Divina, they write:

In actual practice lectio is very simple: One finds some private place and begins repeating a text, either taking it from a printed text or remembering it from the liturgy. Let us suppose that the minister has preached on Psalm 23 (‘The Lord is My Shepherd; I shall not want’), and it strikes a chord. We begin to think about it. Ideally we would find a quiet corner and begin actually to ‘mumble’ the text. (Chapter 48 of his famous Rule, St. Benedict insists that the monks not do their lectio in the dormitory, because they could be heard and might disturb those trying to rest.) While mumbling the phrase we would ‘ruminate’ on—ponder it, rest in  it…When in the midst of repeating ‘The Lord is my shepherd’ other thoughts creep in –planning the day, remembering to pick up the dry cleaning—what should we do? Traditional practice says: Go back to the Word, read on a bit further. Use the Word of God as your safeguard, your guide. Don’t fight the Devil; don’t fight yourself. That is God’s business. The only tool Jesus had in the desert was the Word of God—what he had learnt ‘by heart’—and prayer. Calmly, insistently, we must ‘read’ on, and eventually, we will be led into discourse with the Divine. Cone properly, lectio divina is a form of reading that leads to prayer. (Ibid p. 47)

Introducing The Pure Gold of Silence, Mass and O’Donnell write:

Silence is hard. But every spiritual discipline, East or West, modern or traditional, advocates prolonged periods of silence as part of its spiritual training. For example, it was said of one of the Desert Fathers, the fourth-and fifth-century monks who lived in the deserts of Egypt and Palestine, that he kept a rock in his mouth for three years so that he might learn to be silent. For people like ourselves, who are immersed in the daily whirr and hum of the world, this is a radical idea….What is silence? Why is it so important? And why is it so hard? Silence is a complex and multifaceted spiritual reality. First of all, we can say that it is an ascetical function: it is an exercise in self-discipline. We are not used to silence. Every moment of our waking day is filled with sounds and noises, and when there isa moment of quiet, we feel uncomfortable…….(Ibid. p. 73)

In silence, we begin to listen, many for the first time, to who we really are as human beings, not who we wish we were. As we listen to our own  hearts, then, we can communicate our true selves. Initially, it may be a message of anger or pain; however,, it is the beginning of a real self-revelation. And what is prayer is not such a deep communication with God. Without silence there is no true self-awareness or communication. Without silence, there is no prayer. (Ibid, p.75)

Searching for God # 106

A layman's introducion to the often-confusing subject of spirituality with the help of Robin Mass and Gabriel O'Donnell O.P. (Ordo Praedicatorum, Order of Preachers) and their text, Spritual Traditions for the Contemporary Church, 1990.

Given the subtle nuanced and mysterious, ephemeral ineffable and mystical nature of God, not only the word, but the notion, the images, and the many diverse relationships people everywhere have, or perceive they/we have, one of the most mysterious subjects within the broad umbrella of faith and religion is spiritual theology.

What is spiritual theology?

In order to begin, let’s first look at a quote from a ‘functional atheist’ who is planning to enter a three-month stay at a Trappist monastery.

I am going to a Trappist monastery high in the Rockies, to be a monk for three months. And what does it offer? I only dimly know, after having tried to months to explain my decision. I am a theologian--- I spend my life reading, teaching, thinking writing about God. But I must be honest- I have never experienced God, not really. I am embarrassed by piety; I am ill at east with those who thrive on God talk; I have no awareness of what one might mean by the ‘presence of God.’     (Spiritual Traditions for the Contemporary Church, Robin Mass and Gabriel O’Donnell, p. 11)

In their introduction, The Theory That Undergirds Our Practice, Mass and O’Donnell write these words:

The literature of spiritual theology typically focuses on question of the ‘interior life,’ a phrase that describes the inner search for God and the development of a relationship with Christ that is hidden within our hearts and minds. ..Since the seventeenth century, it has been the custom to divide the study of theology into two basic categories, relating (roughly) to theory and practice. In Roman Catholicism, these categories are designated ‘dogmatic theology’ and ‘moral theology.’ In Protestantism, with both the nomenclature and methodology differing, one speaks of  ‘systematic theology’ and ‘Christian ethics.’ Dogmatic and systematic theology deal with confessional statements. Their goal is precise and careful definition of all forms of doctrinal formulation. Moral theology and ethics deal with how the Christian person lives out the implications of the doctrinal confession. (Ibid, p.13)

Sadly, already this scribe’s eyes have become somewhat glazed over, given the highly rational and structured, disciplined and linear integration of these concepts, positing the subject and the issues of one’s faith to a philosophical, scholarly, rational and empirical foundation that omits something less scientific, less scholarly, far less rational and far more mystical, personal experience.

Nevertheless, ‘Christians of every age—with the possible exception of our own—have been preoccupied with the question, How can I be more perfectly Christian? (Ibid, p. 14)

Maslow’s actualization, Jung’s individuation, Frankl’s search for meaning (logotherapy), and the issue of an ‘existential moment’ (when one discerns one’s own meaninglessness)…..and the pivotal and transformational moments of human life, loss, divorce, death, trauma….. all of these concepts, notions and moments have the potential to shift marginally,  alter dramatically, or even break one’s psychic/emotional/spiritual equanimity. However one’s life path opens to, embraces, endures and/or celebrates dramatic change, many consider such moments to be metaphorically related to, even integrated with, death.

 (More about this in another post, given that at least this scribe’s vision of life cannot be separated, divided or even disconnected from death. The notion that death is ‘evil’ because it is unnatural, or a consequence of sin, or the ‘last enemy’ has little to no relevance for this scribe. Barth’s reference to death as ‘nothingness,’ or ‘absurdity’ form both a theological and psychological perspective leaves this scribe askance. Similarly, like Funk, and others, anticipating an apocalyptic rapture is also a form of escape; as a Christian, I am deeply concerned and focused on the l life here and now.)

For some Christians, hitting ‘rock-bottom’ has the potential to ‘save’ one spiritually, through a form of repentance, rebirth, forgiveness, and the accompanying notion of being ‘born again,’ having accepted Christ as one’s personal saviour.

The convergence, overlap, inter-connection and relation of one’s cognitive, emotional, psychic life with one’s spiritual/faith/belief/choices is one begging mutual recognition, respect, integration and blending, as if in an alchemical fire, from mystics, scholars, agnostics, atheists, and Christian faithful alike. Religionists and theologians have, intermittently, tentatively and cautiously entered and even briefly embraced the psychological and the philosophical as ‘related’ to, and yet definitely separate from, one’s faith and belief in God.

Are we, consciously and/or unconsciously, attempting to imitate Christ, considered as a model of the perfection we all strive to attain? And with that ‘attainment’ are we then anticipating our ‘reward’ of an eternal afterlife in heaven?

Are we in training to first consider and then envision, and then enact such an imitative life? In the early church, are the ascetics, those committed to a life of celibacy, models for others? Are ascetics ‘getting ready’ for God?

In the early church, (approximately the first six or seven centuries) such questions as the divinity/humanity of Christ occupied theologians, and the historic oscillation of the theme or issue found articulate and scholarly men  on both sides. Also, good spirits or angels and evil spirits, demons, consumed considerable energy, thought, imagination and documentation. The concept of the meaning of salvation, through the mystery of Christ, brought about divisions about the divinity of Christ. Was Christ inferior to God (Arianism) versus the negation of Christ’s human soul or mind (Appolinarianism)? Nestorianism ‘divided the human and the divine natures of Christ; Monophysitism denied Christ’s human nature; Monothelitism claimed that Christ has only one will…..If they overemphasized either his humanity or his divinity, it was because they were convinced that either a ‘more human’ or a ‘more divine’ Christ would be a better savior. In other words, it was the issue of human salvation that propelled their speculations. (Ibid, p. 27)

Liturgy and preaching were also important to the early church.

It should be noted…that the liturgy’s preeminent place in early Christianity stemmed from its relatively exclusive claim on the believer’s attention. When Christians gathered, it was for no other purpose, as a rule, that to celebrate Baptism or the Eucharist, to pray the psalms, or to hear an instruction of some sort….(I)t is thanks to the liturgy that the Christians of these early centuries lived through the seasons of Lent and Easter (or Pentecost) and the great feasts of the Church in particularly vivid fashion. (Ibid, p. 31-32)

Martyrdom, too played a significant role in the early church.

The martyrs, who took their name from the fact that they witnessed to Christ by the shedding of their own blood, were seen by the early Church as the persons closest to the Lord, and this vital likeness provided the single greatest claim to the respect and reverence that other Christians willingly gave them…..So intimate were martyrs with the Lord that it could be said that the was suffering in them, and this, in turn, had the effect of alleviating their suffering…..By the end of the second century we learn that martyrdom was considered a form of baptism for those who had never been baptized, while for those who had already received the sacrament but had fallen into sin, it was an opportunity for forgiveness……..(T)he monk was a martyr to his daily routine and his struggle with evil spirits. The virgin was a martyr to the temptations against purity she experienced. Asceticism in general was a martyrdom, and self-imposed exile, according to Ambrose, was even better than martyrdom. (Ibid. p. 33-34)

Before they conclude their ‘introductory chapter, Mass and O’Donnell list four topics that had significance for church history: spiritual exegesis of the Bible, virginity, monasticism, and the hagiographic ideal (the model of sanctity or holiness proposed by the ancient writers when they portray the lives of the saints.)

We will return to them in a succeeding post….

At this point, it is clear that the traditional cornerstones of imitating Christ, attempting to have a relationship to God (especially to Christ, following the Crucifixion and Resurrection, rather than attending to the historic Jesus, as Funk reminds us), sacrifice and formal liturgy, even prior to the introduction of wide-spread literacy, were becoming deeply embedded in the Church’s ethos, culture, belief system and personal life choices. Instruction in the faith accompanied the homilies, and while discipline could still be lax and intermittent, the pathways were begun for future centuries.

To be continued……