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……

Reflections on Hedges' piece on Trump...borrowing gratefully and liberally from James Hillman

 Reflections on the Hedges' piece:

First with respect to both reverence and shame, these are both responses, emotions and conscious, and the question of whether their absence helps to define soul remains. Indeed, like the difference between kataphatic and apophatic, in expressing first what we know about God and second, what we do not know,respectively,  a similar paradox seems to present itself here in attempting to depict, comprehend and ‘grasp’ soul. Describing something, anything, by what it is not, or by an absence of what would be present if it were to be present, is an exercise somewhat foreign to a literal, empirical epistemology.

Another dimension in the exploration of a subject like ‘soul’ and ‘soul-less’ is that, as in psychopathy, much of what is said and written is at least in part a reaction from persons observing what might be considered such a condition. And, to a large extent, reactions to others with such a descriptor, whether clinical or lay, are generally highly negative and potentially projections. From a psychological perspective, few researchers and therapists are even inclined to begin treatment for psychopaths, given the inherent ‘disagreeable’ and ‘intolerable’ features at the get-go.

Rejecting any ‘splitting of hairs’ whether semantically, cognitively or philosophically, Hedges asserts that the occupant of the Oval Office exceeds, indeed shatters, all conventional perceptions and attitudes of what comprises human normality in many different ways. It is not only that all constitutional guidelines and benchmarks, expectations and law are being thwarted, dismissed, trampled and, likely in the eyes of the man, destroyed forever, providing an open and free field for the aspiring tyrant to grab and to retain power for his life and for his political inheritors who might follow. It is also that all norms of perceptions of reality, physical, numerical, military, sociological, medical, and even pedagogical are no longer adhered to, respected or affirmed. Indeed, they are both literally and metaphorically being trashed, as if they were plastic toys from toys-r-us, subject to smashing by a kid in a malevolent temper tantrum.

To all human sensibilities, this person occupant of the Oval Office exhibits attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, opinions and convictions that defy the considered attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, opinions and convictions of what have been called ‘ordinary people’. Defiance, deliberate, impetuous, impulsive, irrational and what many would term ‘perverted’ or ‘deviant’….are all words that have been and continue to be deployed in describing him. The question of to what degree are such epithets expressions of the darkest and deepest unconscious shadow of those engaged in the depictions is a matter for scholars for at least the balance of this twenty-first century, if not beyond. As journalist/theologian, Hedges doubtless is quite aware of the potential of his own projections.

What is also true is that ‘conventional’ or normal adjectives that include leadership style, ideology, political gamesmanship, decorum, modesty, decorum, and even historic and political tradition and heritage are all also defied, and the resulting dominance of mass media, many argue compellingly, feeds into, and even emboldens, the motivation of dominance that defines the persona of the man.

Of course, there is a biological, human ‘will’ at work, that remains apparently beyond the scope of many of the clinical professionals to ‘diagnose.’ And, many of us would disagree with Schopenhauer’s equation of soul and will. Dostoevsky’s ‘failure to love,’ on the other hand, has a ring of resonance that strikes a note of consensus with many of us.

The word ‘soul’ has the benefit of opening the door to a less clinical, less political, less moral and ethical perspective that seeks to judge, condemn and dismiss. “Soul” has been, for a considerable time, a word associated with one’s faith, one’s religion and one’s relationship with the divine.

The American psychologist, James Hillman, has introduced an innovative and imaginative notion of soul in and through his archetypal psychology. Evoking John Keats, the Romantic poet, Hillman quotes him from a letter the poet wrote to his brother: Call the world if you please, ‘The vale of soul-making.’ Then you will find out the use of the world.

Hillman continues: From this perspective the human adventure is a wandering through the vale of the world for the sake of making soul. Our life is psychological, and the purpose of life is to make psyche of it, to find connections between life and soul. (James Hillman, Re-Visioning Psychology, p.xv)

Almost immediately, he writes:

By soul, I mean first of all, a perspective rather than a substance, a viewpoint toward things rather than a thing itself. This perspective is reflective; it mediates events and makes differences between ourselves and everything that happens. Between us and events, between the doer and the deed, there is a reflective moment-and soul-making means differentiating this middle ground…..Soul appears as a factor independent if the events in which we are immersed. Though I cannot identify soul with anything else, I also can never grasp it by itself apart from other things, perhaps because it is a like a reflection in a flowing mirror, or like the moon which mediates only borrowed light….First, ‘soul’ refers to the deepening of events into experiences; second, the significance soul makes possible, whether in love or in religious concern, derives from its special relation with death. And third, by soul I mean the imaginative possibility in our nature, the experiencing through reflective speculation, dream image and fantasy—that mode which recognizes all realities as primarily symbolic or metaphorical. (Ibid, p. xvi)

From the lay perspective of this scribe, it would appear that no event for the president has any resonance beyond what it might mean to his approval/disapproval ratings, merely another ‘sign’ of his own absolute perfection and invulnerability to being questioned, doubted or certainly challenged. There is, or appears to be, not a single second of reflection, pausing, meditating, pondering, wondering….it is all action all the time, as if only by and through action can he sustain his own ‘need’ for attention, adulation, and pseudo-worship. And as for any relationship or connection to death, that too seems incongruous with all of his public rants, firings, threats, steroidal-lies and bravado, except perhaps as another aspect of his extreme and tragic blindness to his own death, and his adoption of public denial. His diagnosis of the ‘alleged’ attempted assassination, ‘Saved by God!’ could indicate a thespian megalomanic’s posture, as a significant component of the permanent, unidentified mask or persona.

Hillman references, Ake Hultkranez, whose special field is the Amerindians, (and who) says that soul ‘originates in an image’ and is conceived in the form of an image. Plato in his Myth of Er uses a similar word, paradeigma a basic form encompassing your entire destiny. Though this accompanying image shadowing your life is the bearer of fate and fortune, it is not a moral instructor or to be confused with conscience. (Hillman, The Soul’s Code, p. 9)

For Hillman not only is the ‘soul’ or daimon not a moral instructor, there is also, among human beings what he calls the ‘bad seed’. And as his begins his exploration of the ‘bad seed,’ Hillman gives us a picture of contemporary American culture, closer to home than Hitler from history.

Faceless corporate boards and political administrators make decisions that wreck communities, ruin families, and despoil nature. The successful psychopath pleases the crown and wins elections. The think glass of the TV tube and it chameleon-like versatility in displaying whatever is wanted favors distance, coldness, and the front of charm, as do many of the sleek accoutrements of high station in the political, legal, religious and corporate structures. Anyone who rises in a world that worships success should be suspect, for this is an age of psychopathy. The psychopathy today no longer slinks like  a dirty rat through the dark alleys of black-and-white 1930’a crime films, but parades through the boulevards in a bullet-proof limo on state visits, runs entire nations, and sends delegates to the U.N. Hitler therefore is old style and can divert us from seeing through the mask worm by the demonic today, and tomorrow. The demonic that is timeless nonetheless enters the world disguised in contemporary fashion, dressed to kill. (James Hillman, The Soul’s Code, p.215-216)

And then, after listing the demonstrable traits of Hitler (cold heart, Hell fire, wolf, anality, suicides of women, freaks, humorless Hitler,) Hillman writes a prophetic warning in this book, published in 1996:

Our republic should learn this lesson from Hitler, for we might one day vote into power a hero who wins a giant TV trivia contest and educate children to believe the Information Superhighway is the road to knowledge. If one clue to psychopathy is a trivial mind expressing itself in high-sounding phrases, then an education emphasizing facts rather than thinking, and patriotic, politically or religiously correct ‘values’ rather than critical judgement may produce a nation of achieving high school graduates who are also psychopaths.

The daimon’s transcendence places it outside time, which it enters only by growing down. In order to grasp the biography of the daimon from the chronology of a life, we must ‘read life backward,’  by means of intuition…Intuition sees everything at once, given as a whole. Time strings things out into a chain of successive events leading toward a finishing line. (Ibid, p. 225)

After citing such potential background influences as ‘early traumatic conditioning,  hereditary taint, group mores, a choice mechanism, karma and zeitgeist, Hillman arrives at ‘The Shadow’ in his exploration of the ‘bad seed.’

Apart from biological and environmental factors, the psychological propensity to destroy exists within all human beings. Violence, crime, murder, and cruelty belong to the human soul as its shadow. The Bible gives this shadow due respect by issuing outright, as five of the Ten Commandments, prohibitions against theft, murder, adultery, lying and envy. These universal tendencies, laten in everyone, are the basis for protective societal forms, political organization, and moral constraints. If the human soul had no shadow, who’d need lawyers, criminologists, or confessors? At any moment, the autonomy of the shadow may emerge like Mr. Hyde from Dr. Jekyll, or come slowly to the fore under extreme conditions, as in the novel, Lord of the Flies…..Hitler knew the shadow all too well, indulged it, and was obsessed by it, and strove to purge it; but he could not admit it in himself, seeing only its projected form as Jews, Slavs, intellectual, foreign, weak, and sick. (Ibid, p.233-234)

And then, echoing, with a different perspective than Hedges, Hillman comes to what he calls the Lacuna, as a portion of his depiction of the bad seed.

Lacuna: Something fundamentally human is missing. Your character, your personality inventory has a hole in it. Your crimes are not due to the presence of the shadow (since everyone ins subject to that universal archetype), but rather to a specific absence, the lack of human feeling. Adolf Guggenbuhl-Craig’s theory calls this the missing essential, eros. Catholic theology called the absence privatio boni, deprivation of goodness, as we say colloquially, ‘that boy is no good.’

Other traits may fill in the absence: impulsiveness, (the short fuse), shortsightedness, (immediate gratification outweighs long-term consequences), repetitive rigidities, emotional poverty, stunted intellect, imperviousness to guilt and remorse (the Teflon shrug), projection and denial—all these are noted, but principal and more basic of that erotic lacuna, the cold absence, that inability to feel for and into another loving creature. (Ibid, p. 234)

Finally, Hillman sums up:

The call (the daimon bad seed) offers transcendence, becoming as necessary to a person’s life on earth as performance to (Judy) Garland, battle to Patton, painting to Picasso. As the potential for art and thought were given with the acorn, so is the potential for demonic crime.

Quoting Jack Kaz, Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual attractions of Doing Evil, p. 315), Hillman writes:

….people don’t understand….People in the life ain’t looking for no home and grass in the yard and shit like that. We the show people. The glamour people. Come on the set with the finest car, the finest woman, the finest vines. Hear people talking about you. Hear the bar get quiet when you walk in the door. You make something out of nothing. (Ibid, p 235)

Chris Hedges: Trump has no Soul

Mar 30, 2026

Trump Has No Soul

Trump is dangerous not simply because of his imbecility and unbridled narcissism, but because he lacks the core attributes of empathy and understanding that define the human soul.

By Chris Hedges / substack.com

The most profound realities of human existence are often the ones that can never be measured or quantified. Wisdom. Beauty. Truth. Compassion. Courage. Love. Loneliness. Grief. The struggle to face our own mortality. A life of meaning.

But perhaps the greatest conundrum is the concept of a soul. Do we have a soul? Do societies have souls? And, most basically, what is a soul?

Philosophers and theologians, including Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Arthur Schopenhauer, have all grappled with the concept of a soul, with Schopenhauer preferring to define the mystical force within us as will. Sigmund Freud used the Greek word psyche. But most have accepted, whatever the definition, some version of a soul’s existence.

While the concept of the soul is opaque, soullessness is not. Soullessness means something inside of us is dead. Basic human feelings and connections are shut down. Those without souls lack empathy. I saw the soulless in war. Those so calcified inside they kill without any demonstrable feeling or remorse.

The soulless exist in a state of insatiable self-worship. The idol they have erected to themselves must be constantly fed. It demands a never-ending stream of victims. It demands abject obedience and subservience, publicly on display at Trump cabinet meetings.

Psychologists, I expect, would define the soulless as psychopathic.

I write this not to get into an esoteric debate about the soul, but to warn what happens when those without souls seize power. I want to write about what is lost and the consequences of that loss. I want to caution you that death, our death — as individuals and as a collective — mean nothing to those without souls.

This makes the soulless very, very dangerous.

Those who lack souls have no concept of their own limitations. They feed off a bottomless and self-delusional optimism, giving to their cruelest deeds and bitterest defeats, the patina of goodness, success and morality.

Those without souls — as Paul Woodruff writes in his small masterpiece “Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue” — do not have the capacity for reverence, awe, respect and shame. They believe they are gods.

The soulless cannot respond rationally to reality. They live in self-constructed echo chambers. They hear only their own voice. Civic, familial, legal and religious rituals and ceremonies that transport those with souls into the realm of the sacred, into a space where we acknowledge our shared humanity, forcing us, at least for a moment, to humble ourselves, are meaningless to those without souls. Those without souls cannot see because they cannot feel.

The soulless, enslaved by narcissism, greed, a lust for power and hedonism, cannot make moral choices. Moral choices for them do not exist. Truth and falsehoods are identical. Life is transactional. Is it good for me? Does it make me feel omnipotent? Does it give me pleasure? This stunted existence banishes them from the moral universe.

Human beings, including children, are commodities to the soulless, objects to exploit for pleasure or profit or both. We saw this soullessness displayed in the Epstein Files. And it was not only Epstein. Huge sections of our ruling class including billionaires, Wall Street financiers, university presidents, philanthropists, celebrities, Republicans, Democrats and media personalities, consider us worthless.

Thucydides understood. Reverence is not a religious virtue but a moral virtue. Woodruff went so far as to define it as a political virtue. Reverence for shared ideals, Woodruff writes, is the only thing that can bind us together. It is the only attribute that ensures mutual trust. Reverence allows us to remember what it means to be human. It reminds us that there are forces we cannot control, forces that we will never understand, forces of life that we did not create and must honor and protect — including the natural world — and forces that allow us moments of transcendence, or what in religious terms, we call grace.

“If you desire peace in the world, do not pray that everyone share your beliefs,” Woodruff writes. “Pray instead that all may be reverent.”

Trump’s celebration of himself is made manifest in his stunted vocabulary of superlatives and his rebranding of national monuments. He tears down the East Wing to construct his gaudy and oversized $400 million ballroom. He proposes a 250-foot-tall memorial arch, adorned with gilded statues and eagles, in honor of himself, an arch that will be bigger than the Arch of Triumph erected by North Korean dictator Kim II Sung in Pyongyang. He is planning a “National Garden of American Heroes” that will include life-size statues of celebrities, sports figures, political and artistic figures deemed by Trump to be politically correct, along with, of course, himself. His face adorns the sides of federal buildings on huge, well-lit banners. He changed the name of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts to the Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. He added his name to the headquarters of the U.S. Institute of Peace. He has announced a new fleet of U.S. naval vessels called Trump-class battleships.

These are monuments not only to Trump, but to a perverted ethic, to the insatiable self-worship that defines the inner void of the soulless. Monuments, houses of worship and national shrines dedicated to justice, self-sacrifice and equality, which demand from us humility and introspection, which require the capacity for reverence, mystify the soulless.

The soulless have no sense of aesthetics. They have no sense of balance, symmetry and proportion. The bigger, the gaudier, the more encrusted in gold leaf, the better. They seek to shut out everything and everyone else, to herd us with offerings to the feet of Moloch.

When the soulless wage war it is part of this perverted drive to build a monument to themselves. When war goes badly, as it is going in Iran, the soulless, unable to read reality, demand greater levels of violence and destruction. The more they fail, the more they are convinced everyone has betrayed them, the more they descend into a tyrannical rage.

Trump, potentially facing a humiliating debacle in Iran, will lash out like a wounded beast. It does not matter how many suffer and die. It does not matter what weapons, including nuclear weapons, must be employed. He must triumph, or at least appear to triumph.

“Fathers and teachers, I ponder, ‘What is hell?’” Father Zossima asks in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazov.” “I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love.”

This is the plight of the soulless. They seek, in their misery, to make their hell our own.

---

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief. He has taught at Columbia University, New York University, Princeton University, and the University of Toronto.

Searching for God # 105

 Jesus makes clear that all rewards and punishments are intrinsic. According to Jesus, reward is integral to the activity for which it is a reward. The reward for loving one’s neighbor is an unqualified relation to that neighbor. However,  the church developed a doctrine of extrinsic rewards and sanctions to undergird its power and authority. If love is its own reward, why should human beings be rewarded for loving?

This quote, from Robert Funk’s Honest to Jesus, appeared in the last post in this space. Why have I excerpted it and repeated it here?

We live in a culture in which classical conditioning, in and through the design, administration and assessment of success is almost exclusively extrinsic rewards. Even the church operates on the basis of extrinsic rewards. The number of people in pews and dollars in plates is a primary, if not in too many cases, the exclusive focus of the hierarchy in mainline churches. With mainline churches closing at a furious pace, excepting the Roman Catholic church, where there appears to be a surge in numbers seeking ‘admission,’ one has to wonder about the cultural difference between the corporation, the academy, the public square and the ecclesial sanctuary.

And the practice of bargaining with God, ‘if you do this for me, I will…..for you’ is another form of the perhaps unconscious personal, organizational and cultural bias in favour of extrinsic rewards. There is an implicit ‘justice’ or injustice within this mind-set…..if I have ‘done’ this for you, I expect that you can and will do this for me’…..And if that is not reciprocal, then there is a sense of betrayal, often a withdrawal of connection and another reinforcement of the extrinsic reward system.

B.F. Skinner, the author of behaviourism, (from Britannica.org) was an American psychologist and an influential exponent of behaviourism, which views human behaviour in terms of responses to environmental stimuli and favours the controlled, scientific study of responses as the most direct means of elucidating human nature. Skinner was attracted to psychology through the work of the Russian physiologist Ivan Petrovich Pavlov on conditioned reflexes, articles on behaviourism by Bertrand Russell, and the ideas of  John B. Watson, the founder of behaviourism….His experiences in the step-by-step training of research animals led Skinner to  formulate the principles of programmed learning, which he envisioned to be accomplished through the use of  so-called teaching machines. Central to his approach is the concept of reinforcement or reward. The student, learning by use of the machine at his own pace, is rewarded for responding correctly to the  material he is trying to master.

Why such a lengthy explication of behaviourism in a post about ‘intrinsic rewards, from a theological perspective?

The pervasive concepts of behaviourism lie at the foundational of the thought process, and the accompanying attitudes about the nature of reality, that we also live in a culture that, as James Hillman reminds us, operates on the basis of literalism, empiricism and all of the implications of that ‘mind-set’. Objectifying behaviour, through the design and application of extrinsic rewards, impacts our salary grids, our competitive promotional ladders in organizations, our systems of performance reviews, and also our ‘termination’ approaches.

If everything about everyone is measured in numerical digits, of some sort, then one’s value and worth morph into a psychological notion of one’s identity. We but and sell out time, our skills our insights, and our precise attitudes, through such digital manipulation as opinion polls, marketing research, and the like. And once the numbers of people reach a certain benchmark (the one that determines whether or not the bills of the congregation can be and will be paid) the decision is taken to sell the building, and close and lock the doors.

Bells that ring for dogs to learn how to acquire food, for example, in the Pavlov experiments, are one specific application of the classical conditioning of behaviourism in operation. At a base level, perhaps, humans too are conditioned to ‘perform’ like trained seals to the satisfaction of their employer, and are consequently rewarded through one of the various extrinsic reward systems, most of which are embedded in personnel policy and practice.

Those who are less attracted to, or perhaps even completely immune to, the extrinsic reward system, naturally are considered ‘deviant’ and ‘different’ and often even untrustworthy.

Theologically, this extrinsic reward proposition has another profoundly significant and tragic application. Traditionally, the Christian faith has operated on and propagated the notion of an extrinsic reward of an afterlife in Heaven for those who have been saved. Nightly, people like Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist, Billy Graham, appears on some television channels offering ‘salvation’ and forgiveness of sins, for those who ‘give their lives over to Jesus Christ….and there is a phone number on the screen to call to have one of his staff pray for those who call. Such marketing and proselytizing tactics and strategies are, like those ‘pious’ acts of religiosity in public, the antithesis of the spirit of that same Jesus, at least as considered by the participants of the Jesus Seminar. Extrinsic rewards for ‘surrendering’ and for the exclusive status of attaining the rank of being ‘chosen’ so that, with the apocalypse, they will be assured of their place in heaven, while the ‘rest,’ the ‘unsaved’ will be sentenced to Hell…the whole so-called Christian theology, at least this branch of it, relies on, and proudly boasts, an embrace of extrinsic rewards from God, embraced, incarnated and embodied by millions of Christians

Here is another quote from Funk, detailing more of the sinister and self-serving aspects of the extrinsic reward of that apocalyptic heavenly afterlife:

 Apocalypticism is world-denying and vindictive. The apocalypse is a protest against injustice in this life, which is what makes it appealing. But it is ethically crippling because the apocalyptic mind looks for rectification in another world, rather than seeking justice in this one. In addition, the apocalyptic vision anticipates that those of us who have suffered in this life will be freed from pain in some future existence. That seems unobjectionable. But apocalypse adds that those who have prospered here, and especially those who have harmed us, will suffer in the hereafter. Those who advocate the apocalyptic solution are seeking vindication for their mistreatment in this life and punishment for someone else’s unmerited favor. The desire to reward and punish in the next world is self-serving in its most crass, pathetic form. It is unworthy of the Galilean who asked nothing for himself, beyond the simplest needs.

The numbers ‘game’ also applies to the social and cultural pattern, in the West, whereby churches claim success based on the size of their congregation the size of their trust fund, and the appointments of their sanctuary, not to mention the names of ‘elite’ social leaders in the town or city. The notion that everyone, all of us, is considered equal, with none being ‘superior’ in any way to another, is missing from the cultural ethos.

More from Funk:

 The authentic words of Jesus reject the notion of privileged position among his followers: the first will be last and the last first; those who aspire to be leaders should become slaves of all.

Jesus robs his followers of Christian ‘privilege.’ As John Dominic Crossan so pointedly puts it, Jesus robs humankind of all protections and privileges, entitlements and ethnicities that segregate human beings into categories. His Father is no respecter of persons…..What is the basis for one denomination to claim superiority over another? Is there a basis in Jesus’ views for one individual to think that he or she has a favored position in God’s eyes?

Many of the propositions from Funk expose the difference between what the scholars learned from the gospels, and the letters, when studied in a detailed manner, and the creedal and dogmatic documents that emerged from debates hundreds of years after the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. Many churches continue to recite the creeds (Nicean and Apostles’ and Athanasian) as cornerstones of the ‘belief system’ on which they purport to rest their religious faith and conviction. For many, the words echo as a hollow chant, for most their meaning and import, and their relative meaning is lost in the fog of the memorized or read chant.

The notion that Jesus was envisioning a new world, the kingdom of God, tends to get lost in the sanctimony of some of the creedal, dogmatic and expectations of the church fathers and their impact on the faith. Returning to Jesus ideas, notions, and especially the non-confining and non-prescribing aspects of what amount to many paradoxical concepts and notions, can bring a revisioning of Christianity.

To shed much of the currently behaviouristic, hierarchic, empiric, and literal aspects in favour of a more tolerant, accepting, loving and inspiring perspective not only of morality but, more importantly of the intrinsic worth and value of each person, irrespective of title, bank account, ethnicity, religious affiliation, linguistic heritage..for many would look like something unenforceable, indefinable, and chaotic. For others, it would represent a kind of liberation that opens the human heart and imagination to new visions and interpretations of each and every moment, including the highly dynamic relationship with God, as envisioned through the life and words and eyes of Jesus.