on Being a Christian–1, Paradoxes, Perceptions, Possibilities

Recently, a friend indulged me to summarize Christianity in a few sentences. That she was disposed to do so or that I managed so to do, I have yet to decipher which is the greater miracle.

My coup d’oeil of the faith is thus. Jesus envisions God as loving father. Jesus envisions himself as God’s child, his delegate to and for the world, his Christ. To be Christian means to put on the heart and mind of Jesus Christ, to act in and for the world as God’s presence. What does that entail?  In Jesus’ words: I am the ambassador of good news to all in want, sent to bring ease to all who are dis-eased, dis-comforted, dis-comfited, to all deprived their fullness and full due by self or by society. To all I proclaim goodwill, the time of refreshment and re-creation! (Luke 4, translation is my own.) Does that entail going to Church? If church is a body of guidance and support to live out that vocation, yes. If it is not, the answer is no.

Being one disposed to expecting miracles and not finding myself disappointed, indulge me a descant on the above.

To be a Christian is to be Christ-like. How you get there is your journey. To them that find that heretical, schismatic, or in some way wrong, allow me to rehearse the Augustinian aphorism: Love God, and do what you will.

I do not with this statement intend to dismiss the need for spiritual direction. A journey without direction is usually a process of going around in circles. Spiritual direction and exercise are essential. They are, however, muchly ignored or unknown. Too often it is all too easy to think that because one recites all the prescribed prayers day after day, that one is growing in prayer, in listening to God, in becoming one with the heart and mind of God. Such may well be, by grace, the case, but in most cases, upon serious examination, one will find oneself not in spiritual training, but merely in a holding pattern, at best, moving along a conveyor belt, one would presume, one would hope, to heaven. Exercise reveals itself not only in the development some type of strength, some detectable advance in stamina and spirit, but also in some detectable expenditure, some blood, sweat and tears.

Too often is the confessional, in such places where it is the norm, not used for a steady application of spiritual counsel, but as a magic box for dispensing dispensations from some penalty. Too often do ministers forget that liturgy (including preaching) exists to literally publish, to make public, that which each member works on daily, one by one, and that a weekly public celebration cannot accomplish ex opere operato that which needs be acquired in each by devoted daily exercise and regular guidance. Too often are parish missions, where such still exist, not given individual and sustained follow-up. Too often is the cure of souls provided on an emergency basis and not as preventative medicine and promotion of healthful living. Too many ministers forget that the prime act of ministry is prayer and making people prayerful—in the most inclusive sense of that idea. Too many take the scriptures not as the ground of prayer in which to experience the heart of God, but as a series of formulae with which to beat the bounds of every action of life. Too many forget the Word of God is Christ, and that Christ lives for the sake of, for the love of, the world. Too many are concerned with “communications” and fail to recall that church is about holy communion, not the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, but about communion with God, and that that starts with stopping the devices of communication, the agendas and ideas, and waiting upon God in the silence of the heart, listening to God in the silence of his heart.

I do not expect anyone to embrace the Christian life and instantly become perfect. But the quest for perfection cannot be put aside as an ideal to keep in the back of the mind. It is a radical demand challenging every act and every moment. There can be no complacency here. En route, of course, it is never unreasonable to be kind. Were you to find yourself in some quandary would you not first want to experience mercy? So do to others. Of course, in so doing one may well be met with accusations of being fake or saccharine. Compassion can seem to be an uphill battle. Our iconography exhibits that. We talk of lifting up the cross, the cross upon the hill, about rising up, raising spirits, resurrection, ascending. Our spirituality contains an inherent acclivity.  We ascend not to escape the world, but that we may more deeply plunge down (according to the Greek, baptize) into Christ’s self-effacing spirit and so open ourselves to the service of the world.

Church must be a centre of individual spiritual formation, public prayer, action and advocacy for the well-being and welfare of the world. If it is a lecture hall, if it is a performance hall, then it is something far lesser than it ought to be. If it is the ground upon which to build one’s own little kingdom, than it monstrously lesser than it ought to be. Yet, too often too many find church a series of overly protected fiefdoms, an auditorium with a weekly recital of the same show, the same talk. I have addressed the issues of teaching and celebrating in many of the letters previously posted. I now turn to the population of the institution in general. I am not referring to pew-people. The following questions are pertinent to every member.

Please note, I do not have any answers here. Everything that must happen is a matter of praxis. To be a Christian is always about residing in the heart of Love and facing the world as the agent of the Creating One, and the world is, in its every breath, a changing entity. Thus, I have only questions to place before myself and my fellows-in-faith. These questions expose the paradox, the perceptions and possibilities of being Christian. Every question speaks of the perceptions of others, posits the possibilities of an act and its intentionality regarding its altruism, its freedom, its self-centeredness, and so the paradox of our every act and intention as susceptible to accusation, to critique, to judgment, from within and without, as to where it resides within our innate funambulism of being at once “saint and sinner”.  Yet, we need always, in some secret chamber wherein desolation and consolation are deciphered, to stop and ask why am I here, for God or for me, where is this coming from, from God or from me? We need always to ask not only what ought I to do, but why am I doing what I do. We need to evaluate not only the action but the intention. Can I walk away without regret knowing it is God at work, or do I need to be here to define myself? There is a solid, spiritual reason to the practice of plucking up clerics and religious and transferring them from place to place every few years. It must always be God’s work being done, not mine, God’s kingdom being established and revealed, not mine.

Too often too many find church too full of people they have no interest in being-with. Why are church people so repulsive? If you find the term harsh, I ask you find the term that is the opposite of attractive. Bland or neutral is not the answer. If one is not in the process of attracting others, what is one doing?

Some of us are too busy running things, keeping things going, keeping things on track and on schedule. Why? How many make themselves perpetually busy to cover themselves in a brume of piety, to hide from something hidden within, to compensate for some un-enunciated inadequacy, and so subliminally translate that fear of self or hostility against self into a fear of others, a hostility toward others?

Some of us are not busy at all. Too many in the church come to the church to relax, to relieve themselves of some moment of burden, to distract themselves from some wound they fear even God cannot heal. Too many come not for healing and life but for a dose of morphine and another moment of comatose quiet. Pain, deep pain, needs no explanation. The question is why are the rest of us not concerned enough to intervene?

Why do so many turn away from religion because they encounter among the “religious” so many without an ounce of empathy? Why do so many of us who acknowledge ourselves to be both sinners and saved, show so little real compassion for others? Why are so many of us not able or willing to stand in someone else’s shoes and to see life from another perspective, to let down our guards and simply embrace another with care and devotion?

Why do so many turn from our doors because they encounter not acceptance but judgment? Why do so many find so many of us fixated on a few lines of scripture, supposedly about the wrongness of a sexuality or sexual practice, and so oblivious to the plethora of lines in scripture about being loving, about forgiving, about not throwing the first stone and about leaving to God the role of judge? Why are so many of us comfortable beating others over the head with a Bible verse to save them, without asking ourselves what punishment for our sins did God rain down upon us?  Are not all embraced by God?  Why, if we are on a quest for God, do we not consistently use his means–simple, self-less, embracing love?

Why do so many of us who know ourselves to be loved, believe ourselves loved, not manifest that with gratitude and joy? Are we really accepting ourselves as loved and lovable? If we cannot approach another with care, consideration, kindness can it be we cannot find those qualities in our own life, in our valuation of self, in our faith, our trust, in God’s love for us?

Do we really believe love is patient and kind and that it—not self-righteousness, not anger, not the wagging finger–conquers? Do we kneel down in prayer to listen to God, or do we knell down to tell God what we want done? Do we, who claim to walk in God’s ways, really believe God humbles himself to bring healing to the world? How will anyone feel the love of God in the church unless someone in the church surrenders to the heart and mind of God and goes out and embraces him or her with humble, true and treasuring love?

Why are so many of these questions applied by so many outside the church to so many within the church about whom they are so not true? Why have we not the public image of our ancestors in Acts, the early Christians whose communal concern and care startled their neighbours? Why has the world grown so weary of Christ’s church? Why, to the world, does it seem we can do no right despite all our efforts to do good? Why does a culture that has grown out of the Christian faith desiderate greed and lust rather than goodness and love?

Why have we let dwindle those great resources for the welfare of the church and the world, the monasteries, nunneries, and other houses of relentless prayer? Why, when so many are seeking guidance through yoga, relaxation, centering, meditation classes, are we not hanging up outside our doors our shingle “Personal Training for the soul, by appointment”? Are we using our signage well? Is it sufficient to list Sunday worship services alone when there are so many more things we do? Should the cure of souls be removed from the administration of property? Should clerics be focused on spiritual guidance? Should out-reach, budgets and buildings be given over to the care of someone else? Are we sharing, joining, and using wisely our resources or are individual fiefdoms blocking the way?

Why are we so repulsive? Can we rise above all this? Can we consecrate the derision of the world in Him who was rejected? Can we hold valiant in hope? Can we shrive our sins, and strive on? Can we be sanguine in our witness before a culture that detests it? Can we blazon our icons in a world that more and more demands their sequestration?

I am not writing a draft for a communal examination of conscience. I am asking questions about how we operate, about how too many view us, and why they so view us. Our responses are crucial, more so than any organizational or budgetary plan.

Christianity is about people dealing with people, lovingly, creatively. This is where we start; this is where we finish. Incarnation is personal, the person of Christ, the place wherein God and man touch each other with deepest respect and compassion. Such is our vocation. It is personal to the core. It is of Christ. It is to be Christ, here, and now. Sunday services, masses and sacraments, preaching and singing exist to serve this, and to serve it well. If they do not do so, if we live in an age when they can no longer do so, we owe these sacred relics of our past a reverent adieu and must move on. Christ is not an institution or a ritual. Christ is a person. We are his body, the flesh and blood in which his spirit wills to be alive, in which his spirit wills to live in this world, for this world.

Spurred on by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for decades theologians have been debating whether Christianity can be religion-less. There is no debating the issue. It can. Dare we be also? In this eldritch new world is this the format, the language, we need to use?

 

 

 

Posted in on Being church | Comments Off on on Being a Christian–1, Paradoxes, Perceptions, Possibilities

on Pre-judging and Fore-giving

Our modus operandi is prejudicial. We operate with prejudices. It is, on one level, a matter of evolution, a matter of being able to automatically, non-reflectively, assess a situation via socially assimilated valuations. As with all evolved skills, it is not without flaw, not a closed and perfected system. The prejudice is engrained by osmosis as a singularity of vision, a singularity of response, hopefully equipping us to navigate the ordinary with some facility. It functions as a tool for survival; it mal-functions as a scleroderma of rationalization. In some this may be evidenced by the blind espousal of an academic theory, in others by an unbending religious ideology, in others by the whole orientation of personality toward close-mindedness. Pre-judging thus becomes a devolutionary trap rather than a practical tool of survival, a predisposition to not judging, to not being open to the reception of facts as they arise upon the horizon of experience and to their rational filtering.

Holy Writ tends to contrast this human pre-judging with divine fore-giving. We define the present and the future according to the past; God is the freedom to create a future ex nihilo, without the burden of present or past, to literally, fore-give. The scriptures are muchly given to celebrating the divine freedom from the confines of past and present. They envision a God that goes about making everything from a new nation to a new whole of creation via a “new testament”. Christianity is of a mind that this creativity of the Creator is reflected in human creativity, in the ability to engulf and propel some extent of the potential of a moment towards its transcendent. This creativity is not subservient to a set of rules, it makes the rules. It is essentially volitional and iatrical, the intensity of a valuation of the good in the situation such as to thrust it forth into the better situation.

Now, we all pay lip service to this as a good thing. We admire Jesus’s liberty to respond creatively to situations (your sins are forgiven, the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath, etc.). Most of us buck when we are faced with doing the same. Courts are rather consistently excoriated for leniency. We want peace, order and good governance. Jesus’s creative absolution as of the woman caught in adultery (whose case was considered in my last posting) is an offence to all three of these civic qualities. Creative absolution, an inverting of the Law into something to serve me rather than that to which I must be subservient, may be something I find comfortable in the confessional, in the relationship betwixt God and Me, but not so when another becomes the focus of justice. Is Jesus’ action the ideal? Is our attitude the practical? How do we, how ought we, understand the reconciliation, the balance, which justice is meant to restore in society, or between God and man? Where is the restoration to the offended, the compensation by and rehabilitation of the offender, the significant act which re-establishes the broken social contract, heals the disrupted divine covenant? Are we so caught up in our prejudices as to be unwilling to pay the price of helping others “sin no more”? Is it easier, is it more comfortable, is it cheaper in body and soul to build a jail or to rehabilitate? Is it easier to demand punishment than to create the society wherein punishment is moot? In terms of faith Jesus is God’s justice, but in terms of the quotidian flow of human events Jesus is an endless fusillade against those once thought sacred scales. They that see Jesus as only sweet and gentle have not looked at him well.

What does the creative absolution of Jesus provide? It provides upheavals. It provides a stark contrast betwixt the ways of God and those of men. God is all about freely giving. Man always thinks in terms of economics, of cost. Salvation for God is about giving himself freely and totally. Salvation in man’s mind is about having to pay a price. Jesus’ portrayal of the divine path inverts the human vision and valuation of life. It affronts the human need for permanence and order. There are no answers carved in stone, no image of god carved in stone. Indeed, there are no stones, either for throwing or for sealing a tomb. There is, however, the assurance that within us dwells the spirit of God, the spirit of Jesus as God’s Christ, the Spirit Christians audaciously have named “Love”, and it is promised that this Spirit will lead in the right direction. This makes our faith a journey toward the manifestation of heaven upon the earth, a trek of constantly reconsidering the situation, realigning ourselves to the world, and resisting the temptation to claim finality for any of our answers. It is neither uncomplicated nor brief. Christianity has spent two millennia trying to reach a New Jerusalem, and for all the progress, does anyone, other than God, know how much further and farther we need go? Yet, making heaven manifest on earth is no hopeless task, no faithless venture unless we concede it to be thus. Creativity trumps judgement and prejudice, past and present. We have in our arsenal of faith the power to fore-give and absolve everything and everyone. Christianity is the proclamation that we—humanity–are slave to no one, to no thing, that we have within the divine creativity purposefully, toward an end, that we have the resources and resourcefulness, the graces and abilities requisite to any situation—as long as ego does as God does, and empties itself of self to enter the situation in total freedom. Perhaps we will not make an end of the trek today, or tomorrow, but therein is no case to cease either looking forward or moving on, only to trod, toddle, march, perhaps one day even to fly toward that giving, that gift, that fore-giving that is ever be-fore us and from thence defines us, defines us as free—by the grace of God.

The Lord ever went before them, a pillar of cloud to show the way by day, and a pillar of fire to show the way by night, that in both the darkness and the light the people might follow after The Lord.  (Exodus 13)

 

Posted in on Being church, on Etiquette for the soul | Comments Off on on Pre-judging and Fore-giving

on Forgiveness

In chapter eight of John’s gospel there is told a tale often considered a tender, an almost romantic tale, of forgiveness and pardon. It is the story of a woman accused of adultery. She had been caught in flagrante delicto. Her accusers bring her to Jesus and ask what is to be done. To this point the narrative reads as two simple acts: being caught, being brought to Jesus. This is, however, an abbreviation of a complex series of acts and undisclosed intentions.

First, there is the adulterous act. One may question why someone engages in such behaviour. Is there some unresolved flaw in the individual psyche? Is there some unresolved flaw in the marriage? Marriage is not a solitary action, neither is adultery. Where is her co-conspirator in this betrayal?

Second, there is the being caught in flagrante delicto. One would tend to think the most likely party to make such a discovery is one of the offended spouses. Where is he or she? One may well understand the horror of betrayal and the concomitant anger, but the publication of this betrayal demands, under the existing law of this time and place, the death of the offender. We, saturated in the ethos of the modern West, need to take a step back and ponder the absolute gravity and immediacy of that attainder. Was this a trap set by an angry spouse? The Law required there be two witnesses, neither of whom could be the spouse. Who are they? How did they chance upon this act? Why did they interrupt the act to investigate? How did they know this was an adulterous coupling? There is at play here something more than the captious familiarity of parlous parochialism bred of proximity in a less than urbane culture.

Third, the publication having been made, and the evidence being patent, the penalty is a given. Yet, the scribes and Pharisees, learned men, the seemingly would-be dicasts of the situation, come to Jesus to consult him. Do they really consider him to be so naïf that he knows neither the Law nor their aspirations to entrap him in some decree to toss the Law? Is this a trap for both the woman and Jesus? Are they both pawns of the over-zealous and self-righteous questing to prove themselves, perhaps to rid themselves of two people they find offensive?

The scribes and Pharisees were stringently devoted to upholding the Law. Their faith, the faith Jesus shares, claims it is written in stone by the very finger of God. It is absolute and un-amendable. Jesus hears them out, then he crouches to the ground and begins to write in the dirt. That is his response to them. They persist and ask their question a second time. Jesus turns to them and tells them: staring with the man among you who is without sin, go, stone her. He crouches back down in silence and makes marks in the dust of the earth. Without explanation one by one they all leave.

Scholars have spent a good deal of time in speculation about what Jesus was doing. English translations of the story often say Jesus “wrote”, but the Greek verb thusly translated can denote something more akin to “making lines”. Some have speculated that Jesus was writing the sins of the woman’s accusers, but were this the case, why would they have stayed on to press their question a second time?  Some have rather convincingly argued that he was writing from Exodus the prohibition against embrangling oneself in charges founded in maliciousness, and thereby revealing his awareness of a hidden agenda. From another perspective—and John is fond of telling stories that can be read on several levels–I think we may see in Jesus’ scribbling something akin to child’s play. Given also the Johannine fondness for contrast and irony, Jesus’ marks in the dirt might well be taken as the antipode of Judaism’s stone tablets. The Johannine community is always differentiating the freedom of Christ from the institutionalism of Judaism. Jesus here speaks no word against God’s Law; he, the Child of God, merely does that which God does, he makes his marks upon the earth, not upon the enduring persistence of stone, but upon the fugacious transience of dust.

When only the accused and the Child of God remain, he asks her: who accuses you? She replies: no one. Where are her accusers? Where is her husband? Where stands her conscience? Jesus accepts her position, and confirms it saying: neither do I. He tells her to go. Go where? Home? To husband? To family? To a neighbourhood buzzing with gossip? To the glare of the righteous and pious? Go? Jesus tells her: get on with your life and do this no more! To do this no more is here the easier task. How does one—in this woman’s world–recover from the ordeal of shame, scorn, condemnation, broken marriage? Some might well think stoning would have been the more kind resolution. What is the life of this morally disenfranchised woman going to be like in the society of her time and place, a society wherein women are possessions, divorce is common, and adultery, like blasphemy, can be fatal? Jesus frees her to a greater punishment than bludgeoning; he frees her to live with the consequences of her act.

This is not a happy ending for anyone involved. The scheming Pharisees get to see their plot dissipate in Jesus’ passivity. The cuckold husband is left to his own devises and a devastated marriage. And the church to whom this tale is preached is left to face the radical terrors of the limitations of both situational ethics and retributive justice.

This passage is not found in many of the earliest copies of the Gospel according to John. Some have opined that it is a misplaced piece of Lucan material, others argue it belongs to the traditions of the Johannine community, and so has a proper, if not ancient-most place, in John’s work. It is small wonder the tale is not in all ancient editions. It would not have sat well with the early church’s strict moral disciplines. In any age it sets an ominous stage for dealing with the real world. Is it viable in human society to claim, as Jesus has it, that the honour of enforcing the divine law belongs first and foremost to the one who is blameless before God? Is it fine to say no one judges you, go, and leave it at that? Who cleans up the upheaval this causes? We still today do not have proper answers. We still today cannot resolve the problem of helping them that offend against the social contract to amend their ways. We, with all our resources of training and conditioning, still are able as a society to offer little in the way of rehabilitative justice, and fall back upon punitive justice to accomplish, to hopefully accomplish, restoration, reformation, and reintegration. God may, with a sweep of his hand, allow all is forgiven. Such is something astonishing more complex for us as individuals and as societies. We are all strings-attached and baggage. We do not enjoy the freedom of being the creative God. More so than those scriptural passages wherein the extremes of moral excellence are enjoined upon us, passages we may take as upholding an ideal, this passage is an affront to humankind’s sense of law and justice, and to the church’s need to relate to the “real” world.

The Pharisees wanted to trick Jesus. The husband wanted revenge. The woman wanted something neither her own self nor her marriage could give her. Jesus serves it all back to them each and all, and to us, in a manner more challenging, more demanding, more painful than any consequence of following the Law could ever have provided. No, this is not a happy tale. It was not then. It is not now. Our sin may be forgiven by God, but—as our act–it is something woven into the very fabric of who and what and where we are, and its resolution must be lived out in the who and what and where we are. Sin has consequences. What it has not is eternality. Redemption never comes without a cross.

May we, through the mercy of one to another, bear the crosses of our sins more easily than they deserve.

 

Posted in on Etiquette for the soul, on Sacred texts | Comments Off on on Forgiveness

on Heaven

I recently received a complaint that preachers talk about heaven but never discuss what one does in heaven. Succinctly put: one does nothing. One “IS” in heaven, one does not “DO” things in heaven. Before I attempt an elucidation of that, I shall note that a great many questions about items such as god, soul, heaven, hell—the ultimate classifications of meaningfulness on a cosmic, personal, and moral level—are confusing and confused because religious imagery gets mixed up with and in philosophical imagery and terminology.  We find ourselves akin to a baker trying to produce a delectably delicate cake when the only ingredients provided are steak and turnips. To decoct some essence of understanding from this imbroglio, I shall in the autumn of this year begin a series, approximately twenty-seven articles, following the main currents of Western philosophy regarding these topics.

The question of what one does in heaven is a spurious inquiry for a simple reason. We exist in time and space, and time and space are also the basic-most ways in which we reference everything in, around, and about ourselves. We cannot imagine anything without some sense of extension. Something is here, or there, or over there. Likewise, we cannot imagine anything as not extended in some time sequence. It is now, or it was then, or it will be. But these referencing devices of time and space are, by very definition, the antipodes of the spiritual and eternal. The non-material, the spiritual has no extension. It is not something that can be spoken of as here or there. It is extension-less. So too is eternity. It is not a time, or a sequence of times. It is something outside of time, an absolute singularity of moment. There is no past, present or future in God or in heaven; God IS. Indeed, that is, philosophically and theologically, the essence of God–Pure Being, or better put, Pure “Be”, since the suffix –ing itself carries a sense of endurance, a sense of a sustained temporality, a resonation of  “now”. Technically, we may not say heaven is here or there, or now or then, or that God is here or there, because when we use “here”, “there”, “now”, “then” in such referencing, we are speaking either figuratively or confusedly. There is, by definition, no extension—temporal or spacial—in God, in heaven, in anything essentially spiritual or non-material. Realistically, we can say no more than (we believe) God IS, heaven IS.

I am cognizant of the fact that I am seemingly being repetitious, but philosophy often needs to circle the object of its consideration to demark where it is not, what it is not, the object of consideration being in itself an invisibility. We live in space, we live in a time sequence, our consciousness constantly rippling over moments, and organizing things. We, therefore, have no language to express anything otherwise. When we try to speak about things spiritual or non-material we have no recourse to some mode of expression other than one fundamentally encoded in space-time experience. Heaven becomes a “place”, God “does this, then that”, etc. But we must ceaselessly remember that we are using our language analogically, figuratively, imaginatively, and not technically, or scientifically. This is often a difficult mind-set to maintain when one enters the aeolian sphere of religious discussion; we are so very inclined to forget we are in the linguistic realm of “it is as if”.

We speak of heaven and God figuratively because we have no other way of so doing. We think of the event of creation as in the past, and final judgement as in the future. We think of being in heaven as having some very long duration and sequence of events. We think thusly because from the temporal side, our side of the issue, such are the only tangible terms of reference we possess. From the other side, the spiritual side, the God-side, the first fiat of creation to the day of last judgement to the compass of our celestial bliss are but one singular moment; God and heaven but one singular joyous “AH!”, one singular fulgurant embrace Christians name Love. That one would be disposed to speak, as do the scriptures, mystics and saints, of singing, dancing, feasting, adoring, worshipping, etc. about such BE-ing, about such embrace, is not incomprehensible, but such speaking is simply something poetical, a devise used to portray that which is beyond portrayal, Pure IS.

Even traditional talk of the trinity as an endless intermeshing of its aspects transcendent, immanent, dynamic (Father, Son, Spirit), its perichoresis, is a linguistic fiction. God is ONE, space-less, timeless, a pure with-in-ness, a pure and absolute un-extended now or, if you would, I-now. The complex simplicity (or the simple complexity) of that idea causes time-space beings to render the expression of this intense oneness, this concentrated communicity of transcendent, immanent, and dynamic in terms of endurance, movement, and internal relationships. All this terminology of integral divine relationships, movement, and action in this holy and undivided trinity may seem to us most profound, but it is in reality merely a spacio-temporal enunciation by and for our less than subtle conscious comprehension of the ONE. (Churches of East and West could have avoided centuries of antagonism and animadversion had ecclesiastical clerisy been more inclined to embrace each other’s sincerity rather than reject each other’s vocabulary, each claiming to have the more true perspective and both treating as an object that which both claim to be the most supernal and supreme Subject! Had fervidly religious but less then well-educated monks roaming the Middle East been more mindful to simply live charitably and not preach that which they were not adequately prepared to preach, perhaps another cult of monotheism would never have arisen. It is a lesson rarely taken; too often do they of good intention think they ought and can speak for the Truth, when they, and all others–heaven included, would be better served were they to humbly acknowledge their gifts, and simply live out their faith in kind acts, and  in silence regarding matters catechetical. Acts do preach more assuredly than words. There is not complete but, nevertheless, much merit in the church’s ancient practice of confining the teaching of the tenets of faith to only certain officers of the church. To which I shall add the caveat that, despite the charm of the idea of vox populi, vox Dei, popular fascinations too often lead leaders where faith has neither grounds nor reason to venture.)

“In” heaven, which is not other than being “in God”, one is in a singular moment of embrace, of ecstasy, of literally being outside of one’s being, of the organism reaching its eruption into its purist, most rarefied form, its wholly-being-with-and-in its source and end as its source and end. One does not read the great mystics’ recounting of the experience of sacred ecstasy without realizing they are describing something which is orgasmic on a scale simultaneously cosmic and personal, although, for most of them, confessedly virgins or celibates, such an explicitness of statement is excluded from their vocabulary.

For us the greatest truths are ever wrapped in the humblest fictions of time, space, faltering words, and inadequate ideas. Our sacred texts begin with an acknowledgment of this, our inability to envision the divine and eternal beyond the confines of our worldly experience, for they tell the tale that one inauspicious yet angelic tinged night the Eternal One became manifest as a child, wrapped in swaddling, and set into a bed of straw wherein cattle were wont to feed. Let no theologian, no philosopher, no preacher—no matter how insightful or profound his words or ideas regarding God and his heaven—ever feel pride before so stark a depiction, so gracious a kenosis, so sublime an abnegation.

Therefore, in adoring worship, where all words fail, humbly and hopefully we offer straw, and with angels, archangels, and all the choirs in heaven we make bold to add our song: Holy, Holy, Wholly ONE, as it was in the beginning, so is it now, and shall be evermore. Amen.

 

Posted in on Denial, Doubt, and Divinity, Philosophical and other fragments | Comments Off on on Heaven

on The Apocalyptic Book of Revelation

The final entry in the Christian scriptures, The Book of Revelation, is written in a style known as apocalyptic, hence, the alternate name, The Apocalypse, literally, the “un-covering”. This literary form was in vogue for several centuries before Jesus and continued to have some cachet in early Christian times. Continue reading

Posted in on Sacred texts | Comments Off on on The Apocalyptic Book of Revelation

on God within, an eclaircissement for believers

I am informed that as a result of my last publication some have taken to their prayer desks with carcanets of ice to pray for me, the pantheist! Arise and desist. The rumour is false. To them that had such concern, allow me to advise a visit to my earlier publications on this site: on Faith—2, on Faith—3, and on Masks posted on 12, 13, and 26 February 2012 respectively. Note as well, a half paragraph with pastoral intent cannot embrace the whole of a complex dogma.

God is within not exhaustively, but really. The divine in its Transcendence is ever beyond the reach of man, the divine in its Dynamic exists always one breath before the human, and the divine in its Immanence is at the heart of man summoning ever to manifest the divine, and therein and thereby to truly worship and adore. It is in arising to this summons that one becomes fully self, an “I”, a saint, an expositor of God. It is in eschewing this summons that one becomes something lesser, a “me”, a sinner, a detractor of God. In traditional terminology, we know the Father (the transcendent) only through the Son (the immanent) and we know the Son in the Spirit (the dynamic); only by acting upon the divine Spirit’s evocation do we realize, actualize the incarnate Son and glimpse the eternal Father.

In the last century, Karl Barth restored the primacy of the doctrine of the trinity to Western Christian theology. The trinity is the definitive dynamic unicity, the ceaselessly intertwining singularity, the divine perichoresis of traditional terminology. Within this animate and eternal dialogue, communion, and concinnity of transcending, dynamic, and immanent is nestled the wonder, the rapture, the mystery of creation’s why. Herein resides the proper most basis and home of creation and sanctification, being and holiness. It is the tri-unicity of the divine that makes comprehensible and real all that is. It is this dynamic solidity that grounds all movement, physical and spiritual. It is this divine movement that concretizes all being.

In emphasising the practice of acting upon the incarnational aspect of divine presence and grace I am not playing at pantheism, neither am I cathecting a mere ideal, resuscitating Ludwig Feuerbach, or revisiting Henry James. I am simply echoing the divine fiat that calls forth the Christ abeyant within to arise and shine for the wellbeing and welfare of all.

There is a Shaker tune, “Lord of the Dance”, that has in recent times gained some prominence. While some may find it novel, it references images of the divine found in religions more ancient than even our own ancestor in faith.  Thus, I give to my reader this request: in this season of holydays and holidays, amid the brumal bustle, pause in silence,  reflect upon that ceaseless “dancing in circles”, the perichoresis of the divine trinity. Contemplate the supernal rhythms and rhymes, look upon this God who is the dance that causes the music to play, who sets the spheres to the making of their music and the angels to their songs. The locus of the divine never exists with-in, with-out, above, or beyond in isolation, in traditional terminology: God is always one holy undivided trinity. We, in our finite dimensionality of body and soul, can never at once observe that breadth of being, that complexity of dance, and thus, we must, as commanded, ever “sing a new song”, ever find anew the faithful tune.

 

Posted in on Denial, Doubt, and Divinity | Comments Off on on God within, an eclaircissement for believers

“Unto us a child is born”

I recently received a letter form an old friend in which she reminisced about my parents. Reminiscences, like the sound of the word itself, ripple, and so that night as I prepared to sleep I had my own remembrances of things past. Continue reading

Posted in on Etiquette for the soul | Comments Off on “Unto us a child is born”