Holy Saturday is a weird day to write about death, but I found it appropriate as Jesus is technically dead for the whole day, thus it allows for a basic exploration about what it means to die and how non-being appears to us.
To be brief, death is the non-existence/appearance of a particular person or animal. Only things which are animated can technically die. This is why Jesus' death is important for the Christian faith as to die shows He was human. Without death, Jesus does not experience full finitude. But apologetics aside what we're exploring is the lack of animation and the darkness this creates in human persons.
Everyone has some fear of not existing. People make displays of power, money, progeny, etc for people to remember them when they are gone. In this way, people try to make their life extend beyond their own human finitude. Jesus did not have such power, progeny, or money in His ministry, so the death of a peasant in the ancient world seems like it should have little meaning. The fact that He was tried as a criminal also adds to the lack of meaning, just like so many other non-Roman citizens. (Because Romans couldn't be crucified, they saved that for the foreigners, kind of a ancient day hazing of sorts.)
Also, death is something which is communal. The death of the other reminds me of my own death (Levinas). The disciples also feared Jesus' death because His non-existence makes it appear that the promise of life and restored order is gone. It appears hard to restore kingdoms when the charismatic leader is dead and does not exist. The idea of Resurrection seems far away when one peers on a grave and sees a giant stone rolled in front of a cave to signify the grave. Dead Jesus, D-E-D Dead. No respawn, no extra lifes, just dead. Well, sort of... (Well, see more tomorrow about this.)
However, appearance is not the only reality. True, it is the only reality we can see, thus phenomenology gains its strength as a philosophical discipline as it deals with what we can see. What we learn on observation is that with every phenomenon there is an unseen parts of the phenomenon (notably, the idea that many people can look at the same event or symbol and see many different things.) Therefore, the unseen presence of death is that a community can embrace death as a communal strength. People come together when people die, and Jesus was no exception. On this day, we remember Jesus' death as a sign for people to gather together and mourn the loss of someone who had hoped to save a people who feared God. By faith, we all know the end of the story is different, but the disciples didn't know this. Part of our meditation must be to explore that this is the end, there is no mission, kingdom of God, or promise. The reality of Jesus' death is that the disciples appeared wrong. On top of mourning the loss of a friend, having one's trust seemingly betrayed is difficult. But again, this isn't the end of the story, all we see is what appears.
(Note: Most people are already celebrating Easter Vigil by the time this will post, but let's have some fun with the reflection.)
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
Receiving a Gift
Good Friday is a day where Christians emphasize the gift of salvation won through the Incarnation, Passion, Death, and Resurrection on the Cross. There are many focal points a reflection on Good Friday can take, but I want to emphasize the importance of receiving a gift. Holy Thursday emphasizes both giving and receiving a gift, and Good Friday is a day where all stop and realize that there is nothing they can give to improve or heal the situation at hand.
The idea of receiving a gift comes from the idea that "Jesus died for me, and you." This is a difficult notion for me to think about. It seems we have a tension in thinking about salvation. First, sacrifice is an awkward notion to think about a loving God. Sacrifice gives an image of a God who needs appeasing for an awful humanity who can never please God. However, if humanity is in the image of God, then God creates humanity as a good, and therefore, must be pleasing in some way. Humans have grace, and humans sin. God has every right to judge humanity for its sin, yet God also sends God's son into the world to proclaim a kingdom of love. Therefore, if we have a notion of sacrifice, it must include this nuance. God's will does not necessarily include the Cross as sacrifice. This idea would mean that God cooperates with sin in order to proclaim salvation, it also assumes a overly negative anthropology. However, Jesus could not choose anything other than the Cross as is necessary for giving the Holy Spirit, or to be consistent with His own life and mission of proclaiming the Kingdom of God.
Another tension is thinking about the notion of adding weight to Jesus' cross by our own sins. Personally, this seems at least somewhat neurotic. Yes, people sin and need redemption, but it is also true that the fall introduced more than sin into the human condition. While one may argue, that the after effects of sin need sin to actually be introduced, this witness is inconsistent with the testimony in Genesis. Adam and Eve do not commit any sin with each other, but yet still feel the need to cover themselves up after Eve eats the apple from the tree. Therefore, there is some guilt (Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith) that exists in the human condition as well. This reflection is simply to say that adding weight to the cross by our own sins depends on a negative anthropology and a Pelagian view that our work adds more to a suffering which has already happened. Also, if we add weight to Jesus' cross by our sins we ignore the historical circumstances of Jesus' actual crucifixion, and it becomes an overly spiritual experience.
I now want to take the rest of this reflection and emphasize a different part of humanity then what is normally emphasized during the Passion. Much of the Passion story emphasizes the community's negative role and affect on the crucifixion. However, there are several positive influences in the crucifixion narratives that get some prominence, but not in most theological emphases. Simon, Mary, Mary, Mary, and John are all figures presented in Scripture, and Veronica (through the tradition of Stations of the Cross) are positive examples of human compassion in a trying situation. Except for Simon, all of these people received the gift of Jesus' life through His witness and example. Jesus treated women as equals, spoke on behalf of the poor and marginalized in His time and place, and suffered the consequences for His actions. Jesus' witness of God's love is the gift He gives to us, in addition to salvation. The actions of the people listed above are another sign of how humanity can act. Humans can act with the crowd and wish death to Jesus, or people can respond in their own community and show acts of love. All people receive the gift of God's presence, and with any gift, people can be inspired to respond.
A word must be said about reception in itself. Receiving God's gift can happen in a variety of settings, as people see salvation in many various ways. On Good Friday, we want to emphasize the heavenly reality of salvation, that people can enter heaven. However, in receiving gifts, we must note the symbolic hope of salvation we receive from the gifts others give to us. Receiving gifts is hard as there is sin and guilt in human nature, and our own fears of what a gift means to someone else. The gift of salvation we all receive can be viewed in a similar light. We receive a gift, even though we don't know what it looks like, it is a gift given through faith and hope; however, it is a gift for all people, not just individuals. There is a similar fear in receiving a gift of salvation. A gift ties people to a relationship and being in relationship is scary, as our selves become slightly more visible to others. Deep down, it is hard to see God as someone with whom we have a relationship as God seems so different from humanity. However, part of the gift of salvation is that Jesus was a human, and lived a human life, therefore, Jesus knows human experience.
Now a last word needs to be said about salvation. The readings for the Good Friday service emphasize Jesus saving the community. In any theology, there must be the potential for all people to receive salvation, and maybe even all people receiving salvation. Jesus doesn't save individual people, as such. To be fair, communities are made of individuals, and thus de facto individuals must be saved. As listed above, there are dangers of neurosis and judgment with a salvation theology that only emphasizes the individual being saved. So we need a balance discussing the individual experience that God speaks to individual people, yet there is an essential need for the community to experience God and receive salvation, otherwise we ignore our inherent nature to interact with others. So Jesus doesn't die for me, or get more weight added to His cross because of my sins, rather, the sin of human nature as symbolized by the crowd, makes the Cross a reality. Remember Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God, and that led to the consequence of the Cross, because of how dangerous His message was. This death leads to salvation as a remembrance of Jesus' life and as part of the promise of Jesus, that He would be raised to new life, as another symbol of the Kingdom of God.
Aristocrates
The idea of receiving a gift comes from the idea that "Jesus died for me, and you." This is a difficult notion for me to think about. It seems we have a tension in thinking about salvation. First, sacrifice is an awkward notion to think about a loving God. Sacrifice gives an image of a God who needs appeasing for an awful humanity who can never please God. However, if humanity is in the image of God, then God creates humanity as a good, and therefore, must be pleasing in some way. Humans have grace, and humans sin. God has every right to judge humanity for its sin, yet God also sends God's son into the world to proclaim a kingdom of love. Therefore, if we have a notion of sacrifice, it must include this nuance. God's will does not necessarily include the Cross as sacrifice. This idea would mean that God cooperates with sin in order to proclaim salvation, it also assumes a overly negative anthropology. However, Jesus could not choose anything other than the Cross as is necessary for giving the Holy Spirit, or to be consistent with His own life and mission of proclaiming the Kingdom of God.
Another tension is thinking about the notion of adding weight to Jesus' cross by our own sins. Personally, this seems at least somewhat neurotic. Yes, people sin and need redemption, but it is also true that the fall introduced more than sin into the human condition. While one may argue, that the after effects of sin need sin to actually be introduced, this witness is inconsistent with the testimony in Genesis. Adam and Eve do not commit any sin with each other, but yet still feel the need to cover themselves up after Eve eats the apple from the tree. Therefore, there is some guilt (Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith) that exists in the human condition as well. This reflection is simply to say that adding weight to the cross by our own sins depends on a negative anthropology and a Pelagian view that our work adds more to a suffering which has already happened. Also, if we add weight to Jesus' cross by our sins we ignore the historical circumstances of Jesus' actual crucifixion, and it becomes an overly spiritual experience.
I now want to take the rest of this reflection and emphasize a different part of humanity then what is normally emphasized during the Passion. Much of the Passion story emphasizes the community's negative role and affect on the crucifixion. However, there are several positive influences in the crucifixion narratives that get some prominence, but not in most theological emphases. Simon, Mary, Mary, Mary, and John are all figures presented in Scripture, and Veronica (through the tradition of Stations of the Cross) are positive examples of human compassion in a trying situation. Except for Simon, all of these people received the gift of Jesus' life through His witness and example. Jesus treated women as equals, spoke on behalf of the poor and marginalized in His time and place, and suffered the consequences for His actions. Jesus' witness of God's love is the gift He gives to us, in addition to salvation. The actions of the people listed above are another sign of how humanity can act. Humans can act with the crowd and wish death to Jesus, or people can respond in their own community and show acts of love. All people receive the gift of God's presence, and with any gift, people can be inspired to respond.
A word must be said about reception in itself. Receiving God's gift can happen in a variety of settings, as people see salvation in many various ways. On Good Friday, we want to emphasize the heavenly reality of salvation, that people can enter heaven. However, in receiving gifts, we must note the symbolic hope of salvation we receive from the gifts others give to us. Receiving gifts is hard as there is sin and guilt in human nature, and our own fears of what a gift means to someone else. The gift of salvation we all receive can be viewed in a similar light. We receive a gift, even though we don't know what it looks like, it is a gift given through faith and hope; however, it is a gift for all people, not just individuals. There is a similar fear in receiving a gift of salvation. A gift ties people to a relationship and being in relationship is scary, as our selves become slightly more visible to others. Deep down, it is hard to see God as someone with whom we have a relationship as God seems so different from humanity. However, part of the gift of salvation is that Jesus was a human, and lived a human life, therefore, Jesus knows human experience.
Now a last word needs to be said about salvation. The readings for the Good Friday service emphasize Jesus saving the community. In any theology, there must be the potential for all people to receive salvation, and maybe even all people receiving salvation. Jesus doesn't save individual people, as such. To be fair, communities are made of individuals, and thus de facto individuals must be saved. As listed above, there are dangers of neurosis and judgment with a salvation theology that only emphasizes the individual being saved. So we need a balance discussing the individual experience that God speaks to individual people, yet there is an essential need for the community to experience God and receive salvation, otherwise we ignore our inherent nature to interact with others. So Jesus doesn't die for me, or get more weight added to His cross because of my sins, rather, the sin of human nature as symbolized by the crowd, makes the Cross a reality. Remember Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God, and that led to the consequence of the Cross, because of how dangerous His message was. This death leads to salvation as a remembrance of Jesus' life and as part of the promise of Jesus, that He would be raised to new life, as another symbol of the Kingdom of God.
Aristocrates
Thursday, April 21, 2011
A Servant's Love
Attention: We have a blog special this week. :) Every day during the Triduum we will be posting reflections on the celebrations of Holy Week. (Well by we, I mean definitely me, and maybe my partner as well.) Today is Holy Thursday so I want to reflect on the main theme from the Gospel reading, the washing of feet.
The washing of feet in the ancient world would have been a disgusting task, something fit only for the slaves in a household. The ancient world did not have closed toe shoes, so walking around in desert sands would have made everyone's feet messy. The foot washing ritual in the Passion is very clean for the reality which would have probably occurred, washing sandy, dirty, icky feet. The washing of feet made have had the neurotic fear issues we often associate with a ritual like this today, but I would expect that to be a more modern phenomenon. Regardless, the image of the washing of feet is that it's an icky, disgusting ritual which doesn't make sense, and why would someone do that for anyone, ever.
The power of the gospel passage is that Jesus takes on this servant role. Jesus willingly washes the feet of his disciples, and even says this washing is necessary for being in the community (Jn 13:8). Jesus washes the feet of His disciples and then implores the disciples to do the same (Jn 13:12-15). The invitation to service creates a challenge. 1) If taken literally, I don't want to wash another icky person's feet, feet are gross. :P Also, most people probably don't know what to do when people offer to wash their feet. Some circles see this as part of a romantic gesture, which it can be, but it's not necessarily so. The real challenge with living out this commitment to wash other's feet literally is the comfort factor. It is a really odd gesture, even with a historical scope. However, I would theorize that given the proper understanding, it helps people recognize the specialness in each other, as one is offering to do a task which is humiliating for the sake of the other.
2) If taken as a call to service, this also creates difficulty, as the washing of feet is a very careful service. Feet are intricate, so many toes, and curves, and nerve endings (yeah I've thought too much on days where I walk a lot). Therefore, if feet are intricate, and washing feet is a careful service, then this means we need to give detailed attention to people with whom we interact. People have a lot of needs, and need a lot of care. As individuals, each of us has a lot of needs and desires which require care. The balance is service in any community is meeting the needs of all of the people involved. The biggest challenge this poses is that it requires real attention and real listening to others. Drama, trauma, joys, excitement, these are all things which reflect God's life through the experience of the Incarnation, and also are something we all experience. Interactions can create lasting effects of trust or disorder, depending on how open we are to the other. The strength in thinking about the washing of feet is that it promotes openness to the other, using an apparently awkward symbol to reflect God's love and life.
The washing of feet is an open call for us as members of the community to show a different kind of love to people. The question is, are we ready to answer that invitation?
The washing of feet in the ancient world would have been a disgusting task, something fit only for the slaves in a household. The ancient world did not have closed toe shoes, so walking around in desert sands would have made everyone's feet messy. The foot washing ritual in the Passion is very clean for the reality which would have probably occurred, washing sandy, dirty, icky feet. The washing of feet made have had the neurotic fear issues we often associate with a ritual like this today, but I would expect that to be a more modern phenomenon. Regardless, the image of the washing of feet is that it's an icky, disgusting ritual which doesn't make sense, and why would someone do that for anyone, ever.
The power of the gospel passage is that Jesus takes on this servant role. Jesus willingly washes the feet of his disciples, and even says this washing is necessary for being in the community (Jn 13:8). Jesus washes the feet of His disciples and then implores the disciples to do the same (Jn 13:12-15). The invitation to service creates a challenge. 1) If taken literally, I don't want to wash another icky person's feet, feet are gross. :P Also, most people probably don't know what to do when people offer to wash their feet. Some circles see this as part of a romantic gesture, which it can be, but it's not necessarily so. The real challenge with living out this commitment to wash other's feet literally is the comfort factor. It is a really odd gesture, even with a historical scope. However, I would theorize that given the proper understanding, it helps people recognize the specialness in each other, as one is offering to do a task which is humiliating for the sake of the other.
2) If taken as a call to service, this also creates difficulty, as the washing of feet is a very careful service. Feet are intricate, so many toes, and curves, and nerve endings (yeah I've thought too much on days where I walk a lot). Therefore, if feet are intricate, and washing feet is a careful service, then this means we need to give detailed attention to people with whom we interact. People have a lot of needs, and need a lot of care. As individuals, each of us has a lot of needs and desires which require care. The balance is service in any community is meeting the needs of all of the people involved. The biggest challenge this poses is that it requires real attention and real listening to others. Drama, trauma, joys, excitement, these are all things which reflect God's life through the experience of the Incarnation, and also are something we all experience. Interactions can create lasting effects of trust or disorder, depending on how open we are to the other. The strength in thinking about the washing of feet is that it promotes openness to the other, using an apparently awkward symbol to reflect God's love and life.
The washing of feet is an open call for us as members of the community to show a different kind of love to people. The question is, are we ready to answer that invitation?
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Music and Symbol: Love and Life
I've been doing a new exploration lately as I've been writing for my comprehensive exams. I've found the last.fm feature on my XBOX, and I've been using that to explore new music. It is because of this that everyone can thank for this reflection.
Something's been striking me about music lately, as I've found deeply symbolic, loving music in unexpected places. Most of my IPOD is Christian or instrumental music, as these have been deeply peaceful symbols in my life. They continue to serve this purpose. The explicit symbol Christian music gives of God's love in its depths serves a purpose of bringing people into worship. It can also be useful to be a good reminder of God's presence in the world for those who like explicit symbols. Instrumental music can also provide a means of reflection without words. This reflection is dependent on the tones the songs utilize. Scary music can bring up scary memories, just as happy music can bring up happy memories. (Or in my case, memories of beating certain games.)
However, what I'm also starting to notice with some Christian music is that the symbol becomes so saturated in the song that the message gets watered down because it's too simple. This oversaturation limits the growth of people's minds to expand music into love. Add instrumental music to this mix and the images don't grow, as they are limited by the oversaturation of imagery in the words that actually have lyrics. Again this only applies to some Christian music, other artists really portray multiple images in song very well. (I've found a lot of success finding artists that aren't necessarily in the Christian mainstream, except Matt Maher, he's got good stuff for someone in the mainstream.)
I've found something fun in really engaging other music to expand my music library. In a lot of music, there is implicit symbols even if it does not explicitly speak of God's life. These implicit symbols might not say God or even love directly in the text, but the imagery given in the music might draw people to these kinds of thoughts.
The other strength in diversifying my music is that different music speaks to a lot of different experience. System of a Down speaks a different symbolic language than Matt Maher or Simon and Garfunkel. Music can speak of anger, sadness, despair, or joy. Diverse music enables one to engage all sorts of feelings, which can enable a person to love deeply as they engage the symbols in their own musical listening practice. It's useful for ministry and love as it can help me search for God in different and unexpected places.
The exploration of new music has been fun and a project I hope to continue for a while. My goal is to keep some of the old explicit symbols while searching for new implicit symbols to gain the ability to attain more symbolism. If I write many blog posts concerning saturation and the obsessing of certain philosophical concepts in our application to the world and religion, then my music tastes should reflect my thinking and feelings. Another life lesson I've been learning in my theological studies is that my work operates better when my mind and heart operate in cooperation with each other. This enables me to give a more authentic reflection, and growing my music library is something I look to be another part of that project.
Stuff I've found so far that's good: (Sidewalk Prophets, as far as I can tell an unknown Christian band but they have really good stuff: Vertical Horizon, Matchbox Twenty (yes, old pop, but I just really don't like modern pop), Simon and Garfunkel, some System of a Down, some Korn, some Godsmack, Three Days Grace, Five for Fighting, and some others.
I've had a lot of fun expanding my music library and look to continue this project for a while. I also want to wish everyone a Happy and Blessed Holy Week and that God will grant peace and love during this week, and that in response, people will be inspired to love God and neighbor and make better choices for the common good. I know the amount of saturation I put on this blog makes certain people think "I'm Just Carrying On" (Vertical Horizon), but I do like my writing and my audience. (Assuming you're out there.) Prayers and peace for everybody.
Aristocrates
Something's been striking me about music lately, as I've found deeply symbolic, loving music in unexpected places. Most of my IPOD is Christian or instrumental music, as these have been deeply peaceful symbols in my life. They continue to serve this purpose. The explicit symbol Christian music gives of God's love in its depths serves a purpose of bringing people into worship. It can also be useful to be a good reminder of God's presence in the world for those who like explicit symbols. Instrumental music can also provide a means of reflection without words. This reflection is dependent on the tones the songs utilize. Scary music can bring up scary memories, just as happy music can bring up happy memories. (Or in my case, memories of beating certain games.)
However, what I'm also starting to notice with some Christian music is that the symbol becomes so saturated in the song that the message gets watered down because it's too simple. This oversaturation limits the growth of people's minds to expand music into love. Add instrumental music to this mix and the images don't grow, as they are limited by the oversaturation of imagery in the words that actually have lyrics. Again this only applies to some Christian music, other artists really portray multiple images in song very well. (I've found a lot of success finding artists that aren't necessarily in the Christian mainstream, except Matt Maher, he's got good stuff for someone in the mainstream.)
I've found something fun in really engaging other music to expand my music library. In a lot of music, there is implicit symbols even if it does not explicitly speak of God's life. These implicit symbols might not say God or even love directly in the text, but the imagery given in the music might draw people to these kinds of thoughts.
The other strength in diversifying my music is that different music speaks to a lot of different experience. System of a Down speaks a different symbolic language than Matt Maher or Simon and Garfunkel. Music can speak of anger, sadness, despair, or joy. Diverse music enables one to engage all sorts of feelings, which can enable a person to love deeply as they engage the symbols in their own musical listening practice. It's useful for ministry and love as it can help me search for God in different and unexpected places.
The exploration of new music has been fun and a project I hope to continue for a while. My goal is to keep some of the old explicit symbols while searching for new implicit symbols to gain the ability to attain more symbolism. If I write many blog posts concerning saturation and the obsessing of certain philosophical concepts in our application to the world and religion, then my music tastes should reflect my thinking and feelings. Another life lesson I've been learning in my theological studies is that my work operates better when my mind and heart operate in cooperation with each other. This enables me to give a more authentic reflection, and growing my music library is something I look to be another part of that project.
Stuff I've found so far that's good: (Sidewalk Prophets, as far as I can tell an unknown Christian band but they have really good stuff: Vertical Horizon, Matchbox Twenty (yes, old pop, but I just really don't like modern pop), Simon and Garfunkel, some System of a Down, some Korn, some Godsmack, Three Days Grace, Five for Fighting, and some others.
I've had a lot of fun expanding my music library and look to continue this project for a while. I also want to wish everyone a Happy and Blessed Holy Week and that God will grant peace and love during this week, and that in response, people will be inspired to love God and neighbor and make better choices for the common good. I know the amount of saturation I put on this blog makes certain people think "I'm Just Carrying On" (Vertical Horizon), but I do like my writing and my audience. (Assuming you're out there.) Prayers and peace for everybody.
Aristocrates
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
On Experiential Idolatry
Something's been bothering me lately, and usually when that happens I think about it for a while and then I decide to write about it. I want to do three things here. I want to present an anecdotal situation, analyze both parts of it, and then evaluate based on what I'm observing.
Here's a metaphorical situation which I've encountered before, but it's been told a few different ways to me so I'm not thinking of any particular person. For example, there is a male person who is going to a retreat. On this retreat, there is a lot of talk about religious vocation. During the adoration session, this person feels inspired by some means to want to become a priest. He feels affirmed in this call when he prays and talks to his adviser (person in charge of the retreat) and it feels right for him, so he goes and pursues seminary work.
Of course, this may sound like a familiar situation, and one which many people favor. Some may ask, oh Aristocrates, why does this bother you so much? What could you possibly be thinking? To analyze this situation, I want to look at two parts of what is going on. The first part of the situation is that God gives grace through prayer, conversation, service, and many other means. To see God's grace is a wonderful thing, and when proper discernment is done about God's grace being present, rejoicing in God's grace is good. Of course, there are situations where the community will say God's grace is present when it violates the supreme law of love, and that's where discernment is needed. But this isn't what I want to talk about.
The problem with this scenario is the equation made between seeing grace, having a feeling, and then equating it to God's will to make a particular choice (in this case for the man to become a priest.) Grace can be experienced in many different ways, and this grace can cause us to have particular feelings. Happy or sad feelings because grace can also lead us to look at the hard parts of ourselves and where we need conversion. However, when grace causes us to think about negating free choice, or thinking that God's love will only come (or will mostly come) if a person makes a particular choice, then this equation must be questioned.
I want to name this phenomenon experiential idolatry using the philosophical definition of idol given by Jean-Luc Marion. Simply put, the idol is anything which saturates our image of God in one particular phenomenon (thing, concept, etc.) In the example above, the retreat experience is placing his image of God in the particular calling of becoming a priest, which hinders his decision making ability. Grace should influence our decisions, but just because one has a feeling of something in response to a particular experience doesn't mean that God loves us more if we make that choice. Also, we have to be honest and admit when we are making choices for ourselves.
For the man above, there are many reasons he might consider being a priest. Some people like service, some people like Church, and others like ontological assimilation. None of these things are necessarily God's will. The danger in choosing a particular vocation and thinking it's God's will and instilling this belief in others is that we can believe that God doesn't love people as much if they don't follow their particular vocation. To limit God in this way is a serious issue because it contributes to idolatry and draws worship away from an infinite God of infinite possibilities.
The solution for this ministerial problem is simple. Help people evaluate their choices honestly, help people think about what's good for them, but take out the language of God's will, and avoid the jump from feeling in experience to necessitating a certain choice. It doesn't matter if we "need" priests in the Catholic Church, to build psychological pressure on people to move toward religious vocation by emphasizing God's will is morally problematic. God's will must equate with love, and this includes not using others. Use of others, also includes promoting experiential idolatry
Here's a metaphorical situation which I've encountered before, but it's been told a few different ways to me so I'm not thinking of any particular person. For example, there is a male person who is going to a retreat. On this retreat, there is a lot of talk about religious vocation. During the adoration session, this person feels inspired by some means to want to become a priest. He feels affirmed in this call when he prays and talks to his adviser (person in charge of the retreat) and it feels right for him, so he goes and pursues seminary work.
Of course, this may sound like a familiar situation, and one which many people favor. Some may ask, oh Aristocrates, why does this bother you so much? What could you possibly be thinking? To analyze this situation, I want to look at two parts of what is going on. The first part of the situation is that God gives grace through prayer, conversation, service, and many other means. To see God's grace is a wonderful thing, and when proper discernment is done about God's grace being present, rejoicing in God's grace is good. Of course, there are situations where the community will say God's grace is present when it violates the supreme law of love, and that's where discernment is needed. But this isn't what I want to talk about.
The problem with this scenario is the equation made between seeing grace, having a feeling, and then equating it to God's will to make a particular choice (in this case for the man to become a priest.) Grace can be experienced in many different ways, and this grace can cause us to have particular feelings. Happy or sad feelings because grace can also lead us to look at the hard parts of ourselves and where we need conversion. However, when grace causes us to think about negating free choice, or thinking that God's love will only come (or will mostly come) if a person makes a particular choice, then this equation must be questioned.
I want to name this phenomenon experiential idolatry using the philosophical definition of idol given by Jean-Luc Marion. Simply put, the idol is anything which saturates our image of God in one particular phenomenon (thing, concept, etc.) In the example above, the retreat experience is placing his image of God in the particular calling of becoming a priest, which hinders his decision making ability. Grace should influence our decisions, but just because one has a feeling of something in response to a particular experience doesn't mean that God loves us more if we make that choice. Also, we have to be honest and admit when we are making choices for ourselves.
For the man above, there are many reasons he might consider being a priest. Some people like service, some people like Church, and others like ontological assimilation. None of these things are necessarily God's will. The danger in choosing a particular vocation and thinking it's God's will and instilling this belief in others is that we can believe that God doesn't love people as much if they don't follow their particular vocation. To limit God in this way is a serious issue because it contributes to idolatry and draws worship away from an infinite God of infinite possibilities.
The solution for this ministerial problem is simple. Help people evaluate their choices honestly, help people think about what's good for them, but take out the language of God's will, and avoid the jump from feeling in experience to necessitating a certain choice. It doesn't matter if we "need" priests in the Catholic Church, to build psychological pressure on people to move toward religious vocation by emphasizing God's will is morally problematic. God's will must equate with love, and this includes not using others. Use of others, also includes promoting experiential idolatry
Sunday, February 27, 2011
More Time
The grand occasion of a snow day invites us to reflect on the meaning of time in our lives. For many people, especially in American culture, we have many things to do and lots of tasks to get done. Our time is very valuable. However, a snow day gives us the mandate to rest because we really can't go anywhere and even if we could most places are shut down. So on a day of rest, what do we find more time for.
This thought process comes up because of a friend's text message to me when I told her I was going to be doing much of what I had already planned to do, namely read a book. She laughed and told me I should go celebrate, so I responded by asking her what she was going to do to celebrate. And she was happy that she had more time to get her work done, which even if someone is not counting on a snow day, more time to get work done is always a good thing. I did what I originally set out to do, read a good Trinitarian theology book (The God of Jesus Christ by Walter Kasper) but also I took a walk outside, and made a snow angel :P ).
Now when we think of the phenomenon of more time there are really two inherent tensions of service we experience as persons. More time is either task oriented, or person oriented, and inherently people want both in order to feel accomplished and yet really serve the people who are nearest to them.
However, there is a problem in American society with how we emphasize our value of more time. America values productivity, working hard with one's time so one can get a reward. The reward is monetary stability (or so we are told) and the satisfaction of a hard day's work for our own fulfillment. In return, the gifts of labor we give work toward a common good of some sort, whether that be productivity, service, etc. In this exchange, people are valued in a commerce exchange, for what one can give to the other. While it is good to value the talents and gifts of others, in a commerce exchange, the gifts of others are all that are seen and shared. This mentality affects how we view our time with other people; namely, the temptation exists that if people don't serve our needs, we don't pay attention to their presence in our lives. This creates a potential for an indifference to build, even in the closest relationships, because our main method of relating is utilitarian. More time, then, becomes task oriented, we have to be doing something, otherwise we're not productive, not giving enough to the common good, or not sharing a pleasurable experience, etc.
To be fair, commerce exchanges are necessary for societal function. I need the person that I can buy a Cheesy Gordita Crunch from and not have it be an excessively personal relationship. There are too many people and too many needs to fully attach myself to every person whom I encounter. So there needs to be some distance in the good sense (identification) and in the not ideal sense (as separation from the other.) A possible solution to this exchange conundrum is gratitude. If we are thankful for the people who participate in commerce exchanges to get us our Cheesy Gordita Crunches, then it gives people a capacity for openness to others whom need more personal attention.
Openness is important in giving personal attention to others because it lets the other person be who they are in that moment. Positing the authentic self is an important tenet in the work of Kirkegaard in his reflections on the individual and the theological method of Bernard Lonergan. Authenticity allows for honesty which enables people to personally grow, be affirmed, and be challenged by those around them. This also requires a different wavelength of thought than the commerce exchanges of personal relationship which are valued by American culture in general (Church and State). It requires more attention and more depth.
The attention and depth given to personal relationships, however, leads to more fulfillment than a simple commerce exchange. The best example I can give is with my work. Right now, I read lots of books. A book can only teach me a certain amount of information based both on what is written in the pages by words, plus my own consciousness and givenness in thinking about the book's contents. The finite limit is on how much knowledge I can actually attain from the act of reading a book. However, depth in a personal relationship is almost limitless, only limited by the innate limits of being a human person. Why? Because humans transcend themselves through thoughts, feelings, and intuitions. People change and grow over time, and we are all a part of each other's change toward love, hate, or indifference. In this way, no matter how much time one spends with a person, complete knowledge is never really possible. In short, I will always have more time to read a book or write a paper because there is a limit to how much I can really know from any particular article, even though some pieces may be very formative to my thought, but I will never have enough time to fully know another person, even as much as I might want to, because the potential of another's knowledge and givenness is far beyond me, and can only be told through bits of mediation; in the smiles, joys, hopes, and fears of a human person (GS 1).
Having more time is always a blessing, but we need to think about how we spend more time with others, and what our time means to us and to the world.
Aristocrates
This thought process comes up because of a friend's text message to me when I told her I was going to be doing much of what I had already planned to do, namely read a book. She laughed and told me I should go celebrate, so I responded by asking her what she was going to do to celebrate. And she was happy that she had more time to get her work done, which even if someone is not counting on a snow day, more time to get work done is always a good thing. I did what I originally set out to do, read a good Trinitarian theology book (The God of Jesus Christ by Walter Kasper) but also I took a walk outside, and made a snow angel :P ).
Now when we think of the phenomenon of more time there are really two inherent tensions of service we experience as persons. More time is either task oriented, or person oriented, and inherently people want both in order to feel accomplished and yet really serve the people who are nearest to them.
However, there is a problem in American society with how we emphasize our value of more time. America values productivity, working hard with one's time so one can get a reward. The reward is monetary stability (or so we are told) and the satisfaction of a hard day's work for our own fulfillment. In return, the gifts of labor we give work toward a common good of some sort, whether that be productivity, service, etc. In this exchange, people are valued in a commerce exchange, for what one can give to the other. While it is good to value the talents and gifts of others, in a commerce exchange, the gifts of others are all that are seen and shared. This mentality affects how we view our time with other people; namely, the temptation exists that if people don't serve our needs, we don't pay attention to their presence in our lives. This creates a potential for an indifference to build, even in the closest relationships, because our main method of relating is utilitarian. More time, then, becomes task oriented, we have to be doing something, otherwise we're not productive, not giving enough to the common good, or not sharing a pleasurable experience, etc.
To be fair, commerce exchanges are necessary for societal function. I need the person that I can buy a Cheesy Gordita Crunch from and not have it be an excessively personal relationship. There are too many people and too many needs to fully attach myself to every person whom I encounter. So there needs to be some distance in the good sense (identification) and in the not ideal sense (as separation from the other.) A possible solution to this exchange conundrum is gratitude. If we are thankful for the people who participate in commerce exchanges to get us our Cheesy Gordita Crunches, then it gives people a capacity for openness to others whom need more personal attention.
Openness is important in giving personal attention to others because it lets the other person be who they are in that moment. Positing the authentic self is an important tenet in the work of Kirkegaard in his reflections on the individual and the theological method of Bernard Lonergan. Authenticity allows for honesty which enables people to personally grow, be affirmed, and be challenged by those around them. This also requires a different wavelength of thought than the commerce exchanges of personal relationship which are valued by American culture in general (Church and State). It requires more attention and more depth.
The attention and depth given to personal relationships, however, leads to more fulfillment than a simple commerce exchange. The best example I can give is with my work. Right now, I read lots of books. A book can only teach me a certain amount of information based both on what is written in the pages by words, plus my own consciousness and givenness in thinking about the book's contents. The finite limit is on how much knowledge I can actually attain from the act of reading a book. However, depth in a personal relationship is almost limitless, only limited by the innate limits of being a human person. Why? Because humans transcend themselves through thoughts, feelings, and intuitions. People change and grow over time, and we are all a part of each other's change toward love, hate, or indifference. In this way, no matter how much time one spends with a person, complete knowledge is never really possible. In short, I will always have more time to read a book or write a paper because there is a limit to how much I can really know from any particular article, even though some pieces may be very formative to my thought, but I will never have enough time to fully know another person, even as much as I might want to, because the potential of another's knowledge and givenness is far beyond me, and can only be told through bits of mediation; in the smiles, joys, hopes, and fears of a human person (GS 1).
Having more time is always a blessing, but we need to think about how we spend more time with others, and what our time means to us and to the world.
Aristocrates
Sunday, January 23, 2011
On A Big Week in Politics and Catholicism
I miss my blog, so I wanted to post since it's been a while. Life has been crazy but that's what happens when life happens and work does as well. This, however, is a big couple of weeks in Catholicism so I want to be creative and write a post responding to the big two weeks which are occurring. In a short post, I hope to cover topics of racism, ecumenism, and abortion, so this will be a heavy post, but I hope a productive one.
The first big day in Catholic world is MLK day. It's a big day for a lot of people, not just Catholics.
What Martin Luther King, Jr. teaches us is about dignity and love of all people. I hope this internal dialogue can bring a little light to what Dr. King teaches us.
"What does this person mean that I can't hang out or play games with my friend? He says we also can't talk about spirituality, because I'm white trailer trash and he's a native. But I like my online multiplayer games with my friend, and I like my deeper conversations with him. Just because he's native and I'm white doesn't mean we can't relate. We're still people capable of loving others and participating in a friendship. I'm not intrinsically different because I'm white and he's not. To say that means that one is capable of love and good and the other not, and that's not my experience. I also have seen the inverse be true where white people are awful and people of other races show generous mercy and hospitality."
In caring about racism, it is important to affirm the dignity of people because all are capable of love, and all deserve to be loved because God creates all things. The lesson from Dr. King is this precise message, that people must be treated equally, and all people are capable of love.
This week is the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. I believe Cardinal Kasper has been quoted as saying that the greatest scandal in Christianity is the division of the Church. The divisions of the Church are a deep problem because it divides the message of Christ. The reading from Mass today from 1 Corinthians places Paul in a situation where he is dealing with a divided community and focusing on their leader. Some are for Paul, some are for Cephas, and some are for Christ. This divides the community because people are unsure of their leader, and which path they should follow. Paul calls the community to be one and remember their call to Christ (1 Cor 8).
There are two major problems that come with ecumenical discussions. Some believe that the differences in faith need to be blurred and people are really more alike than different in their belief. Others believe that their one religion is the true religion and there can be no compromise and everyone else must convert. I want to challenge these ecumenical classifications and as my discussion on racism I want to bring the focus on people who love and people who are really trying their best to love God and neighbor. The problem with the first ideology of ecumenism is that people show they are not really listening and loving to the unique experience of people. The problem with the second mentality is that it is a) judgmental and b) not reflective of the ways their Church may have screwed up in the past. (This is particularly common in Catholic circles among people of more traditional belief.) To love means to be willing to engage experiences different than one's own. Ecumenism is a deep need because it opens people up to listen to the heart of other's experience.
Now before we continue to the final reflection, I want to expose the real reason I'm writing this piece. There are many issues which come up in theology, but one issue which is exposed by this time in the calendar is the divisions between people who value fighting racism and ecumenism, and people who value fighting abortion. Often times people who value fighting racism and ecumenism become angry at people who fight against abortion because of a perceived judgmental mentality which contributes to racism and superiority and too narrow of a worldview since many sources who fight against abortion proclaim it is the greatest moral evil in society. This caricature leads to hatred. However, there is also a problem with people who fight against abortion. They tend to believe those who are fighting against racism and for ecumenism are contributing to the moral degrading of society because they don't focus enough on sexuality and there is a perceived lack of objective truth which leads to a degrading of morals. This caricature is built up by elites on both sides who want to lead people to do something for society, but their imagery causes more hurt than help. When a perceived other is made to be the cause of problems in society and imagery of what is good and bad continues to build up this animosity, then people lose the ability to listen and understand the other. All three issues: racism, ecumenism, and abortion, require a deep empathy in listening in order to deal with these major societal problems. Listening allows us to love even when it is hard to, and even if it seems like an everyday, ordinary thing. To deal with the major societal issues, people also have to think differently, because a narrow, judgmental, non-listening thought process inhibits one's ability to act.
So now let's think about abortion. Abortion is just as intrinsically evil as racism because it is lacking care toward a vulnerable and different member of society (e.g. born and unborn). Abortion is just as scandalous as the division of Christian religions because it ruptures a deep union between family and child. Abortion divides couples, their friends, and their extended family because many people have different feelings about abortion. Abortion, racism and the division of Christian religions are all serious problems because they all have implications for the dignity of people. All of these problems invade the dignity of people because the emphasize difference to an extreme and do not take into account that all people love, and all people are loved by God. Our response to these issues can only be to love, and this starts with listening and engaging others in their lives. This week can be a great week to listen to other's stories and share lives in order to grow the community but also affirm the individual who acts in community. When love is love, and dignity is dignity, in the big and the small, will the Catholic Church as a people grow to be the symbol of love that it seeks to represent in its sacrament and life.
Aristocrates
The first big day in Catholic world is MLK day. It's a big day for a lot of people, not just Catholics.
What Martin Luther King, Jr. teaches us is about dignity and love of all people. I hope this internal dialogue can bring a little light to what Dr. King teaches us.
"What does this person mean that I can't hang out or play games with my friend? He says we also can't talk about spirituality, because I'm white trailer trash and he's a native. But I like my online multiplayer games with my friend, and I like my deeper conversations with him. Just because he's native and I'm white doesn't mean we can't relate. We're still people capable of loving others and participating in a friendship. I'm not intrinsically different because I'm white and he's not. To say that means that one is capable of love and good and the other not, and that's not my experience. I also have seen the inverse be true where white people are awful and people of other races show generous mercy and hospitality."
In caring about racism, it is important to affirm the dignity of people because all are capable of love, and all deserve to be loved because God creates all things. The lesson from Dr. King is this precise message, that people must be treated equally, and all people are capable of love.
This week is the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. I believe Cardinal Kasper has been quoted as saying that the greatest scandal in Christianity is the division of the Church. The divisions of the Church are a deep problem because it divides the message of Christ. The reading from Mass today from 1 Corinthians places Paul in a situation where he is dealing with a divided community and focusing on their leader. Some are for Paul, some are for Cephas, and some are for Christ. This divides the community because people are unsure of their leader, and which path they should follow. Paul calls the community to be one and remember their call to Christ (1 Cor 8).
There are two major problems that come with ecumenical discussions. Some believe that the differences in faith need to be blurred and people are really more alike than different in their belief. Others believe that their one religion is the true religion and there can be no compromise and everyone else must convert. I want to challenge these ecumenical classifications and as my discussion on racism I want to bring the focus on people who love and people who are really trying their best to love God and neighbor. The problem with the first ideology of ecumenism is that people show they are not really listening and loving to the unique experience of people. The problem with the second mentality is that it is a) judgmental and b) not reflective of the ways their Church may have screwed up in the past. (This is particularly common in Catholic circles among people of more traditional belief.) To love means to be willing to engage experiences different than one's own. Ecumenism is a deep need because it opens people up to listen to the heart of other's experience.
Now before we continue to the final reflection, I want to expose the real reason I'm writing this piece. There are many issues which come up in theology, but one issue which is exposed by this time in the calendar is the divisions between people who value fighting racism and ecumenism, and people who value fighting abortion. Often times people who value fighting racism and ecumenism become angry at people who fight against abortion because of a perceived judgmental mentality which contributes to racism and superiority and too narrow of a worldview since many sources who fight against abortion proclaim it is the greatest moral evil in society. This caricature leads to hatred. However, there is also a problem with people who fight against abortion. They tend to believe those who are fighting against racism and for ecumenism are contributing to the moral degrading of society because they don't focus enough on sexuality and there is a perceived lack of objective truth which leads to a degrading of morals. This caricature is built up by elites on both sides who want to lead people to do something for society, but their imagery causes more hurt than help. When a perceived other is made to be the cause of problems in society and imagery of what is good and bad continues to build up this animosity, then people lose the ability to listen and understand the other. All three issues: racism, ecumenism, and abortion, require a deep empathy in listening in order to deal with these major societal problems. Listening allows us to love even when it is hard to, and even if it seems like an everyday, ordinary thing. To deal with the major societal issues, people also have to think differently, because a narrow, judgmental, non-listening thought process inhibits one's ability to act.
So now let's think about abortion. Abortion is just as intrinsically evil as racism because it is lacking care toward a vulnerable and different member of society (e.g. born and unborn). Abortion is just as scandalous as the division of Christian religions because it ruptures a deep union between family and child. Abortion divides couples, their friends, and their extended family because many people have different feelings about abortion. Abortion, racism and the division of Christian religions are all serious problems because they all have implications for the dignity of people. All of these problems invade the dignity of people because the emphasize difference to an extreme and do not take into account that all people love, and all people are loved by God. Our response to these issues can only be to love, and this starts with listening and engaging others in their lives. This week can be a great week to listen to other's stories and share lives in order to grow the community but also affirm the individual who acts in community. When love is love, and dignity is dignity, in the big and the small, will the Catholic Church as a people grow to be the symbol of love that it seeks to represent in its sacrament and life.
Aristocrates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)