"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility"--Dietrich Bonhoeffer
(...and sorry for the prolonged absence, have been under deadline, hope to be back very soon!)
Monday, April 28, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Yoke of Religion
"Come unto me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and you shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30
I've fallen in love. I've fallen in love and I want to marry...a book. Can I marry a book?
I've rarely come across a book that has so many profound insights gathered between it's pages, so many earth shattering revelations, so simply put, as The Shaking of the Foundations by Paul Tillich, the great existential theologian. I mentioned this book in my last post on existential Christianity, and I've been reading it some more. It's a collection of sermons that he delivered 'in a language avoiding traditional terms'. For a great theologian, that might just mean that he makes himself understandable! But levity aside, it also means he speaks through theory and into practice in a way that resonates profoundly.
Why? Because he names things. He unrelentingly names the human condition. A very real human condition--not a glossed over, superficial, Hollywood version of our psyches and existences. And he names all the little warped and twisted things we do to wriggle out of our condition, only to dig ourselves deeper. But he does this with compassion, and ultimately joy, because he has been gripped and freed by the bigger answer.
My latest read is his sermon entitled 'The Yoke of Religion'. He explores the above passage from Matthew. Here is an excerpt:
The burden [Christ] wants to take from us is the burden of religion...the law of religion is the great attempt of man to overcome his anxiety and restlessness and despair, to close the gap within himself, and to reach immortality, spirituality and perfection. So he labors and toils under the religious law in thought and act.
The religious law demands that he accept ideas and dogmas, that he believe doctrines and traditions, the acceptance of which is his salvation from anxiety, despair and death. So he tries to accept them although they may have become strange or doubtful to him. He labors and toils under the religious demand to believe things he cannot believe. Finally he tries to escape the law of religion. He tries to cast away the heavy yoke of the doctrinal law imposed on him by Church authorities, orthodox teachers, pious parents and fixed traditions...He casts away the yoke but none can live in the emptiness of mere skepticism, and so he returns to the old yoke in a kind of self-torturing fanaticism and tries to impose it on other people, on his children or pupils. He is driven by an unconscious desire for revenge, because of the burden he has taken on himself.
Others find new yokes outside the Church, new doctrinal laws under which they begin to labor: political ideologies which they propagate with religious fanaticism, scientific theories which they defend with religious dogmatism, and utopian expectations they pronounce as the condition of salvation for the world, forcing whole nations under the yoke of their creeds which are religions, even while they pretend to destroy religion. We are all laboring under the yoke of religion....
He then goes on to talk about what Jesus truly meant in saying that His yoke was light. And he brings the reader to a depth of understanding about the New Being formed in the person of the Christ which surpasses almost anything else I have ever read on this subject. His ability to put words to the experience of living the Truth is so beautiful I dare not try to transcribe it here. I can not recommend highly enough reading this sermon for yourself, but in case you can not get a hold of it, I give you an excerpt from the conclusion....
...He does not impose religion and law, burden and yokes, upon men. We would turn down His call with hatred if He called us to the Christian religion or to the Christian doctrine or to the Christian morals. We would not accept His claim to be meek and humble and to give rest to our souls, if He gave us new commands for thinking and acting. Jesus is not the creator of another religion, but the victor over religion; He is not the maker of another law, but the conqueror of law. We, the ministers and teachers of Christianity, do not call you to Christianity but rather to the New Being to which Christianity should be a witness and nothing else, not confusing itself with that New Being. Forget all Christian doctrines; forget your own certainties and your own doubts, when you hear the call of Jesus. Forget all Christian morals, your achievements, and your failures, when you come to Him. Nothing is demanded of you--no idea of God, and no goodness in yourselves, not your being religious, not your being Christian, not your being wise, and not your being moral. But what is demanded is only your being open and willing to accept what is given to you, the New Being, the being of love and justice and truth, as it is manifest in Him Whose yoke is easy and Whose burden is light.
The foundations are shaking indeed. For those who are interested in owning a copy of this marvelous book, you can find inexpensive and used copies on Amazon, look for the 1948 version by Scribner.
I've fallen in love. I've fallen in love and I want to marry...a book. Can I marry a book?
I've rarely come across a book that has so many profound insights gathered between it's pages, so many earth shattering revelations, so simply put, as The Shaking of the Foundations by Paul Tillich, the great existential theologian. I mentioned this book in my last post on existential Christianity, and I've been reading it some more. It's a collection of sermons that he delivered 'in a language avoiding traditional terms'. For a great theologian, that might just mean that he makes himself understandable! But levity aside, it also means he speaks through theory and into practice in a way that resonates profoundly.
Why? Because he names things. He unrelentingly names the human condition. A very real human condition--not a glossed over, superficial, Hollywood version of our psyches and existences. And he names all the little warped and twisted things we do to wriggle out of our condition, only to dig ourselves deeper. But he does this with compassion, and ultimately joy, because he has been gripped and freed by the bigger answer.
My latest read is his sermon entitled 'The Yoke of Religion'. He explores the above passage from Matthew. Here is an excerpt:
The burden [Christ] wants to take from us is the burden of religion...the law of religion is the great attempt of man to overcome his anxiety and restlessness and despair, to close the gap within himself, and to reach immortality, spirituality and perfection. So he labors and toils under the religious law in thought and act.
The religious law demands that he accept ideas and dogmas, that he believe doctrines and traditions, the acceptance of which is his salvation from anxiety, despair and death. So he tries to accept them although they may have become strange or doubtful to him. He labors and toils under the religious demand to believe things he cannot believe. Finally he tries to escape the law of religion. He tries to cast away the heavy yoke of the doctrinal law imposed on him by Church authorities, orthodox teachers, pious parents and fixed traditions...He casts away the yoke but none can live in the emptiness of mere skepticism, and so he returns to the old yoke in a kind of self-torturing fanaticism and tries to impose it on other people, on his children or pupils. He is driven by an unconscious desire for revenge, because of the burden he has taken on himself.
Others find new yokes outside the Church, new doctrinal laws under which they begin to labor: political ideologies which they propagate with religious fanaticism, scientific theories which they defend with religious dogmatism, and utopian expectations they pronounce as the condition of salvation for the world, forcing whole nations under the yoke of their creeds which are religions, even while they pretend to destroy religion. We are all laboring under the yoke of religion....
He then goes on to talk about what Jesus truly meant in saying that His yoke was light. And he brings the reader to a depth of understanding about the New Being formed in the person of the Christ which surpasses almost anything else I have ever read on this subject. His ability to put words to the experience of living the Truth is so beautiful I dare not try to transcribe it here. I can not recommend highly enough reading this sermon for yourself, but in case you can not get a hold of it, I give you an excerpt from the conclusion....
...He does not impose religion and law, burden and yokes, upon men. We would turn down His call with hatred if He called us to the Christian religion or to the Christian doctrine or to the Christian morals. We would not accept His claim to be meek and humble and to give rest to our souls, if He gave us new commands for thinking and acting. Jesus is not the creator of another religion, but the victor over religion; He is not the maker of another law, but the conqueror of law. We, the ministers and teachers of Christianity, do not call you to Christianity but rather to the New Being to which Christianity should be a witness and nothing else, not confusing itself with that New Being. Forget all Christian doctrines; forget your own certainties and your own doubts, when you hear the call of Jesus. Forget all Christian morals, your achievements, and your failures, when you come to Him. Nothing is demanded of you--no idea of God, and no goodness in yourselves, not your being religious, not your being Christian, not your being wise, and not your being moral. But what is demanded is only your being open and willing to accept what is given to you, the New Being, the being of love and justice and truth, as it is manifest in Him Whose yoke is easy and Whose burden is light.
The foundations are shaking indeed. For those who are interested in owning a copy of this marvelous book, you can find inexpensive and used copies on Amazon, look for the 1948 version by Scribner.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Wonder Bread and Curry...
Jhumpa Lahiri, the wonderful Indian-American author of The Interpreter of Maladies and the wonderful novel that was made into a movie, The Namesake, has released a new collection of stories, Unaccustomed Earth. Extensive New York times review here.
For anyone who has experienced the transcendent joys and the oddly mundane, but occasionally paralyzing, insecurities of being both at home and a stranger to this wonderful country, her books will resonate.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Existential Christian Musings Part II
The other day in my reading I came across an argument that the Semitic languages, Hebrew and Arabic, are very much 'verb-oriented' and so tend to focus on action. The Indo-European languages, by contrast, and in particular Greek, are very 'noun-oriented', thereby focusing on the name-ability of life (yes, I just invented that word, no idea if it exists, sorry!).
The argument went on to point out that for this reason, words which were originally used to describe an actuality--christanoia, meaning those who seek to be like the Christ, and islam, meaning submission to God--began, through the subtle influence of language and how it shapes our thinking, to be used as nouns describing groups of people, rather than as verbs describing how certain people oriented themselves existentially.
I had no idea that languages had impacted evolution of thought about religion to such an extent, and more troubling, that language could have impacted our very experience of our life lived in faith, in such a way as to make it an entirely superficial ordeal. But consider the very real experience that many of us have had in encountering 'Christians' who in no way act like Christ, and 'Muslims' who show no interest in islam. The fact that we continue, untroubled, to use these words throughout the world in a way that designates identity groups rather than an inner posture shows the schism that we have come to take for granted in our thinking.
Some time back, the discussion touched on 'types' of faith. Marcus Borg, in his book The Heart of Christianity, describes four types of faith: assensus, where we give our mental assent to a proposition or doctrine (and he maintains this is the most common type of faith both within the church and without), fiducia, meaning a radical trust in God (not in statements about God, but in God), fidelitas , meaning faith as a fidelity to our relationship with God, the commitment of our deepest self, and visio, the way in which we see the whole picture as determined by our faith in God. This broadened vision of faith as needing to mean more than a mental 'assent' has been invaluable to me in my own understanding of why so much of what is commonly called 'faith' seems insufficient to many people in dealing with the reality of life.
Where Borg's book led me, but didn't follow through, (I was instead met by the likes of Emil Brunner and Paul Tillich) was down to the existential 'ground of being'. The place of original encounter with God. And at the ground of being is where the great theologians meet us with our own existential realities. With the truth of our desire to defy God, even escape God. These are not thoughts I would ever have lightly entertained. It had seemed to me that God was the answer to so many of my heart's questions, so why should I ever want to escape God? And yet, at some level, I came to see that I do. Emil Brunner writes of Man in Revolt, an entire tome on man's inherent predisposition to this effect. And Paul Tillich, in one of the most devastating sermons I have ever read, Escape from God, writes that "Man tries to escape God, and hates Him, because he cannot escape Him. The protest against God, the will that there be no God, and the flight to atheism are all genuine elements of profound religion."
I have come to believe, with the help of these profound men of faith, that this occurs at a profoundly existential level because at that level, or perhaps especially at that level, God is the undeniable Witness to our lives, whose presence is unchosen and yet inescapable. And at this, we falter. We want to have chosen God, rather than have Him to have chosen us. We are comfortable with a God who exists for us, rather than an 'us' or a 'me' who exists because of God. And in the world we live in, and perhaps even because of the language to which we are accultured, this sort of wrestling is almost never spoken of. We speak of a a loving God, a gracious God, and perhaps we debate about omniscience and omnipotence, but rarely do we allow ourselves to be brought to that place where we are forced to accept and truly experience that, ultimately, God is not ours to define. Compared to this realization, it would be more comforting, at times, to stand with the atheists and proclaim that God is a man-made invention, an 'opiate' of the people. Perhaps some have even argued that that is the more courageous route. But I am coming to see that faith takes a courage I never imagined. I would begin to argue, as Tillich did, that "the Man who has never tried to flee God has never experienced the God Who Is Really God". For to encounter that God is to at once realise the defeat of our own most cherished illusions about ourselves. To be quite blunt, this is an appalling state of affairs for the ego. It is no wonder that the instinct is to flee. And yet, to encounter 'That God Who Is Really God' is the beginning of the possibility of being reconciled to Him, and therefore to our deepest existential reality.
And it is here where Christianity shows something perhaps unexpected about God; that even as He created us and sees us clearly in our rebellious nature, He understands this rebellion better than we ourselves do and did the only thing He could do to reconcile us to Him without crushing our already appalled egos. Again, Paul Tillich leads us through the depths of our rebellion to the redemption of reconciliation and says the following:
"Yet when the Divine is rejected, It takes the rejection upon Itself. It accepts our crucifixion, our pushing away, the defence of ourselves against It. It accepts our refusal to accept, and thus conquers us. That is the centre of the mystery of the Christ. Let us try to imagine a Christ Who would not die, and Who would come in glory to impose upon us His power, His wisdom, His morality, and His piety. He would be able to break our resistance by His strength, by His wonderful government, by His infallible wisdom, and by His irresistible perfection. But He would not be able to win our hearts. He would bring a new law, and would impose it upon us by His all-powerful and all-perfect Personality. His power would break our freedom; His glory would overwhelm us like a burning, blinding sun; our very humanity would be swallowed up in His Divinity. One of Luther's most profound insights was that God made Himself small for us in Christ. In so doing, He left us our freedom and our humanity. He showed us His heart, so that our hearts could be won." (from He Who is the Christ, in the book The Shaking of the Foundations)
It is, indeed, the only way. No other action that I can conceive of would be able to speak so eloquently through our defenses, so tenderly honor our humanity, so greatly pierce our hearts. For it seems a certainty that the only thing that would be able to convince the frightened ego to let go of its resistance to the overwhelming reality of God would be the utter conviction that not only did God create us, but that He loves us, and that that Love which threatens at first to take away our 'lives' is a Love that will ultimately give us true life, unconquerable life, with the peace, joy and freedom we so deeply crave. The only way it would all come together is if we could overcome our fear because our love for God, in response to His great love for us, became greater than our fear. In Christ, God makes us this offer and this promise. Our existential choice, and God's blessing of us with free-will, is that it is we are free to accept it, or free to deny it (and to take the consequences that come with both choices). But we can not change it. The offer, promise, reality and Love of God will stand regardless.
The argument went on to point out that for this reason, words which were originally used to describe an actuality--christanoia, meaning those who seek to be like the Christ, and islam, meaning submission to God--began, through the subtle influence of language and how it shapes our thinking, to be used as nouns describing groups of people, rather than as verbs describing how certain people oriented themselves existentially.
I had no idea that languages had impacted evolution of thought about religion to such an extent, and more troubling, that language could have impacted our very experience of our life lived in faith, in such a way as to make it an entirely superficial ordeal. But consider the very real experience that many of us have had in encountering 'Christians' who in no way act like Christ, and 'Muslims' who show no interest in islam. The fact that we continue, untroubled, to use these words throughout the world in a way that designates identity groups rather than an inner posture shows the schism that we have come to take for granted in our thinking.
Some time back, the discussion touched on 'types' of faith. Marcus Borg, in his book The Heart of Christianity, describes four types of faith: assensus, where we give our mental assent to a proposition or doctrine (and he maintains this is the most common type of faith both within the church and without), fiducia, meaning a radical trust in God (not in statements about God, but in God), fidelitas , meaning faith as a fidelity to our relationship with God, the commitment of our deepest self, and visio, the way in which we see the whole picture as determined by our faith in God. This broadened vision of faith as needing to mean more than a mental 'assent' has been invaluable to me in my own understanding of why so much of what is commonly called 'faith' seems insufficient to many people in dealing with the reality of life.
Where Borg's book led me, but didn't follow through, (I was instead met by the likes of Emil Brunner and Paul Tillich) was down to the existential 'ground of being'. The place of original encounter with God. And at the ground of being is where the great theologians meet us with our own existential realities. With the truth of our desire to defy God, even escape God. These are not thoughts I would ever have lightly entertained. It had seemed to me that God was the answer to so many of my heart's questions, so why should I ever want to escape God? And yet, at some level, I came to see that I do. Emil Brunner writes of Man in Revolt, an entire tome on man's inherent predisposition to this effect. And Paul Tillich, in one of the most devastating sermons I have ever read, Escape from God, writes that "Man tries to escape God, and hates Him, because he cannot escape Him. The protest against God, the will that there be no God, and the flight to atheism are all genuine elements of profound religion."
I have come to believe, with the help of these profound men of faith, that this occurs at a profoundly existential level because at that level, or perhaps especially at that level, God is the undeniable Witness to our lives, whose presence is unchosen and yet inescapable. And at this, we falter. We want to have chosen God, rather than have Him to have chosen us. We are comfortable with a God who exists for us, rather than an 'us' or a 'me' who exists because of God. And in the world we live in, and perhaps even because of the language to which we are accultured, this sort of wrestling is almost never spoken of. We speak of a a loving God, a gracious God, and perhaps we debate about omniscience and omnipotence, but rarely do we allow ourselves to be brought to that place where we are forced to accept and truly experience that, ultimately, God is not ours to define. Compared to this realization, it would be more comforting, at times, to stand with the atheists and proclaim that God is a man-made invention, an 'opiate' of the people. Perhaps some have even argued that that is the more courageous route. But I am coming to see that faith takes a courage I never imagined. I would begin to argue, as Tillich did, that "the Man who has never tried to flee God has never experienced the God Who Is Really God". For to encounter that God is to at once realise the defeat of our own most cherished illusions about ourselves. To be quite blunt, this is an appalling state of affairs for the ego. It is no wonder that the instinct is to flee. And yet, to encounter 'That God Who Is Really God' is the beginning of the possibility of being reconciled to Him, and therefore to our deepest existential reality.
And it is here where Christianity shows something perhaps unexpected about God; that even as He created us and sees us clearly in our rebellious nature, He understands this rebellion better than we ourselves do and did the only thing He could do to reconcile us to Him without crushing our already appalled egos. Again, Paul Tillich leads us through the depths of our rebellion to the redemption of reconciliation and says the following:
"Yet when the Divine is rejected, It takes the rejection upon Itself. It accepts our crucifixion, our pushing away, the defence of ourselves against It. It accepts our refusal to accept, and thus conquers us. That is the centre of the mystery of the Christ. Let us try to imagine a Christ Who would not die, and Who would come in glory to impose upon us His power, His wisdom, His morality, and His piety. He would be able to break our resistance by His strength, by His wonderful government, by His infallible wisdom, and by His irresistible perfection. But He would not be able to win our hearts. He would bring a new law, and would impose it upon us by His all-powerful and all-perfect Personality. His power would break our freedom; His glory would overwhelm us like a burning, blinding sun; our very humanity would be swallowed up in His Divinity. One of Luther's most profound insights was that God made Himself small for us in Christ. In so doing, He left us our freedom and our humanity. He showed us His heart, so that our hearts could be won." (from He Who is the Christ, in the book The Shaking of the Foundations)
It is, indeed, the only way. No other action that I can conceive of would be able to speak so eloquently through our defenses, so tenderly honor our humanity, so greatly pierce our hearts. For it seems a certainty that the only thing that would be able to convince the frightened ego to let go of its resistance to the overwhelming reality of God would be the utter conviction that not only did God create us, but that He loves us, and that that Love which threatens at first to take away our 'lives' is a Love that will ultimately give us true life, unconquerable life, with the peace, joy and freedom we so deeply crave. The only way it would all come together is if we could overcome our fear because our love for God, in response to His great love for us, became greater than our fear. In Christ, God makes us this offer and this promise. Our existential choice, and God's blessing of us with free-will, is that it is we are free to accept it, or free to deny it (and to take the consequences that come with both choices). But we can not change it. The offer, promise, reality and Love of God will stand regardless.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Equals in Creation...
In Vali Nasr's book, The Shia Revival, he cites a letter that was written by Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed, during the brief period of his Caliphate in the mid 7th century. He wrote this letter to his governor in Egypt, and it was later compiled along with other letters and sermons of his which together formed the basis of much political wisdom in early Islam, particularly among the Shia.
In his letter, he commends the governor to be a just and righteous ruler, prudent and self-disciplined. He then goes on to say the following:
"...Infuse your heart with mercy, love, and kindness for your subjects. Be not in the face of them a voracious animal, counting them as easy prey, for they are of two kinds: either they are your brothers in religion or your equals in creation. Error catches them unaware, deficiencies overcome them, and evil deeds are committed by them intentionally and by mistake. So grant them your pardon and your forgiveness to the same extent that you hope God will grant you His pardon and His forgiveness...."
Either they are your brothers in religion, or your equals in creation.
How utterly eloquent. And brilliant, because the reality of God is invoked in both options, but the need to agree 'about' God only limited to one.
In his letter, he commends the governor to be a just and righteous ruler, prudent and self-disciplined. He then goes on to say the following:
"...Infuse your heart with mercy, love, and kindness for your subjects. Be not in the face of them a voracious animal, counting them as easy prey, for they are of two kinds: either they are your brothers in religion or your equals in creation. Error catches them unaware, deficiencies overcome them, and evil deeds are committed by them intentionally and by mistake. So grant them your pardon and your forgiveness to the same extent that you hope God will grant you His pardon and His forgiveness...."
Either they are your brothers in religion, or your equals in creation.
How utterly eloquent. And brilliant, because the reality of God is invoked in both options, but the need to agree 'about' God only limited to one.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Books on Islam
Sorry I haven't posted much lately, I've been swamped with reading and also a cold, but for those who may be interested, I thought I'd share some of the latest books I've read--all of which I highly recommend:
On basic Islamic beliefs....What's Right with Islam, by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an unexpectedly rich source of all kinds of information, with an exploration of basic Islamic tenets, how those tenets interact with other religions as well as Western values (in particular the US context), and also lots of fascinating nuggets on the history of the Islamic world.
On the history and evolution of Islam as a religion and a political force, with particular focus on the idea that we are currently witnessing an 'Islamic reformation'....No god but God by Reza Aslan remains one of my favorites. It's clear, eloquent and informative, and his gift for story-telling brings the history alive in startling and often moving ways.
On the current state of affairs in the Middle East...Resurrecting Empire by Rashid Khalidi is a knock-out. I haven't read all of it, but what I have read makes me want to weep for the arrogance with which we have handled so many of our foreign policy decisions. He is a well-known and respected historian, and brings a much needed historical analytical perspective to the constant superficial media portrayals of that part of the world.
And for those who really want to go deeper....The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr is an amazing account of how Sunni and Shia political and theological conflicts have long shaped interactions in the Islamic world, and will continue to do so in the future. This book is packed with relevant facts, offering a clear window into the wide ranging sweep of the evolving Islamic world, and a deep intuitive grasp of the underlying motivations and currents impacting decision-making among the religious elite. Imho, it should be a must-read for anyone involved in the foreign policy or military worlds!
If anyone has read these already, or intends to do so, will love to know what you think!
On basic Islamic beliefs....What's Right with Islam, by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an unexpectedly rich source of all kinds of information, with an exploration of basic Islamic tenets, how those tenets interact with other religions as well as Western values (in particular the US context), and also lots of fascinating nuggets on the history of the Islamic world.On the history and evolution of Islam as a religion and a political force, with particular focus on the idea that we are currently witnessing an 'Islamic reformation'....No god but God by Reza Aslan remains one of my favorites. It's clear, eloquent and informative, and his gift for story-telling brings the history alive in startling and often moving ways.
On the current state of affairs in the Middle East...Resurrecting Empire by Rashid Khalidi is a knock-out. I haven't read all of it, but what I have read makes me want to weep for the arrogance with which we have handled so many of our foreign policy decisions. He is a well-known and respected historian, and brings a much needed historical analytical perspective to the constant superficial media portrayals of that part of the world.
And for those who really want to go deeper....The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr is an amazing account of how Sunni and Shia political and theological conflicts have long shaped interactions in the Islamic world, and will continue to do so in the future. This book is packed with relevant facts, offering a clear window into the wide ranging sweep of the evolving Islamic world, and a deep intuitive grasp of the underlying motivations and currents impacting decision-making among the religious elite. Imho, it should be a must-read for anyone involved in the foreign policy or military worlds!If anyone has read these already, or intends to do so, will love to know what you think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
