("Give it a break" I hear you say. OK, I'll try make this the last spirituality post ... but no promises)
Last night I went to bed disturbed. I had gone to a dinner-speech-discussion (part of a provocative series named iDoubt) where the speaker attempted to draw lessons from the synergy of western and eastern religions: "Is the God of the east the same as the God of the west?" was the question. The cynic in me immediately answered "Duh, of course they're the same: money is money". Cynics aside, the evening was actually about spirituality. I'd thought I'd got that out of my system (see here and here), so maybe this thread is on a downward spiral (plus my apologies for the tortured title). The talk was, lets see, umm, "illogical"? I'm tempted to use more descriptive words but that would not be polite. The speaker made some statements that I fundamentally disagreed with - but that was not the problem, for I believe honest spirituality embraces challenges. The speaker also engaged in chronological snobbery, but that I can put up with. The speaker equated many ideas that are fundamentally contradictory - that irritated the scientist in me, but again no more than I get with some of my undergraduate students. These and other points from the speaker were NOT the reason I went to bed disturbed. I was disturbed because NOT ONE person in the audience challenged the thought processes. Not one person raised a question "But is that TRUE?" The open discussion that followed, if anything, ignored the foundations the speaker had tried to lay for his idea of spirituality - his view of a "spiritual believer" (although a believer in what was not specified). It seemed as if everyone simply accepted that spirituality is what an individual creates, no matter the internal contradictions. Instead, the discussion almost exclusively focused on what we should be doing to bring our "spirituality" to the people of the city; what programs and activities we could adopt (although there was one lone voice arguing - oddly - that we should become known as a community that cared for animals). Now I like animals, and I am concerned for the spirituality of the people in the city. But I need to say this: there is our expression of spirituality, there is the institutionalization of spirituality, and then there is the heart and motivation of our spirituality – it is at our peril that we mix these up. Secular spirituality, as I define the term, is when all the little nice pieces from different faiths are mixed up together like a tossed salad, with a sweet dressing added, and then offered as the "essence of faith" which says “God is in everything and everything is in God”, "exclusivity of faith is wrong", and that "where love is there can be no wrong". That is all fine and good if truth is relative. What if truth has a capital T? Truth-with-a-capital-T is what it is, independent of our opinion, likes or desires. Truth-with-a-capital-T is not defined by any human expression of spirituality, nor by the institutions of religions, these can at best only respond to Truth. Truth-with-a-capital-T, if it exists, is at the heart of our desire to be spiritual. Truth has no age, it either is or isn't. Whether someone said something true today, yesterday, or 4000 years ago makes no difference to Truth. And so we would expect that universal Truth has been known and talked about throughout the ages. A new Truth that is only being discovered today would be very strange and rare indeed. Yet is seems there are many who want to tell us they have "discovered" a new interpretation. Cods-wallop! Furthermore, Truth cannot self-contradict - for it would not then be true. Of course Truth can be a mystery - that simply means I don't understand it - but truth cannot contradict itself and still be truth. Yet religions contradict! And much of secular spirituality seriously contradicts itself. What we are missing in this spirituality debate is a much needed dose of orthodoxy. Now before you react to that word consider this: while Orthodoxy can be construed as conservatism, or traditionalism, at its core orthodoxy is being aligned with all that we understand to be true. Secular spirituality is focused inward on my spirit. Christian spirituality is also focused on me ... but only in the end. Christian spirituality begins with relationship, first with God and then with others, and the way I live my life is a direct consequence of the depth of this relationship. In this age the strongest relationship for most people is with themselves. Even relationship within community (let alone with God) takes a back seat to self love. No wonder society is a "me first" world - it's the preference driven life. Consider: my relationship with my spouse … if it is a weak relationship then I'm likely to express this by living for what I get out of our relationship, instead of expending my life in a love that prioritizes the interests of the other: In a weak relationship I'd show little evidence of being "bound" to another, I might even live a life of multiple (sexual) partners. Conversely a strong relationship would evidence a lifestyle that was integrated with another and be other-serving. And so we have church attendees who call themselves Christian but whose lives display little evidence (Donald Trump?), because their faith expression is a reflection of the depth of their God relationship. In this context the expression of my Christian spirituality is ALL about the strength of my relationship with Jesus. Not my relation with the institution, but my relation with God. Look at any Christian's behaviour, and you'll know how strong is their relationship with God without them having to say a word! Look at a secular spiritual person, and their spiritual expression when faced with a need to sacrifice self interest will quickly display how strongly they are bound to their own spirit (even though many may have quite a nice spirit!). I tell my students, "don't tell me what you believe, let me see how you live under pressure." People like Richard Rohr, Thomas Merton, and their ilk (including proponents of mysticism) are all in the paradigm of secular spirituality. If there is a capital-T-Truth, then their view is incompatible with Christian spirituality. Their position is only compatible with post-modern relativist "Christianity"; only if truth is relative can they claim any legitimacy. Now THE IMPORTANT BIT (for me): I said Christian spirituality ends with the individual: it ends on the individual whereas secular spirituality begins with the individual. What I mean is that Christian spirituality is the complete inverse of secular spirituality. The spirituality I'm talking of takes our fuzzy and damaged individuality – this corrupt version of what we were created to be – and surrenders it to the Christian God. Then God does a very surprising thing, he gives our individuality back to us, only better. We receive a fuller identity, we know better who we are, we grow into absolutely pure individuality, not subsumed but recreated in the purity of being ME. I become something that is more real, more individual, more created, very distinct from the creator but with my identity found in my relationship with the creator. Secular spirituality has situation-dependent values where truth becomes a shape shifter. But if what Jesus claims is True, then Truth is invariant and time cannot change the consequences. (What do they teach people now days?)
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|