Contemplative mystic. I don't want to get ahead of myself, but that's the goal. I think I've figured out why I can't otherwise fit into any religious mould. I'm confusing spirituality and religion because I am actually both, but they are not necessarily related.
What I mean is that my religiosity is based on my background, familiarity, personal preferences. Namely, I resonate with the rituals of Catholicism, specifically Eastern Catholicism. Divine liturgy takes me outside of the mundane and provides an easy way to remind myself that there is other-worldliness "out there" (or rather, all around and within).
Even some of the rules or regulations of Catholicism I can appreciate. My autistic brain appreciates the boundaries of clear rules, even if I choose to question where those boundaries ought to be, or how one ought to interpret them. I just need a starting point, but I do need that starting point. For instance, I appreciate the ten commandments to keep me in check and to better gauge if any given action is a good idea.
But interpreting the first or second commandment (depending on whom you ask) to mean I should not perform metanoias in venerating an icon of Chris, for instance, is incorrect in my mind. It's splitting hairs and getting way too far away from the spirit of the law, which is to place God before all else. If performing the physical ritual of bowing to or kissing a representation of the object of my devotion (so long as it is God or one of God's helpers) deepens my desire to do God's will, then that desire actually lived out is my worship. The bowing down/kissing is not the worship, but merely the inclination of my heart towards that worship. It still needs to be followed up with actual worship - in spirit and in truth, or lived out in daily life.
Likewise, religion also centers on certain theological beliefs which I do not necessarily hold or interpret in the same way as "the mainstream" within my tradition. The creed comes to mind. "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible." Does this have to mean that I imagine God to be a male parent? Some would say that indeed, God's energy must be masculine in that He is wholly independent of anything else, and that a faminine energy within God would mean some level of dependence on something outside of Himself. Fair enough, but even then, is God "a person"? No, trinitarian Christians say that God is "three persons in one God". That is something with no human analogy. One person holding three roles is probably the closest we could get to it, but it's not really correct because that one person would have to be schizophrenic to really be "like" the Trinitarian God - he'd have to be able to talk to himself from one role to another, to have one of his roles (say, that of son) love himself in another of his roles (say, that of father) and to love so intensely, that a third of his roles would then manifest. See, the analogy starts to run away from us. Point being, God cannot be defined. And the creed precisely tries to do just that.
But where I have the most trouble with the creed is in the larger second section dealing with Jesus.
"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God" (so far, so good... but before we get too comfortable, the next part continues:)
"the only-begotten, born of the Father before all ages. Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, one in essence with the Father," In other words, Jesus is NOT like any other human being, and so what we were likely thinking (Jesus is a child of God like I am a child of God) is denied right off the bat, and very vehemently. Not only that, but Jesus is said to preexist his earthly life, again unlike the rest of us.
Unless... the preexistence of Jesus is also a comment on our preexistence as pre-incarnate souls. But of course, that is not the Church's intention, for then Jesus's description ends with: "through Whom all things were made." Now, if we equate ourselves with Jesus, we raise ourselves up to the level of God, and that's a big no-no. The #1 rule of theism, and particularly monotheism, is that we are not God. There's God, and there's us, but we are not one and the same. This is supposed to keep us humble and obedient to God's will. Otherwise, if we're equal to God, we get to make up our own morality.... or do we?
The assumption here is that equating ourselves with God gives rise to polytheism, and that each of us can have individual claims to make mini-universes with our own choice of moral standards. But if we become truly "one" with God, then we take on the mind of God and become indistinguishable from God. Therefore, God's desires become our own desires, not at all in conflict with "the rest of God" if you will.
But then we circle back to the "only-begotten" part above, which ensrues we do not try to identify ourselves with Jesus. Which is ironic, since the very purpose of the Christian life is to "become another Christ", to "be Christ's hands and feet in the world". We actually ARE called to live up to the same identity as belongs to Christ, but I guess the fear is that again, we won't be able to do so in humility.
Continuing with the creed, we recite: "For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man." Most of this statement is not problematic, except that Jesus's very purpose is to somehow "save" us, which of course begs the question - from what? As well as - why in the following manner?: "He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried." Circling back to his incarnation from the "Virgin Mary", we have to ask - why did Mary have to be a virgin? Why couldn't Jesus's birth be just as miraculous even if he had maternal siblings? Of course, the answer is that virgin births are a common occurrence in mythologies of larger-than-life personalities. This is basically here to highlight - yet again - the uniqueness of Jesus and his incomparable identity.
Next, we recite that: "He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures" This is where the rubber hits the road, so to speak. This is a claim that is supposed to be historically verifiable, or at least there ought to be evidence suggesting as much. Apologists say that if this is true, everything else (in the creed) is therefore true. I'm not so sure. We can potentially "proove" that Jesus "was raised" from the dead, but it wouldn't prove if it was by His own power or that of God (the Father, let's say). Furthermore, the Jewish people disagree that Jesus fulfills "the Scriptures" because only some of the prophesies of the Hebrew Bible came true through Jesus, while others did not, and still certain things about Him go contrary to standard Jewish understandings of righteousness. If anything, more modern Christians who already believe in Jesus as Savior have read these associations back into the Scriptures to make the story fit.
We continue: "He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, and He is coming again with glory, to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom will have no end." This is all of course speculation, so the creed is asking us to believe all of this "because we said so". My question is - how much of the content of the creed is actually helping us follow Jesus? Live according to His teachings? It wasn't until Pope John Paul the Great added the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary that Catholics started reflecting more systematically on His actual teachings in that devotion. Until then, it was all about who Jesus allegedly was, and what happened to Him, but not so much the actual teachings He wanted us to internalize... the teachings that got him killed in the first place! It was His teachings about how we ought to live that were so dangerous, that He refused to back up on, that He died defending. He knew there was life in His words. He knew He spoke the Truth. And His followers have all but stifled the very Truth He died for in order to elevate Him to Godhood so we can satisfy ourselves by merely "worshipping" Jesus without really doing what He taught.
So yeah, this part of the Creed about Jesus I cannot say I actually believe verbatim the way the Church wants me to believe. The Creed continues about the Holy Spirit:
"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Together with the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified; He spoke through the prophets." Now interestingly, here it is the Holy Spirit (of God) Who is identified as "Creator of Life", even though we usually think of that role as belonging to the Father. But no matter. The fact that He spoke through the prophets begs the question - has the Holy Spirit stopped speaking through prophets? Are we to believe that there are no more prophets being called forth? That's what Muslims claim about Mohammad. The Baha'i claim that about Baha'ullah. Refusing to acknowledge future prophets is a tactic to try to solidify one's claim of control over the faith community. If there's no more prophets, there can be no more insights or changes made. That is contrary to life and nature itself. Life is change. Nature survives on the basis of cyclical change. Of course there needs to be ongoing change, growth... life. And it continues to come from the Holy Spirit.
I believe that it is here that the mystics come in, but so few people are interested in what is said because honestly, mystics mostly just remind people of what's already been established but long forgotten. It's too hard to discern the nuances of the spiritual life. It's much easier to stick with a literal mythology and legalistic framework where we do as we're told and don't have to think too hard about anythin.
No comments:
Post a Comment