Christmas Is Not Suitable This Year?

Did the world end on December 12, or December 21, or any day you know? If everything came crashing to an end, I guess we missed it. Unfortunately, we could not miss the foolish mass hysteria and childish fears. So many predictions about “the end,” so much money made on selling such nonsense, so many unsuspecting young and more gullible adults taken in. Now, what is the next date of the imaginary “end”? December 31? Or 13/13/13? Oh, no! Or maybe several years from now--allowing predictors plenty of time to hype the event (remember Y2K?) and rake in plenty of fresh dough. Don’t hold your breath waiting for an imagined “end of the world.” That nonsense is an escape from reality and from doing one’s real duties.

Because the world did not “collapse,” we are here to thank God for life in this world, and for the greater Life, the divine Life, that breaks into our hearts and minds, and which is endless. For those who follow him faithfully, Christ is indeed “the light shining in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overcome it.” Not even the darkness of human foolishness and gullibility.

Darkness. Even evil. We recently learned of the massacre of innocent little children and their teachers in Connecticut. Yes, the deed was extremely evil, and left in its wake human agony beyond imaging. Apparently, Newtown, CT, decided that they had to take down public Christmas decorations this year. I suppose the town leaders thought the decorations for Christmas meant good times, joy, pleasures in abundance. Long forgotten, perhaps, is that the red of Christmas is for Christ’s blood, and that what we celebrate is not a party, not a good time here, but the reality of God coming to free us from evil by dying for us. Some will say of mass murder: What evil? “Just mental derangement.” If the slaughter of innocent little ones was not evil, what would be? Evil is a lack of goodness--and extreme evil, such as we saw in Newtown, displays a radical lack of goodness, and most likely a deliberate and sustained playing with evil in various forms. If this inverted, radically fallen Adam did indeed spend hours with violent video games in which murdering human beings was made a sport, and “fun,” should we be surprised that a sick mind would attempt similar deeds in “real time”?

In the face of evil, should we refuse to celebrate Christmas? Should we strip down our churches and homes because of so much evil in this world, even at times in our hearts and minds? Or should we all the more renounce the darkness within ourselves and in our human condition, and turn again and again, with longing cries, towards the Light that no darkness can ever overcome? Stripping away Christmas decorations in the face of evil shows that the officials calling for de-decorating do not understand the meaning of Christmas at all. Folks expected Christmas to mean parties, and booze, and care-free laughter. Now they wonder: Who can have “fun” when murder destroys so many lives? We need Christ far more than most people realize. Without Christ, we would all be like that radically fallen Adam in Connecticut.

"O Israel, Prepare To Meet Thy God"

Driving through Colorado in the 1970’s, a sign on a barn caught my attention. Weather-beaten, dangling from the sagging old barn the sign warned: “O Israel, prepare to meet thy God!” The sign’s dilapidated condition added authenticity and urgency to its message, penetrating the heart. I stopped my car and photographed the sign, whose message was made more poignantly powerful and effective by its fading condition. Recognizing the words of the prophet Amos, I realized that I, too, living in withering time, stand exposed not only to the elements, but to the approaching Judgement of God. Although a young man in my twenties, I knew that I could escape neither the ravages of time nor the pending Judgment of meeting God “face to face.” The thought that life is brief indeed, that very soon in the sweep of time I would die, and must live now prepared for that reality, burned itself into my mind as I headed back towards our family home in Missoula.

Advent-Christmas tells a similar message, if we will but listen. The world and all we know of it is passing away. “You see this building? Not one stone will be left on another.” “Even now the ax is laid to the root of the tree.” In its sober wisdom, the Church’s ancient tradition proclaims the ever-pending end of the world as we know it, and God’s Judgment, at the same time we prepare to celebrate the birth of Christ. Lest we turn our eyes away from the truth of passing reality, the day following Christmas the Church celebrates the death of Stephen, the first disciple to be martyred for his faith in Christ. Death in the world / life in God remain the two inextricably bound themes of Advent-Christmas. The poet T. S. Eliot gives voice to the wise men who travelled to Bethlehem to witness Christ’s birth:

“... Were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different: this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.” (Journey of the Magi)

Many of us clutch our gods on the edge of death: beer, mixed drinks, perhaps other drugs to numb awareness of the encircling night. “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow....”

The birth of Christ is joy to those on their journey into God.

Advent and "The Coming of God"

“It promises more than it can deliver.” That saying seems to apply to Advent. In the Advent season, Liturgy and Scriptures speak poetically and powerfully about “the coming of God,” about “the Kingdom of God is at hand,” about a divine renewal and transformation of the earth, about the destruction of our sins, and so on. Our faithful are encouraged to pray more, to be watchful for the coming of the LORD, to seek more silence, to be more disciplined in mind and body.

But what happens? Shopping, parties, sporting events, busyness, chattiness, boozing, and deepening darkness as we approach the solstice. What happened to the “coming of God?” Did we miss it? Perhaps “we had the experience but missed the meaning.” Or perhaps we did not experience God’s coming at all. Maybe we were just too busy to be bothered about God.

Speaking for myself, I have usually been disappointed by Advent. It promises to be a supremely beautiful, peaceful, contemplative season. What a contrast with what we have made of our religious services, of our whole lives, and perhaps especially in Advent. As a priest working in parishes, I have long found Advent to be exhausting, with extra Masses, extra reconciliation services, extra home visits, and the growing tension of Christmas. What I have looked forward to is less than coming of God than the passing of Christmas for another year. January is often more sweetly quiet and bright compared to the noise, busyness, and deepening darkness of December.

If there is some truth to these observations, what can one do to make Advent truly a season of waiting for the coming of God? In larger terms, how should one live in the face of society’s noise and “good times,” or indeed, the madness of this passing world?

Seek to keep returning to the truth of reality: God is here now, quietly waiting for a soul to enter into His peace, His love, His joy. As the waves are crashing, one must dive beneath the waves, and enter into the divine silence. Is it easy? No way, especially when we have constructed lives aiming to drown out peace and silence. We light little fires and little lights, and consume distilled spirits, rather than seek through the darkness to the inner Light, by the help of the stilling Spirit.

You who are, draw me by your Spirit away from all that passes, into your unseen Presence. Draw hard, LORD, for powerful forces would drag me away from You. Give me the desire, the will, the grace to keep seeking to enter your peace. Even in the midst of daily duties and occasional celebrations, help me to be mindful of You, drawing me to Yourself.

You are here, even when we are not.

Brief Thoughts On Decadent American Culture

Nothing that exists can or will be complete as long as it exists--not even the whole universe.  Hence, this thought cannot be complete, this essay cannot be complete.  Not only is everything in process, but the process will never be completed, as long as it exists.  

Given incompleteness and imperfection, is there anything worth writing about American culture and its decadence, or is it futile to set forth any thought on the subject?  Why bother?  Those who experience American culture as decadent do not need to be persuaded of the fact, and those who do not experience American culture as decadent or dying would most likely not be persuaded by words.  If one cannot see, feel, experience the decadent culture in which we exist, as decadent, as damaging to human well-being, then what can one possibly say to convince them?

What do I experience, concretely, really, that leads me to want to resist this culture? I see and feel its ugliness, brutality, untruthfulness, destructive powers. Many of the words I hear spoken are foolish, or unthinking, or misleading, or (in the case of successful politicians), deceptive and blinding.  When I listen to the President of this country speak, I virtually nothing to which my mind can say, “That is true.”  I experience from his words a flood of words that raise many questions, befog the mind from thinking, mislead, occasionally bedazzle by mere cleverness.  If this President is not a sophistic intellectual, perhaps of the Gnostic variety, I really cannot imagine who would be.  And yet, so many follow, praising him as a “great orator,” as a “political leader,” even as “a genius.”  Who is more foolish, the deceptive speaker or the deceived masses?  

The lies and deceptions of leading politicians are one recurring sign, unpleasant sign, of this decadent society.  Other reminders are even more prevalent:  ugly, sick, often angry sounds that get sold to the masses and elites alike as “music.”  When I hear these sounds, I often begin to cringe, as they immediately cause mental confusion.  “American music”--pop, rock, whatever it is called--is not only enormously mindless, but drowns out mental peace required for thinking.  And that is perhaps one of its purposes.  The main purpose may well be simply to make money, for making money is an American obsession.  This music sells, and makes much money, because it appeals to minds already debased, fragmented, immersed in utter temporality, without hints of striving for beauty and what endures.  Any sane, sober-minded soul, experiencing contemporary American mass music for the first time, would probably assume that it was concocted to cause pain and mental confusion.  No relatively healthy soul would not experience these sounds as sick and disturbing.  And yet, rarely do I hear anyone in this country comment on the sickness, ugliness, anger, brutality in our music.  Rather, it often gets praised as “fun,” as “popular,” as “invigorating.”  Well, as Heracleitos said, “asses prefer straw to gold.”  I would go further:  As dead bodies do not experience influenza as illness, dead or dying souls do not experience this disgusting American “music” as destructive.  An alcoholic, trapped in his or her illness, does not realize--or admit--the destructive power of drinking alcohol.  A sick or unliving mind does not experience destructive sounds for what they are.  

What does the disease of American music tell one about American culture, and more importantly, about the souls or minds that make up this culture?  First, there are surely a number of folks--mainly older, and probably away from urban life--who refuse to indulge in this “music.”  They do not listen to it, unless it is blared on TV sets, even during commercials.  (Often when someone is talking on a television show or commercial, this propagandistic, mind-damaging music blares in the background, nearly drowning out words.)  As for the vast masses who indulge in this music willing:  Are they dead souls, or do they just smell of death?  They are decaying, rotting, even if not fully dead yet.  Anyone with a nose can smell the stench of these souls, these shrunken sounds, and malformed minds, that willingly indulge in listening to mass-produced “music.”  What does the predominance of such “music” say?  At the very least, it indicates a lack of mental development allowing one to discern ugliness from beauty, ordering forces from those that destroy.  What does this “music” say about parents who allow their children to listen to it, to immerse their minds in it?  Is not this neglect of their children’s right mental development a real form of child abuse?  But then, most of the parents probably indulge in the same or similar “music,” so they do not have the interior standards by which to taste, to discern, the poison being taken in by their children.  

Of the decadence of such “music,” and its bad effects, I could write much more.  But let me pass on to other forms and causes of spiritual and mental disorder in American society.  

Selfism is what I call the religion of America.  Most people are, or seem to be, immersed in self, wallowing in self, entrapped in self.  Most Americans--or at least, the political leaders and elites who speak for and to the masses--are self-referential, self-absorbed, self-promoting.  As typical examples of this cult of self, one needs only call to mind Bill Clinton or other the present demagogue in the White House.  Their love is clearly for power and public acclaim.  They seek at all costs to gain power and worship by the masses.  They are drunk on power, but underneath that drive is their self-absorption.  They will say and do anything to get public attention, approval, power.  These are the wild beasts who not only feed at the public trough, but who have powerful means to broadcast themselves into everyman’s life.  At the least they are demagogues; at the worst, tyrants.  In either case, these men are American:  they embody, express, and further the American trait of self-worship.  

How does selfism show up in the masses?  It shows up in the addiction to pleasure, sports, and entertainment:  indulging one’s fleeting desires and interests at the expense of mental development.  The self that is cultivated is not the higher self of reason and spirit, but the passing self of passions, images, wants, pleasures.  As far as I know, most Americans, when not working or sleeping, are indulging their desires for pleasure, evidenced by promiscuity, sexual perversions, addiction to TV and mass entertainment, addiction to sports, even addiction to children and grand-children to an unhealthy degree.  I know people who will drive hundreds of miles (even in dangerous conditions) in order to attend some “sporting event” in which a family member is sharing.  And they think that such behavior is “good.”  Would it occur to them that they could spend that time working or learning, or even getting good exercise out in nature? 

Actually, enough said. Thinking and writing about the decadence of American culture is distasteful and in large measure a waste of time. Who could be persuaded that hours spent indulging in entertainment, sports, music, and so on, are largely wasted?  Who understands that time wasted is time lost for mental and spiritual development?  What good could come from warning men who are playing in a sand-box?  Or simply falling to asleep on the edge of a cliff?

Obama Was Re-Elected President Yesterday

08 Nov 2012

After the elections of 2012: A first attempt at an essay

“When philosophy paints its gray on gray, then indeed has a form of life grown old. It cannot be rejuvenated, but only understood. When dusk starts to fall, the owl of Minerva spreads its wings and flies." G.W.F. Hegel (Philosophy of Right, 1820)

A Orienting the mind through thinking

Making the proper distinctions brings clarity to thinking. When the mind is disturbed by events, as mine was by the election results two days ago, one must use reason to sort through the emotional and intellectual disturbances. Making the proper distinctions is an important part of reasoning, and right reasoning restores balance and sanity to consciousness. Leaving one’s mind drenched in emotions and disturbing thoughts arouses more disorder, disturbs psychic peace, abandons one to mental confusion, and denies reason an opportunity to throw light on various parts of reality. Hence, the disturbed soul must turn to thinking, and especially to making the proper distinctions and asking the right questions, in order to “live well,” to thrive, and ultimately to return to its proper place within the Whole.

And what is the human mind’s proper place within the larger scheme of things? That is, what is the proper function of the human being, moved from within by mind under the discerning guidance of reason? Human being’s proper function is to thrive, to be “happy,” doing its particular tasks well, and seeking to understand the Whole of which each being is a living part. In Aristotle’s summarizing words, “Man by nature desires to know,” for in knowing what is, and especially the ultimate causes of all that exists, one experiences happiness, and in Platonic terms, “rises towards the Beyond.” To think, to reason, to gain insight, to know--all within the existential response of loving trust in the mysterious process of the Whole--the human being becomes what it truly is: a partner with the divine Mind guiding all being-things to perfection in itself.

In sum, this particular being, existing here and now, wants to sort through the disturbances aroused by recent political events in order to be open to the truth of reality: to the divine Presence that is moving all things into oneness with itself. Mental disturbances break the peace of union, as they are in effect little rebellions against the cosmic order being established by the Divine Mind. What causes mental disturbances? The mind yields to irrational forces without and within. Right thinking employs reason to restore mental order, and so to be at once an image of the order of the Whole, but to be a partner in divine creativity bringing forth all from nothing, and returning all into itself.

B. A few questions raised by the elections

Through thinking, I just moved from mental disturbances to a contemplative gazing towards the divine “steering all things through all,” using Heracleitos’ phrase. What does this mean? Thinking is a human mode of participation in God. The human mind or soul is aroused to think because we exist in an incomplete and ever-unfolding mystery. We do not exist in a state of complete peace, union, fullness of life, happiness. Rather, human being exists in tension between disturbance and order, between incompleteness and completeness, between coming-to-be and passing away. Whether animals think about their place in the Whole, I do not know. But to be fully human one must be engaged with one’s mind and one’s body in life as it unfolds. Human is reality ever moving towards fullness of life, of being, of loving-knowing. To be human, one must share consciously and freely in this perfecting process.

Now, what is disturbing my mind from within? What feelings or thoughts are preventing me from living in peace, of being more truly one with the ultimate source of all that exists? Or, is asking such questions just a form of wallowing in the disturbances? Must the mind discover the causes of its own disorder? Is that part of the price of a return to balance? Is that part of the price of freedom: to discover why one’s mind is not fully at peace, and to take action to restore order?

The main distinctions I make in response to present mental disturbance are the following: (1) This week’s elections, including the Presidential election, and the results, over which I have no control. (2) What these results indicate about American politics. (3) Possible ways to work towards better results in the future. (4) A few decisions to consider. (5) The underlying conditions of our society.

Regarding the first (1), it does no good to yield to anger, sorrow, hatred, joy, or just plain excitation over these events. They are past, and there is nothing I can do about them. I acknowledge my disappointment, even sorrow, but I also choose not to indulge in these feelings, but rather to learn from them. And that is one reason I am writing now. I have many concerns for our body politic aroused by the results, concerns for particular persons and groups, concerns for one young man I know personally who apparently lost his job. And I am prepared to take steps at the right time to assist either a better alternative (individual or party) to those who won the election, and to assist persons who may be suffering from the results.

Regarding the second point (2 above): I have begun to think about what the results indicate about American politics, and especially what the more conservative party must do in order to win elections, even as it becomes more insightful, more understanding, more able to help improve some of the deeper and more persistent problems afflicting our body politic. Winning elections and gaining power ought not to be the primary goal, but a means to serve the common good. Much is seen in the recent elections which reinforces known truths about the defects and strengths of the American character. That the President won re-election by vilifying his opponent, by a focused “smear campaign,” was visible to anyone observing as fairly as possible. President Obama did not take a “high road” of presenting the best that he has to offer, but spent enormous financial and human resources arousing anger and hatred in people for his opponent (Romney) and the social class to which he belongs (“the top 1%”). Hence, victory was gained at the cost of performing many ignoble actions, and perhaps more importantly, of inflaming increased anger, hatred, and division in the body politic. (Other than listening again to one of Obama’s campaign speeches--a most tedious task--one could watch a few minutes of the Vice-President’s performance in his “debate,” and see the tricks of doing anything to distract the mind of listening and thinking to what his opponent has to say.) What shows up is that American political leaders, or rather some of them, are willing to use destructive means to attain their goal of gaining political power. For the sake of one’s power-position, the body politic gets knifed, sliced, agitated, and divided. Hence, part of my sorrow and disappointment is not only that President Obama won, but that he did so by engaging in tactics that damage the common good. What does it say when a person who claims to be seeking to serve the common good, proceeds by dividing, agitating, harming the common good? What it suggests to me is that for such a person, gaining power is the real goal, and that any means needed to gain and maintain power are justified. Most unfortunately, this is an all-too-common problem in American politics, and it showed up with shocking bluntness in the recent Presidential election. In short, American politicians will lie, obfuscate, smear, avoid, promise all sorts of “goodies,” and so on, all to gain or to maintain political power. Or viewed from the role of the voters: Many Americans are unwilling or unable to discern truth from error, good character from bad character, deception from reality. “We the People” live in spiritual darkness which clearly shows up in politics.

Regarding the third point (3), about what to do to work towards better results in the future, I will leave that question for the time being. First I prefer to see the problems, the underlying diseases, as well as I can, before offering any possible medicine or solutions on the more explicitly political level. After all, politics is a form of activity within a culture; in the United States of America, it is not only the political landscape that displays evident problems, but more fundamentally, the American culture, the American way of life.

I suggest several practical points (4) as a first response for consideration. Given what has been displayed by the President of the United States, with numerous politicians and citizens complying by supporting him, how could one respect the man, or listen willingly to his voluminous and often voluble speeches? His seemingly empty words, his calculating promises, and his impassioned rants against those whom he hates or judges to be his political enemies reveal a politician to whom one would only foolishly listen. Immediately after the election of 2012, the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, told the President to lead, “and we will follow.” The House Republicans may seek to work with the President and his party, but need to resist being “led” by him, lest they share in his deceitful and destructive ways. One should follow a good person who leads, not a highly defective “leader,” regardless of his power-position and outward displays of “authority.” Hence, the Speaker’s words were flattering to the President and may have suggested a sycophantic attitude, or a genuine but naive attempt to “be led” by the President. What matters here is that by his actions and words, the President has forfeited a position of serving as a true leader or political model. His actions and words have rendered respect impossible, unless one willingly blinds himself from the President’s actions. What shows up is that this man has gained and maintained political power, but forfeited authority. Hence, one must choose to follow right reason, and respectfully obey only those men and women displaying in public good character and genuine concern for the well-being of our country.

Now we come to the main issue (5) clarified by the recent elections, hinted at above: the underlying condition--disordered condition--of our American political society. So many issues must be raised, so many problems must be seen and sorted out, that only some sketchy hints can be provided here at the present time.

C. On the disorder of American political society

The recent elections illustrate underlying diseases in the American body politic, but they are not primary causes, nor do they change my thinking on our regime, our American way of life. My desire to disengage from much that happens in American society is not new. I am not one to think, “I may leave this country,” because the elections did not go the way I would wish. Rather, what I think and write now is what I have thought for years. Indeed, I do not want to be unduly moved or biased in my judgment because being disappointed by the recent elections. Both political parties display the diseases rampant  in our body politics, although perhaps to differing extents, or in different ways. The worst of the underlying spiritual and political problems seem to show up in our large urban areas, but rural and small-town America is by no means exempt from the diseases. For a major cause of the relative equity of disease is the power of media, entertainment, “higher education,” and government to penetrate into the furthest recesses of American life, thinking, and practice. No one is protected from these powerful social diseases.

If American society is not in a late stage of decay, and not dying in us and around us, then I am radically mistaken. This issue will be partially examined below. First, however, assuming that American society is corrupt, one wonders, “What can one do?”

D. What is one to do?

Granted, an analysis of the spiritual and political condition of American society should properly be offered before attempting to answer the question, “What is one to do?” In order to act reasonably, one must discern properly the conditions in which he is living. Suffice it for the present to note that although I have not yet written the preceding section analyzing the disorder in American society, it is a subject about which I have given much thought since the mid-1960’s. The upshot of my thinking on American society can be given most briefly, without details or explanations at this time, and this short summary may suffice to consider the practical question, “What is one to do?”

And this is the summary view on American political society: The substance of politics is the character of the human beings in the political society. Americans display an enormous range in qualities of character, from well-ordered and prudent down to very serious mental and spiritual disturbances. The bulk of the people seem to be well-intentioned, but heavily immersed in a culture of self-seeking: pleasure, entertainment, restless money-making, self-worship in various forms. As for the ruling elite, what most comes to mind is that our political and social leaders display enormous “egos,” or over-weening self-love, greed, lust for power, deceitfulness. These traits do not show up in every political and social leader, but they predominate.

So what is one to do in this society? Surely it depends on one’s age and station in life. As things stand, I do not understand why one would want to bring children up in this country today, given the overwhelming effects of a highly corrosive and corrupting culture. One cannot escape the destructive power of the entertainment industries, the mass media, mass education, and the power elites. If one is sufficiently old enough and grounded enough not to have to be immersed in “education” or indulge in popular entertainment and the foolishness of mass media, then one can “keep oneself unspotted by the world” to one extent or another, albeit with enormous effort. For these older people I will offer some thoughts below.

But for young persons who are being “educated” in American schools, colleges, and universities; and for those who freely and willingly indulge in mass entertainment and the offerings of main-stream mass media, then I can offer virtually nothing other than to say: Become aware that you are being manipulated, brain-washed, and corrupted, whether you want to be or not. Your minds are being malformed by men and women who know very little about proper intellectual and spiritual formation (right paideia), and because you lack the experience to judge wisely of what is being done to you, your chances of thriving mentally and spiritually are slight indeed. You need to ground yourselves in divine reality and right reason as well as you can. But know this: The forces at work in your “education” and “entertainment” are corroding whatever sound order may have been built in you from the earliest years, largely by the hard work of your parents. You may survive and live, but you will be sharing in the evils of this culture more than you realize. You need to make conscious and deliberate breaks from the mass culture, but without formation from within, you will not know how, and attempts may be more foolish (as in rebellion) than wise and life-giving (as in genuine conversion of mind).”

***

On fleeing the culture: introduction by way of referring to my life

Now I write for those of us who are no longer subjected to “education,” who can refuse to indulge ourselves in popular music and mass entertainment, who know enough not to rely on the propaganda machine of the mass media (especially major news and entertainment outlets). I write for those of us who understand that American society is corrupt and corrupting, and who desire to free ourselves from its worst influences, and to do what we can to benefit ourselves and perhaps a few others. I write on behalf of Americans who have the sense to know that the ship is sinking, and that we must at least put on life jackets and prepare to swim in icy-cold waters; for the Titanic of American society has been taking leaks for years, and a number of icebergs may be about to rip the hull wide open.

Before generalizing, I shall make a few concrete suggestions based on my life and experience, which may or may not be of any worth for someone else. Still, it gives an idea of the direction in which to go: flee immersion in the culture!

Years ago, having experienced mental abuse at the hands of “Progressives” in the Catholic Church, I learned a lesson: That I am in the church, but not of it; that I do my duties, but keep myself as unspotted from the church’s politics as I possibly can; that I remain in the church to help serve spiritual-intellectual needs of others, and for my own financial support, but not primarily for spiritual enrichment. My spiritual life is nourished primarily through studying philosophy, political philosophy, and some theology, and only to a lesser degree, through fellowship or communion in the church. In other words, I remain active in the church as a means to assist others, but also because I still need to earn an income.

Now I add to my formula of being “in the church but not of it.” Although I may wish to do so, I cannot say, “I am in America, but I am not of it.” For I am indeed of the American political order from birth, so I cannot in truth say that “I am not of the American regime.” I am not only an American citizen, but I think and act in ways that are distinctly American, whether I like it or not! This country is my homeland, and it has constituted a very large part of my psychic formation. On the other hand, I am choosing to detach myself to the extent possible from much that is current now in this country: First and foremost, from the American mass-pop culture, especially as it propagandizes through the entertainment and music industries. For years I have reduced my exposure to this cultural garbage--to put the matter bluntly--to the extent possible. But watching television, I cannot escape the trash music on commercials, or the effect of entertainment-”values” even on news broadcasting. So I must limit television watching more than I have in recent years to keep myself less spotted by the corruption of American mass culture. Secondly, since 2004 I have been investing in U.S. equities, which I can continue to do for the time being. But to limit time wasted on them, I must keep off margin to the extent possible, not spend hours watching CNBC with financial news and chatter, and look for other ways to invest for my financial future that require less mental involvement.

***

General considerations on fleeing American culture

Orienting question: Given that we already live in the United States of America, and given an awareness that there is much in this regime and culture which corrupt and wound genuine human-spiritual life, what is one to do? What are the main options open for a person who recognizes the need to reduce immersion in mass culture, and to break from corroding influences to the extent possible? Several different answers to the orienting question are outlined below, then briefly explained. Finally, we shall focus on what seems to be the most reasonable response.

" A. Extremist-destructive responses to decadent American culture

1. Deny that American mass culture is corrupt and corrupting: the way of spiritual blindness

2. Attempt to flee from the corrupt culture by leaving the USA: the way of ignorance of reality

3. Seek to destroy the political regime and culture by violence: the way of terrorism

4. Wait for, even desire, the “utter collapse of the system” (the way of apocalyptic dreaming)

B. Half-hearted, spiritually foolish responses to decadent American culture

1. Make one’s peace with the culture, submerging oneself in it: the way of spiritual laziness

2. Embrace American culture and try to “move it forward” to become more “progressive,”

that is, more decadent: the way of Gnostic intellectuals

3. Believe that the culture will transform itself for the better: the way of magic

4. “Pray” that things will get better in the corrupt culture: the way of futile wishing

C. More constructive ways to live and thrive in decadent American culture

1. Do one’s daily duties and tasks while seeking to remain “unspotted by the world”

2. Seek to understand the nature and causes of the corruption, and avoid them

So much for a first essay written after the election of 2012, and trying at least to raise a few questions about underlying issues, especially the decadence of our mass culture. Duties press on me that I am unable to organize an essay or pursue questions as I wish. My plan is to post this draft as a first response, and then to begin afresh.

An Example Of Using The Mind In Prayer

 

When we offer the next series of class in adult faith formation, the plan is for us to read a classic work on praying. The book which I am inclined to present was written nearly a thousand years ago, by St. Anselm. He was a Benedictine monk in France, who later became the Archbishop of Canterbury, England. He wrote a number of significant works in Christian theology while living as a monk, including two famous meditations on using the mind in prayer. One of these works is called the Proslogion, a Greek word meaning speech to another, an address, a prayer; it is an exercise of what he calls “faith seeking understanding.” I offer a brief excerpt from St. Anselm’s work:

“Let me discern Your light, whether it be from afar, or from the depths. Teach me to seek You, and reveal Yourself to me as I seek, because I can neither seek You if You do not teach me how, nor find You unless You reveal Yourself. Let me seek You in desiring You; let me desire You in seeking; let me find in loving; let me love in finding.”

“I acknowledge, LORD, and I give thanks that You have created Your image in me, so that I may remember You, think of You, love You. But this image is so effaced and worn away by vice, so darkened by the smoke of sin, that it cannot do what it was made to do unless You renew it and reform it. I do not try, LORD, to attain Your lofty heights, because my understanding is in no way equal to it. But I do desire to understand Your truth a little, that truth that my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand so that I may believe; but I believe so that I may understand. For I also believe this: that `unless I believe I shall not understand.’”

“Have you found, o my soul, what you were seeking?... If you found [Him], then why do you not experience what you have found? Why, LORD God, does my soul not experience You if it has found You?....”

“You permeate and embrace all things. You are before and beyond all things....You alone, LORD, are what You are, and You are who You are.

Revelation And The Truth Of Experience

 

I sent a few emails today to family members with summary thoughts on revelation, mystic and gnostic experience, scripture, and so on.  My words were necessarily overly brief, as I was writing on my iPad’s virtual keyboard. Now I attempt a little fuller and more careful explanation. It is a brief statement, and by no means the last word on anything addressed here.

Various meanings to the symbol “revelation” and equivalent terms have emerged in history. Fundamentalists concentrate on one meaning: verbal inspiration from God to some man or woman, with the understanding that the actual words spoken or written by a prophet or apostle are “revelation.”  The approach is overly simplistic, and partially misleading, as I shall explain.

Drawing on my study of the Apostle Paul--who did indeed know much about “revelation”--what is primarily meant by the symbol “revelation” (in Greek, apocalypsis; in Latin, revelatio) is “unveiling.”  That is the literal meaning of the word. What is unveiled? When the Apostle Paul writes, he says (in Galatians 1), “God was pleased to reveal his son in me.”  That is literal from the Greek, and that is all.  He never claims that words were whispered in his mind. Now the usual translations are fundamentalistic-friendly:  “God...revealed his son to me,” as if Paul saw the Christ external to himself.  His Greek says, “God revealed his son in me,” as I quoted above.  What is “revealed,” however, is simply the presence of God as Christ in Paul’s consciousness. Note, though, that the Apostle explicitly avoids collapsing the divine into his experience, and his language preserves “layers” of revealed / unrevealed. The “God” who does the “revealing” is not directly revealed.  This unrevealed depth of divinity, if we can use this term, is called “Father” by early Christians.  It is not “a person,” but a symbolic expression communicating that there is ever more to the divine than what is “revealed.” The God of the Apostles was no “revealed God.” “The Father” is not a distinct hypostasis or “person,” but divine reality beyond what can be experienced. Divinity as experienced by early Christians is called “Christ” when it is personal (as in “I living in you, you living in me” or “Come to me...”), and it is called “Spirit” when not personal, but impersonal, as in “forgiveness,” “love, joy, peace,” and so on.  What is important to keep in mind is that Paul and the early Christians emphasize both that the unknown God lets himself be known in experiences of the resurrected Christ and of the impersonal Spirit, but at the same time remains utterly beyond human understanding, using the symbol “Father.”  This, in short, is the experiential basis of the Christian symbol “Trinity,” using the term introduced several hundred years later by the early father, Tertullian. We are speaking here of experiences of divine presence, and not of doctrines or dogmas, and surely not of “3 persons” floating around in space. What is at stake is the symbolization of divine Presence in the human soul. What is at stake is the truth of existence: that divine Presence constitutes and forms our humanity through our cooperation.The Apostle Paul’s main terms for this human cooperation are “faith, hope, charity,” with simple trust or the opening of the soul to Presence as the meaning of “faith.”  “Hope” is the expectation of full union beyond death. “Charity” or “love” is the mutual penetration of the divine and human, with divinity working in and through human cooperation to bring good to others.
 
Second point: In addition to experiences of divine presence as “revelation,” the long Christian tradition has used the symbol “revelation” in several other senses. It can be applied to the words of the prophets and apostles, who articulated their experiences of God in words. This meaning of “revelation” came to the fore only in the Reformation of the 16th century. When the Fathers used the symbol “revelation” from the earliest centuries of the Christian era through St. Bonaventure (1200’s), it primarily applied to the process of “unveiling” of divine Presence in the psyche (soul) of the hearer.  In other words, “revelation” is personal and subjective, not objective and external. This usage is strong in the New Testament, and is especially clear in the so-called Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (a composite of perhaps 4 letters, scholars have shown). Here we find explicit discussion of having “the veil removed from the heart” when “Christ is proclaimed.” One hears in faith, and the veil is “removed,” making one aware that “the LORD” or “the Spirit” is present and active in one’s soul (consciousness), “transforming” one’s life, “from one degree of glory to another.”  In other words, the divine divinizes the human through revelatory action in the soul.  
It was mainly during the Reformation that “revelation” got hardened into a book, the “holy Bible,” although I am sure that plenty of church documents and theologians were already moving in this direction as the truth of experience withered from awareness. For external, “objective” revelation is easier to understand, and in effect reduces the truth of experience to the letter of a text. (As St. Paul says, “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”)  That process of the hardening of original experience into objective “revelations” is one of the constants in the history of “religions.”  And in the history of philosophy as well, as anyone who studies Plato comes to understand: the search for truth becomes objective “teachings.” What matters, though, is that someone experienced the truth of God’s presence, and that experience gets buried beneath “revealed words” or “texts,” such as the Bible, the Koran, and so on.
 
Disclaimer:  Admittedly, my approach to matters of faith is philosophical-historical and experiential, and not dogmatic or theological.  The theologians have their place, as do scriptures and dogmas. In Plato’s words, “Every myth has its truth.”  “Sacred texts” often record and preserve within them records of genuine spiritual experiences over the ages. The Divine is generous, and many have been genuine experiences of divinity over the ages. On a fundamentalistic level, the texts and doctrines are the “revelation,” as I have noted, and this claim can be a serious derailment, for it suggests that one must be a “Bible believer” or accept all the church dogmas, and so on, rather than simply open up to the Presence of the living God.
 
Conclusion:  The God (Elohim) who said to Moses, “I AM WHO AM” (ehyeh asher ehyeh) is as close as one can get to the verbal content of revelation.  The Gospel of John builds on this awareness in the many “I AM” sayings in Jesus, as in “Before Abraham was born, I AM.”  Or again, in the words of the Greek philosopher Parmenides,  “IS!”  That is all.  The rest of the elaborations often detract from the stark truth of divine presence as that which is in the midst of consciousness, and at the same time, forming the whole of reality. That which is by tradition called “God” can be symbolized as both the beginning or “First Cause” (Aristotle), and the beyond (Plato, epikeina). What we are speaking about here is, simply put, the truth of reality, or divine reality as it presents itself in history. 

The Pain of Working-Class Catholic Americans

There are, no doubt, many casualties in the American body politic as the country is torn apart by divisive and ideological politics.  

As a Catholic priest, parishioners confide in me about some of their mental anguish caused by divisive politics.  The most common problem I have heard in the present election cycle, similar to the recent past but now more intense, is the anguish in the minds of blue collar, working-class Catholics.  All of their adult lives they have been loyal Democrats, and speak with joy and pride about the Democratic Party of the past:  about Kennedy especially, but also about LBJ and Humphrey.  They do not speak with pride about leaders such as McGovern, McCarthy, Carter, Gore, or Kerry.  Some of them mention Bill Clinton with mixed feelings.  But what they now feel is the mental pain of being caught between their sense of loyalty to the Democratic Party and their strong disagreement with a number of prominent policies now embraced by their party.  These working-class Catholics feel dispossessed by a party that favors “abortion rights,” “gay rights,” “extreme environmentalism,” “climate control,” and so on.  These are probably the four issues about which they express disagreement most often.  But they clearly cannot identify with national Democratic leaders, either.  In brief, they embrace the politics of the Democratic Party of the New Deal to the Great Society, but surely want nothing to do with the beliefs and policies of leaders such as Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and Barrack Obama.  For these men, their sense of betrayal by the Democratic Party is not based on racial or gender prejudice, and to interpret it that way would be unjust.  

What surfaces among Catholic Democrats is a clear split in the Democratic Party between older and middle-aged working class men and women and a more socially liberal element of the Party dominant in large urban areas, especially in greater New York and California.  These Catholic Democrats express respect or affection for none of the national Democratic figures; on the contrary, they speak of them with disdain and disgust, in terms similar to those used by more avowedly conservative Catholics.

To some extent, one finds a similar split among Republicans:  between more rural and small-town Republicans in the south, midwest, and west, and the more “monied Republicans” of the Northeast (the group sometimes called “country-club Republicans”).  But to the present I have not heard Republican Catholics speak with anything like the anguish of working-class Democrats, who speak in private with passion and anger at the Party that they believe has betrayed its principles, and surely left them alienated.  These working class Catholic Democrats are clearly a casualty of contemporary politics in the USA. 

"What Would You Have Me Do For You?"

The story of the blind beggar, Bartimaeus, sitting along the way, waiting for Christ to pass by and to restore his sight is a masterpiece of spiritual insight. Although brief, the story contains within it a portrait of divine activity in the human condition, in the heart of everyman. The evangelist Mark uses the episode to summarize the effects of Christ on the human soul, requiring our willing cooperation.

The blindness of the beggar represents the truth that each of us is spiritually blind (to one degree or another), and that each of us is a vulnerable creature. If we are not literally begging for our daily bread, we are nevertheless dependent on the God who gives and sustains life. In other words, you and I are in the story. Christ embodies divine truth and love available to anyone who will but ask, who will open up his or her heart, and let the living God flow in. That the crowds at first tell the blind man to be quiet is typical of crowds in our human condition, typical of mass behavior: if we follow the crowds, and do as they do, we will miss the chance to encounter the living God. We must work contrary to the crowd, and seek God. Bartimaeus ignores the noisy crowd, and presses on to receive divine assistance: “Jesus, have mercy on me.”

The response of Christ shows us that God is ever available, ever willing to assist us, to open up the eye of our heart. But we must ask for divine assistance. God and man must work together for the human soul to experience the grace of God. In the story, Christ asks exactly the right question: “What would you have me do for you?” That question is valid here and now, and is being asked by Christ in the silence of your heart. You receive from God to the extent that you ask for God, letting Him live in you, and you live in accordance with the Lord. The blind beggar wants to see, but he is really asking for more than he probably knows: He is asking not only for physical sight, but for his eyes to be opened to the Presence of the living God. Proof that the blind beggar receives physical and spiritual sight is seen in the result: He follows Jesus up the road. And where is the road going? Up to Jerusalem, to where the cross awaits Christ. This man has become a disciple, and so is following Jesus on the way that is Christ--to the place where God becomes fully available to man. That is on the cross. Without our sharing in the cross, God is just a word to us, or perhaps a kind of love-god that does for us whatever we want. In our sharing in the cross, in dying to ourselves, Christ lives his life in us, with us, to make us fully one with him forever. “In his light we see light.” 

We The People, We......

The second presidential debate in this cycle is over.  Who won?  Not a mature question, really. The question itself reveals the disease of warfare.  And the fighting continues.

We the People... we the losers.  We witnessed more verbal bickering by two lawyers, both Harvard trained, each trying hard to make his case to gain or to maintain power, and to defeat the other.

The debate is over, the feuding goes on. Soon this election will be over, and the incessant feuding that has become the stuff, the essence, of American politics will go on and on. The fighting for power will not cease. Truth suffers, problems do not get solved, the fighting and struggling for power, for dominance, will continue unabated.

Why is American politics reduced to fighting for power? Partly, because of our human potential to seek power rather than truth and the common good. But more existentially, given what we have become, the unending feuding is a function of our loss of reason. Clever arguments, citing selected facts, do not make a well-reasoned argument. Watching Obama and Romney reminds me of children on a playground, bickering: much heat, little light. No, not men, but wounded and wounding warriors.

We are the losers. Long after Election Day, fighting will continue, with too little time, attention, effort given to solving real problems.

Talk is cheap, and argumentative talk is ugly to hear, disturbing, like being exposed to powerful, seemingly interminable winds. They blow and blow, allowing no quiet reflection.

What have we become? Whither are we tending? Nietzsche saw it clearly:  we are plunging headlong into perpetual warfare.

A Note On The Care Of Souls

 

That my primary role as a Catholic priest is to help ground parishioners in the living and true God has been clear to me since I was ordained a priest twenty-four years ago. Indeed, I know of no other reason to be ordained a priest, except to help lead fellow human beings into the reality that we call “God.” Had I wanted to put the bulk of my energies into social justice programs, for example, I could have been a social worker, or donated generously to Catholic Charities. A Catholic priest has three duties in church law: to teach and to preach the way of Christ; to help the faithful grow in holiness through meaningful celebration of the Sacraments (especially the Eucharist); and to provide pastoral leadership in parish ministry. All of these tasks I find well expressed in the old-fashioned description of a parish priest: a man who has the care of souls. That is a wonderful phrase, and meaningful to me. As your priest, I have been entrusted by our local Bishop with the care of your souls, depending on the guidance and action of the Holy Spirit, and your free and mindful cooperation.

In the care of souls, the first and primary duty is, perhaps, to “do no harm,” as in the Hippocratic oath. But along with this duty, one must “speak the truth in love,” using a phrase from St. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. Not to deceive, not to mince words, not to distort the truth, but to speak truthful words about what matters most: God and our relationship with Him. “The rest is passing.” Part of the duty to speak the truth is to remove clutter of untruth (our idols), and especially to help liberate minds from the distorting power of false opinions, of a misunderstanding of reality. Again, truth matters, and untruths lead us astray. In addition, the way in which the truth of God is communicated matters, too. Having just watched the “Vice-Presidential debate,” and watching a man’s expressions, facial gestures, interruptions, I saw how such a poor presentation limits one’s ability to focus on, or to understand, words. In brief, style matters, too.

In the care of souls, then, I must take care not to give scandal, not to mock your beliefs, to be respectful of “where you are now,” to be patient with our human weaknesses and mental limitations. If some of you need mental images of God, for example, to aid your life journey into the divine mystery beyond words, I must seek to understand that need of yours. If others, perhaps carrying baggage of anger at someone in their life, cannot bear to use certain words for God (such as “Father”), I need to be patient with that, too. If some sense God’s love through the maternal love of Mary, and faithfully pray the rosary, I can surely work with that. But if others have emotional difficulty relating to Mary as Mother, that stance, too, needs to be accepted and worked with patiently.

In short, the care of souls requires the priest to adapt himself to a rich variety of human preferences, styles, spiritualities. Unless a person’s way appears to be self-destructive and a hindrance to the union with God, in his care for souls a priest should encourage each person to fare forward with “faith working through love.”

A Memo To Fellow Americans

10/13/2012

 

We have now seen two "debates" of the season. Obama did poorly, as many viewers believed. But few named the problem: an image of a leader, a politician largely created by media hype, was on display as embarrassingly empty of substance. But that was not new to reasonably objective citizens to in the least. Having heard Obama many times, I have seen the overwhelming preference for poetic-sounding phrases, and very little substance. But in his debate with Romney, Obama displayed not only his characteristic arrogance, but disdainful contempt for his political opponent.  It was literally painful to see what the political character of “We the people” is becoming:  the “ugly American,” indeed. 

But last night was for me considerably more revealing of the descent of American political leaders into an abyss of shrunken, self-indulgent, irrational psycho-drama.  It was deeply disturbing to me, as a citizen, to see how defective a character is the Vice President of the United States. I expected more decency from Joe Biden. He has been described as a kind man, whom Brit Hume has said "would give you his shirt." He may be likable, personable, friendly to his friends or to non-threatening politicians.  But as the Obama team has been on a downward slide in the polls, and the reality of losing the election has perhaps appeared possible to Obama-Biden for the first time (truth dawns very slowly on men living in a world of illusion), Biden displayed ugly and even sick characteristics. One of his long-term supporters from Delaware, hedge fund manager Gary Kaminsky, said on CNBC today that he has supported Biden with money over the years, attended Biden's speeches to hedge fund managers, and seen that "most of Biden's funding" came from Wall Street. Then Kaminsky heard Biden criticize Wall Street, but even more, display such a contemptuous character towards Ryan that Kaminsky said, "I would have slugged him in the face and walked off the stage." Well, Ryan kept his cool quite well, and endured an estimated 82 interruptions, plus sneers, smirks, laughing, hyena smiles.

Morally and spiritually speaking, the Vice-President self-destructed on national TV last night.  Here is a prediction:  20 years from now, or even 10, when Joe Biden has long been in private life or deceased, whatever good deeds he did in politics will not be remembered nearly as much as the night he "lost it" in full view of the watching nation. Of all the scenes in Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates so far, Biden's performance will stand out as the most vicious, most contemptuous, most bizarre. As for the content of what he said, who could concentrate on either man's words, when a man close to 70 was carrying on as if he were an immature teen-ager?
 
One person wrote that "Joe Biden was just being Joe." And he wrote the same line when Biden made the most openly racist statement I have heard from a leading politician in my life: "They gonna put y'all back in chains."  "Joe was just being Joe."  I am convinced that if Romney had said that same line, he would have been attacked in an unprecedented media assault on his private character, on his "racism," and on his "Mormon faith" for being "anti-Black."  Romney would have been publicly shamed as we have never seen. But "old Joe is just old Joe."  In other words:  If someone is on “our team,” he can say and do anything--no matter how foolish, how bad, how destructive of the common good--and that is okay--as long as “we win.”  That is a highly short-sighted and unwise stance. 

Well, Joe Biden may have done some good things in politics, but he has surely done some foolish things. But neither good deeds nor good character were on display last night. Rather, we Americans had a glimpse of the ugly depths to which we are descending as a people in history. When our highest elected officials act in this way, what example is being set before our youth, or even our adult citizens?  Were we shown how to act civilly and respectfully in the public forum? As President Clinton made sexual immorality acceptable for many Americans, Vice-President Biden went a long way to make an open display of contempt and disrespect for one’s opponents publicly acceptable. Obama displayed rank contempt for Romney, but his performance was vastly outdone by his lieutenant.
 
Three more points. First, at the end of his disturbingly rude performance, Biden made the claim that he accepts the Catholic teaching that human life begins at the moment of conception. Then he said that he would not want to enforce his belief, but, in effect, allow each person to make her own decision about whether to bear the child or to abort it. The structure of this argument is no different from this: "I think that Jews are human beings, but I would not impose my morality on those who think that Jews can be exterminated." If Biden had said, "The fetus is not human," the "pro-choice" stance would be more consistent, albeit deeply wrong. Or he could have given Obama's sophistical answer to the question:  Asked about whether or not the fetus is human life, Obama smartly quipped, “That is above my pay-grade."  But Biden’s argument is: “It is a human life in the womb, but you are free to take its life if you wish." That was the essence of his argument. Here we see not only stupidity, but a callous disregard for the weakest among us.

Second, the arguments one way or another do not matter when one's performance is so badly vitiated by his behavior. If anyone needs to be shown that analyzing a person’s words alone is not sufficient, that the context and the actions displayed must be taken into account, Joe Biden's performance last night gives the textbook example.  Biden shows everyone this: It is not just what you say, but how you say it that matters. Do not say, "I care for people," "I want to help the poor," “I believe in the middle class,” and then treat the human being next to you with proud contempt, disdain, rudeness. Biden has given politricks a new word. To "Biden" someone means to treat your opponent with sheer disrespect and mocking scorn. Ryan got Bidened, and acted gentlemanly in the process.

Third, as I think about this disgusting episode in American politics, I realize the obvious: totalitarianism is the end-form of progressive politics. I may have read that before in political philosophy, but now I understand and grasp it. To remove freedoms from citizens in the name of "caring for them;" to build up enormous governmental power in order to "be more fair, to give everybody an equal shot;" to seek political power as one's highest good; to use one's enormous power and prestige of office to destroy or belittle one's opponent:These and much more we are witnessing as our country continues its slide into totalitarianism. We cannot say, "I did not see it coming." When politicians use the cloak of "equality and a fair shot" to magnify their power, we are seeing tyranny in the making; but when they greatly magnify governmental power, and ride rough shod over local and state communities, over political opponents (especially "the other Party"), we are watching how Progressivism from T Roosevelt through Obama is bringing into being an American form of totalitarian regime that crushes whatever would resist or question its power. In the Vice-President's performance last night, we had a glimpse of blossoming totalitarian politics in America. Consider what you are seeing, my fellow citizens, for this is the country we are becoming. It has been by our choices and our passivity, and the work of highly ambitious and power-seeking human beings.
 
What is one to do?  Leaving our country physically does not seem prudent.  But one must make some kind of exodus from this decadent culture and “progressive” regime, and withdrawal into a more wholesome life. And yet, one has a duty to expose the evil of our political culture, and to resist it to the extent possible. I will not be cynical and repeat the claim that in a democracy the people get the leaders they deserve. For we are a highly manipulated so-called “democracy,” in which mass media, intellectualistic elites, party machinery, and groups that benefit from the tyrannical State are drowning out the public philosophy and common sense, and forcing leaders on us who rule by power and manipulation, by lies and deceit, by providing “goodies” to people greedy for gain or “entitlements.”
 
What have we Americans done to ourselves?  Whither are we heading?  Do we really want to be partners in a totalitarian State?  Or, can we resist so much evil in ourselves and in our political culture, and begin to rebuild the Republic?  Then again, is it perhaps too late for this regime, this people in history?  I do not know; but I think that our fate is indeed in the balance.

Part II: Further Thoughts On God, And Whether God Feels

 

When considering any question having to do with what we call “God,” it seems beneficial to return again and again to the truth of reality experienced. For perhaps the foremost problem or obstacle in thinking about “God” is the mind’s tendency to objectify, and in this case, to treat “God” as “a separate being.”  Such tendencies of thought when relating to “God” are intensified in the Christian tradition because of the existence and weight of doctrine and dogma, much of which communicates symbolically, and gives the impression of objectifying “God.”

First, however, let me clarify why I am writing “God” in quotation marks in the preceding paragraph. What or who God is in “Himself” human beings scarcely know.  Our language about “God” is always at best tentative, and it must be symbolic.  Giving “God” names, and speaking of “Him” as we do, can and often is misleading.  And yet, saying nothing does not seem fitting, either.  So for the present I will write a few words about that which we call “God,” understanding that these thoughts are crude, the formulations approximate, and that any language about “God” can be, and often is, misleading. 

“Religions” have often given the impression that “God has been revealed.”  Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and even ancient “religions” in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Greece have given the clear impression that human beings know much about “God,” or “the gods,” or “the divine beings,” and so on.  I think that it is healthier and wiser to begin with the obvious truth, and to return to it repeatedly:  All of our speech about “God” or “the gods” is imperfect because our knowledge of God may not even deserve the name knowledge, but is at best a groping towards knowledge, a desire to understand what is ever beyond our full or satisfying understanding. “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” is a far healthier or more true statement than “the truth of God was known to them” (Romans 1). Wiser is the Apostle Paul’s formulation in his letter to Christians in Galatia:  “Now that you have come to know God--or rather, to be known by God.”  We can know, apparently, that we are known; but who or what is knowing and forming us remains ever beyond our mind’s grasp.

                                                                                      ***
Return to the opening formulation: When considering any question having to do with what we call “God,” it seems beneficial to return again and again to the truth of reality experienced.

Whatever we think or say about God is one of several things, or a blending of these: (1) It may be a more or less mindless repetition of what we have heard or read about “God,” most likely from one or another religious tradition, scripture, liturgy, prayer, or doctrinal formulation. (2) Or, one’s own mind can develop some thoughts based on what one has heard or read about “God,” such as the “Triune God” of Christian dogma. (3) Or one’s imagination, moved perhaps by one passion or another, can imagine all sorts of things about “God,” and formulate them as “truth” or “revelation.”  (4) Or one can proceed more cautiously and circumspectly, presenting a more or less faithful exegesis of one’s experiences of the divine.  (5) Or one can recall and present in words another’s experience of the divine.  (6) Or, one’s formulations may be a combination of these or other kinds of discourse on “God.”  

I am seeking to avoid numbers 1-3 above, and to proceed mainly from numbers 4-5, to the best of my ability.  In other words, I seek to base my thoughts and words about “God” on the truth of reality experienced, especially by a prophet, apostle, philosopher, or mystic; or from some momentary lights in my own consciousness.  Although in Christian liturgy we necessarily use scripted language from the Judaeo-Christian tradition (in the scripture readings, in preaching, in songs, in the Eucharistic prayer, and so on), in one’s quieter meditations, or when speaking with those seeking understanding, we need to be more cautious, more analytically cautious.
 
Let us consider one of the greatest “revelations” in history for an example:  The experience by the man called “Moses” (Mosche) in or out of “the burning bush” on Mount Sinai.  What this one particular, concrete human being experienced on that occasion, and then formulated in words, remains probably the most significant and fundamental experience-formulation of the divine presence recorded in documents of human history.  It is recorded in the Book of Exodus (chapters 3-4) that God spoke to the man Moses, having drawn his attention through the appearance of what looked like a fire that burned, but did not consume a bush.  In any case, apparently what we call “God” broke into the consciousness of one particular human being, on one occasion.  In the midst of Moses’ awed and questioning mind, the divine Presence identified Itself not as a named, finite “god” dwelling on a mountain, not as a being of any sort, but simply as “I AM.”  Or from the written document (dated much later, of course, than the original experience), that is what Moses “heard” or experienced of the Divine:  “I AM WHO I AM.”  

Such an experience of the divine remains normative in “history.”  It is not for us to invent “gods,” or merely to have recourse to “the God of our tradition,” or so on, but to ponder and to be conscious of the truth as experienced.  And it is surely not for us to replace the truth of God for our own imaginations, for our own private and passing “self” or ego.  The often silly and shallow Swiss-French philosophe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, preferred his own fanciful musings to the truth of reality experienced.  In his novel, Emile, Rousseau asks the self-referential question, “Did God speak to Moses to speak to Jean-Jacques?” In other words, “What do I, Rousseau, need of any so-called “revelation” of God to Moses--or to anyone else? I have God speaking directly in my heart.”  Indeed, Rousseau says that he does have God speaking directly in his heart as “the voice of conscience,” which “makes man like God.”  Again quoting the Apostle Paul:  “Proclaiming themselves wise, they became fools.”  Or to put the matter more simply: Rousseau, drop your blind arrogance and self-centered existence, and open up to the truth of the God who did speak to Moses, and who speaks to anyone through that singular experience who will think about it, meditate on it, heed it.
 
From what can be known in the course of human history, God indeed spoke to Moses to speak to us.  Or more cautiously:  the divine communicated himself to Moses, who in turn communicated the truth of God to us.  But how did God “speak” to Moses?  What happened?  Assuming that Moses was a human being as we are, let us briefly consider the truth of reality, and how it is that a human being can “hear” God speak, or be moved by God.

What we call “human being” is essentially that part of the whole of reality that is between the Divine and other beings / material reality. Man is between God and the “sub-human.”  (Ways in which animals may or may not experience God is not here the question, but set aside for further thought later.) Man is a part of reality in which the Divine can and does move, break in, communicate, act.  Again, leaving aside the ways in which the Divine acts on other parts of reality, what we can know and experience is God moving us in consciousness.  When we question God, when we ask, “Who are you, LORD?” it is God himself moving us to question. What we experience is a restlessness, a wondering, a desire to know that which simply is, a desire to be rooted and grounded in what truly is and what endures, so that we do not simply pass away as all material being does. Desiring life now and forever, desiring what is really good (and not just an appearance of good), desiring the source of all that exists, desiring to glimpse that which is simply beautiful and present in all things beautiful, our minds are drawn towards God. The divine is that Presence in us moving us towards the Divine. Human is the being drawn to God; or to be human is to share responsively and consciously in God. All things are in God, but human is the mode of being in God mindfully, with awareness, with a desire for a more perfect union.

What is it that can truthfully be called “God,” based on such experiences as those of the great man, Moses?  Who or what is the God of Moses?  Who is it that speaks or is heard by Moses to say, “I AM.”  What is happening in Moses?  What has stirred him up?  Why does God move Moses?  In the context of Exodus, Moses is moved in order to stir him up to lead “my people Israel” from bondage into freedom under God.  Did God move Moses ultimately to lead all human beings, or even all of creation somehow, from bondage to death, to sin, to self, into freedom and fullness of life in He WHO IS?  Is Moses the Representative of the God to humankind, for one and for all?  If Moses, then why other prophets?  Perhaps we do not heed, and need reminders?  Why Christ?  To see what God-in-man fully looks like?  Why does the divine stir and move in each of us?  Can we not just hear words with our ears, obey, and live?  What is gained by encountering the Divine hiddenly in the truth of one’s soul or consciousness? 

Why does God seek man, human being?  Why does man seek God?  Why do I ask these questions?

                                                                               ***
Let us consider once again, briefly, the question, “Does God have feelings?”  

What God is in and of Himself, we do not know. What we know of God is the Divine as experienced by particular human beings in history.  Men such as Moses and the Apostle Paul “heard” God speak to them, in them, but does that mean that God has a voice?  To have a voice, would not God have to have a body?  To be a body, would not God be bounded in space-time, limited, and bound to perish?  Does it not make more sense to say, “The divine Presence can be experienced in a human being as words, or as love, or as peace”?
 
When the divine is experienced as present in a human being, one may “hear,” or “see,” or “feel.”  Words can be heard in a receptive human being: “I AM.”  “I AM Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”  “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Words are heard, for the Divine communicates to the human soul in a way that a man can understand.  So God “speaks” Hebrew to Moses, Greek to Paul, Aramaic to the Apostles, English to Wesley, and so on. Or the  mind of a man, moved by the divine Presence, can “see” images, or pictures in the mind, in response to flowing Presence.  Or one feels “the peace of God that surpasses all understanding,” when one is not “in his flesh,” in himself, but conscious of divine Presence here and now.