The Shadow, per Richard Rohr

Leave a reply

The shadow is always with us.  It is that dark side that we all loathe and are prone to projecting “out there” on our favorite scapegoat.  Karl Jung and many others have taught the need to “withdraw your projection” and embrace that dark side.

Richard Rohr writes in Falling Upward:  A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life:

Your shadow is what you refuse to see about yourself, and what you do not want others to see….Be especially careful of any idealized role or self-image, like that of minister, mother, doctor, nice person, professor, moral believer…These are huge personas to live up to, and they trap many people in lifelong delusion.

This delusion makes me thing of Emerson’s fear (or was it Thoreau???), that “I will come to the end of my life and realize that I have not lived life at all, but somebody else’s life.” (paraphrasing).

And Rohr does not have any problem with, for example, “nice persons”.  His concern is that a genuinely nice person will need to embrace the shadow side of “nice” and embrace the fact that at times he/she is less than “nice.”  But our pretensions die hard.  They die hard.  W. H. Auden noted, “And Truth met him and held our her hand and he clung in panic to his tall belief and shrank away like an ill-treated child.”

Charles Williams on “bibliolatry”

Leave a reply

One of the basic problems with biblical literalism is that its adherents often take themselves too seriously, so seriously that if you examine them closely it often appears to be all about them.  Sometimes they use their faith to bludgeon others into submission, into believing “right.”  As Goethe noted, “They call is Reason, using light celestial, just to outdo the beasts in being bestial.”

People with this theological/spiritual stance transfer their activities from themselves as a center to their belief as a center.  They use their anger on behalf of their religion, and their morals, and their greed, and their fear, and their pride.  It operates on behalf of its notion of God as it originally operated on behalf of itself.  It aims honestly at better behavior, but it does not usually aim at change.  (paraphrased from Charles Williams, He Came Down from Heaven)

And this leaves their faith lumped with what the Apostle Paul called “the works of the flesh.”

The sin of bibliolatry

Leave a reply

I really like the Bible.  Now able to approach it as an adult, I find that it offers profound wisdom about the human experience and has practical direction for day-to-day life.  But, I don’t feel you have to view it the same way and if you don’t…even should you burn it…I WILL NOT BE TRYING TO KILL YOU!

This recent “trouble” in Afghanistan re the accidental burning of the Koran reflects one of the problems that comes with being a “people of the book”, particularly those who are extreme literalists. I would never harm or deface the Bible; even if it was quite tattered and worn and I did not want to keep it, I would take it somewhere and leave it for someone else to make use of.  Yes, I am so traditional that I will always treat the Bible with reverence.  BUT IF YOU DO OTHERWISE, I WILL NOT BE ATTEMPTING TO KILL YOU!

The problem with this fanaticism is that the “holy writ” is taken to be sacred in itself, not being merely “words” that point one in the direction of the truth.  The literal words themselves are taken to be sacred.  The admonishment of the Buddha is not taken into account, “the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon.”  Or, to use the words of Gabriel Marcel, “Words have meaning only when they ‘burgeon forth’ into a region beyond themselves.”  Therefore the word, for example, “G-o-d”, is not “God” but merely a sign/symbol that makes reference to that Ultimate Experience that we all hunger for and many of us find in some faint tenuous fashion from time to time in our life.  The “word is not the thing.”

Now this is relevant to personal identity and this issue itself is relevant to personal and collective identity.  For example, my name is Lewis but “L-e-w-i-s” is not “Lewis” as a name is only a sound that we have learned to respond to.  But if I am guilty of the sin of misplaced concreteness, I might venture to the extreme in which I would take my personal identity to be only memories of those subjective experiences that are evoked when I hear the sound “L-e-w-i-s”; or when I ruminate about myself.  And, if I have ventured to that point even  the sound “G-o-d” could come to mean the experience of “God” and I might have to kill you if you believed differently than myself!

Now actually, I’ve said all of that not to address the problem with other religions.  In our culture, and in the Christian tradition, there is the same tendency to be guilty of the sin of “bibliolatry.”  We definitely have extremes in our culture but thankfully we channel our anger and violence in such a way…that is, we “sublimate” it… that rarely is anyone in danger of being killed because of believing differently than ourselves.  But, beneath the surface the same arrogance, contempt and scorn are usually present.

Jacques Ellul addressed this issue in The Ethics of Freedom:

For we have to realize that Satan can use God’s truth itself to tempt man.  He even uses holy scripture…Thus obedience to the letter of scripture can be obedience to Satan if the text serves to bring about isolation and independence in relation to the one who has inspired it.  It can be a means of self-affirmation over against God in in repression of his truth and his will.  The biblical text, and obedience to it, do not guarantee anything.  They may be the best means of not hearing God speak.  (Ellul here points out that the Pharisees were) authentic believers, faithful adherents of scripture, and rich in good works and piety.  In reality everything depends on our attitude to the text of the scripture.  If I seize it, use it, and exploit it to my own ends...then I am obeying Satan under the cover of what the Bible says.  (Or, as Shakespeare noted, “With devotions visage and pious action we do sugar o’er the devil himself.”)

Social Awkwardness & the GOP

Leave a reply

One of my favorite vignettes from The Simpsons TV show is Mr. Burns attempting to curry favor with his rank-and-file employees. His role in the show is that of the mega-billionaire owner of the local nuclear power plant and thus his arrogance and obnoxiousness is stretched to the max by the writers. But in this scene he has decided that he needed to be seen as “one of the boys” at the plant and so he sidles up to a small group of workers. Social banter is underway and Burns seizes the moment to offer an overture, “Hey, how ‘bout that local sports team, eh?”

Romney is socially awkward and stumbles in this social arena so often that I actually fill sorry for him. (I really liked that bit about “even the trees are the right height!”) The press just pillories him and I’m sure his party leaders just grimace every time he speaks publicly. But, heck, there is nothing wrong with being socially awkward! And I can live with that if he happens to persevere and when the nomination and election. It takes tremendous courage to trot yourself out every day, know that you have a problem of this sorts…and continue to show up. I admit it, I would just want to run to a corner of the playground and cry.

Ronald Laing once wrote extensively about social interactions and taught that to function socially…at least in an adroit manner…one had to offer a “tenable performance.” For, even though one might not be ostracized to the same degree as with sociopathy, maladroit performances make people, i.e. the “social body,” uncomfortable. And those who cannot muster a “tenable performance” might not be imprisoned or executed, but they will have a real problem is achieving the heights of Romney. How he has done it so far I can’t really explain. Other than perhaps money.

Conspiracy Theory

2 Replies

I have a virulent disdain for conspiracy theories.  This stems from my youth where I imbibed a variety of conspiracies from my community, especially from my little church.  There was always the impending doom of “the communist conspiracy” that sought to overtake our country.  And on that note, I owned my own copy of John Stormer’s magnum opus, None Dare Call it Treason.  There were the “godless atheists” who wanted to destroy Christianity.  And there was a hefty dollop of anti-Catholicism conspiracy—the Pope waiting in a submarine off the coast on the eve of the 1960 election, ready to step ashore and take control of the government should Kennedy win.  And John Birch Society chatter was often in the air.  The “Tri-lateral Commission” was supposedly promoting “big government,” thus facilitating the ogre of them all, a “one-world government” that was an essential part of the “end-times” scenario.

Let me skip then to the 1990’s and Bill Clinton.  One of my all-time favorites was the notion then that Clinton was operating a drug-smuggling operation out of the tiny village of Mena, Arkansas.  And, most recently there is the falderal about O’Bama being a Muslim and not being an American citizen.

So, I have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and roundly dismiss anything that smells of “conspiracy theory.”  And I do this at my own peril; for, true enough, “conspiracies” do take place from time to time.

(Btw, one of the best books I’ve ever come across on this subject is Richard Hofstadner’s The Paranoid Style of American Politics)

Richard Rohr on Lent

Leave a reply

Richard Rohr in today’s Huffington Post (religion section) again addressed the issue of sham, enculturated religion, which people subscribe to to avoid reality, “everyday” reality as well as spiritual reality.  This is similar to the indictment of the church by Jacques Ellul about whom I blogged several days ago.

Rohr suggested that much of our religious experience consists of “self-help” pap that is often found in “motivational speeches.”  (And this is not to totally dismiss “self-help” or motivational speakers.)  With the Lent season in mind, Rohr posits the notion that “transformation” is what faith is about, not merely redecorating what the Apostle Paul described as “the flesh.”

His thoughts brought to my mind a residual blurb from my hyper-conservative religion past—someone accused most ministers of using their ministry as a “platform for the display of their carnal abilities.”  The writer was suggesting that many ministries…and the Christian life of many… was merely a “dog-and-pony” show for the fulfillment of one’s ego needs.

And, I might add that this “ego-needs” fulfillment issue is an issue for anyone with a spiritual impulse.  The ego is always there and is always needy.  I suspect that Paul might have had this in mind when he referred to his “torn in the flesh.”

When you get it figured out and resolved, let me know how to do it!

Below is the link though you will probably find the article easier by googling “Richard Rohr and Huffinton Post.”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fr-richard-rohr/lent-is-about-transformation_b_1282070.html?ref=religion

ADHD and “the pauser reason”

Leave a reply

Th’ expedition of my violent love
Outrun the pauser, reason.

In Macbeth, Shakespeare wrote, “The expedition of my violent love, outrun the pauser, reason.” I would like to translate that into, “The exercise of my fierce passion outruns ‘the pauser’ reason.” Though Shakespeare did not have modern neurophysiology to outline the role of the forebrain in handling impulsivity, he knew that a basic human issue was human emotion, or feeling, run amok. In Hamlet, he noted re the title character, “He cannot buckle his distempered cause within the belt of rule.”

With the “pauser reason” we can introduce what Deepak Chopra calls “the gap” into our experience. We are at times consumed with passion, but if things work out right we will have learned to “pause” briefly and consider the possible outcome of our behavior and/or words.

Years ago I had as a client a 16 year old male who had been diagnosed with ADHD. And he could have been a “poster boy” for that diagnosis, being unable to control himself in the classroom and at home. He was very intelligent and could articulate quite well regarding his subjective experience, even those times when he was totally out of control. And when he finally relented and followed his MD’s recommendation and took a stimulant medication, it had a remarkable impact on him. He noted to me one day, “Now, I have a choice. I have the same urges to “trash talk” and be “difficult” to my teachers, but now I have the choice of whether or not I want to follow through with my urges.” He had obtained “the pauser reason” (aka “an observing ego”) psychopharmacologically.

Unfortunately, he got tired of this restraint and began to balk about compliance with the stimulant medication. Soon thereafter his family moved and his treatment with me ended. But months later there was a sad ending to this anecdote. Apparently having stopped taking his medication, he was driving his ATV crazily across the countryside one afternoon. Something went awry, he wrecked, and was killed.

I was so sad and am very sad now as I relate the anecdote. He was such a handsome, intelligent, passionate, and insightful young lad. But as one of his teachers noted to me, “He simply could not live inside his own skin.”

Jacque Ellul and the Prophetic Function

Leave a reply

Thanks for the response to my posting re Jacques Ellul. I owe this to one of my
new friends in the blog-o-sphere who re-posted the matter.

Let me tell you a little more about Ellul. I’ve seen him described as a
“Christian anarchist” and I can understand that though I disagree. I feel he
merely served a prophetic function in our Christian culture and any prophet who
follows his calling it is always “anarchic” to the existing religious/spiritual
status quo.  If he was an anarchist of any kind then so am I but I firmly
renounce any such accusation—I believe too strongly in purpose in life and
feel that mature faith will always cling to hope and will always offer
purposeful behavior even when things appear the most dire.  I passionately
believe that there is “method to our madness” that divinity doeth shape
our ends, rough-hew them how we may.”  (Shakespeare)

I think Ellul was one of the most powerful voices in the 20th century in
religion though he does not get a lot of attention. Though I think The Judgment of Jonah was the most powerful of his books but I also highly recommend The Ethics of Freedom.

I would like to close with another quotation from Judgment, “From the moment faith develops in us, we must be permeated by the conviction that  that if grace is conferred on us it is primarily for others.  It is never for our own personal satisfaction.”

Jacque Ellul critique of the church

2 Replies

Jacques Ellul (1912-1994) was a French philosopher and law professor who wrote also extensively in the areas of religion and sociology. His most important book was The Technological Society in which he argued that the rise of industry had created a “technological society” which had more or less destroyed the soul of man. His thesis was that as mankind adjusted to machine age he did so with such success that he was basically nothing more than “The Hollow Men” noted by T. S. Eliot.

But my favorite of his books is an exegesis of the book of Jonah, entitled, The Judgment of Jonah. The preface to this book, by Geoffrey Bromiley, describes the book as a “Christological commentary.” I would describe it also as a hard-hitting indictment of Christianity and the church. He argues that faith has succumbed to the pressures of the age and has become merely a sociological phenomenon, that faith is basically the function of indoctrination. He argues that the truth of the Bible is for the needy, the spiritually needy, who do not have comfort from the accoutrements of civilization. For example, he notes, “God always takes seriously the cry of a man in distress, of suffering man, of man face to face with death. What, perhaps, he does not take so seriously is the cold, calculated, rational decision of the man who weighs the odds and condescendingly accepts the hypothesis of God.” He writes that mankind “has the pretension that he can solve his own problems” and consequently has invented technology, the state, society, money, and the state. And I would add “religion” to the list.

God responds not to our better feelings, but to the desperate cry of the man who has no other help but God. God responds just because man is in trouble and has nowhere to turn.

…when man has somewhere to turn he does not pray to God and God does not come to him. As long as man can invent hopes and methods, he naturally suffers from the pretension that he can solve his own problems.

 

Faith and adversity

Leave a reply

Faith is easy when we are in our glory days.  But it is often more of a challenge when adversity sets in.  Please read the following article about a former evangelical pastor who is battling a losing battle against ALS.  (You will have to “cut and paste” as I have even yet to figure out how to import a link to this blog.)

Facing death, a top pastor rethinks what it means to be Christian

Faith is so easy when we can bask in the “sizz, boom, bah” of carefully orchestrated, entertainment-oriented religion.  It used to be so comforting to know that I belonged to a “happenin'” mega-church.  We were sooo cool.  God, what a false reality!.  I do not think that God had in mind creating a false reality when he sent Jesus into the world.  I think he had in mind a meaningful faith in which life’s difficulties were embraced, not covered up with sham, canned religion.