Decoration or Foundation

 One of my daily spiritual practices is to engage in Centering Prayer.  This is a form of meditative prayer in which you empty your mind (as much as possible) and open yourself to God.  When I do this there are inevitably thoughts which come unbidden.  The idea is to not dwell on them but let them float away and return to the open mindfulness.  Recently one of the thoughts which came to my consciousness was the word ‘decoration’.  Now I usually don’t remember what the images or thoughts are as the practice is, as I noted, to let go of them and not dwell on them.  However, this one stuck with me.

What, then, could the word decoration signify?  My first thought was what it rhymes with foundation.  I also noted that we are on the cusp of the season of Lent.  Lent is a time in which we remove the decorations – the things which are not essential or foundational in our lives and deepen our relationship with God in preparation for the Easter Resurrection in our lives.

What, then, is foundational to our relationship with the divine?  Coincidentally – not that I truly believe in coincidence – I began reading – rereading actually – a small book on prayer and contemplation, Encountering the Depths, by Mother Mary Clare SLG.  I picked this book from my bookcase shelf while looking for something after finishing the book I had been reading – A Short History of Myth, by Karen Armstrong.  You could actually say that this book chose me as I had forgotten it was there and I don’t remember how it came into my possession but it was used and cost all of 25 cents.  I will quote from the part I have just finished reading which seem to answer this question:

Prayer and daily life are indivisible.  We must learn to pray as we are, and not as the ideal people we would like to imagine ourselves to be.  We must grow to understand ourselves and accept that it is at the time when our passions are most active, and our minds most distracted, that we can grow to a knowledge of ourselves as real persons.  That is the point of tension at which we must offer ourselves to God in prayer… Prayer, which is the fruit of true conversion, is an activity, an adventure, and sometimes a dangerous one, since there are occasions when it brings neither peace or comfort, but challenge, conflict and new responsibility.  This is why so many old ways of praying, and books about prayer seem to let us down.  Too often when we use them, we were hoping to get something for ourselves from prayer, perhaps security or a growing sensible realization and knowledge of God.  To seek such things in prayer is a mistake. The essential heart of pray

That seems to be foundational to me and a good Lenten observance.  I invite you to offer your true self as you are to God in prayer on your Lenten journey.  May it be blessed.

Shriven by COVID

Today is Shrove Tuesday or, less traditionally, Pancake Tuesday when Christians and non-Christians alike feast (pig out) on pancakes.  Christians traditionally observe it as a feast before Ash Wednesday and the start of Lent and prepare for this solemn season by not only feasting but also going to church to be shriven.  This is somewhat contradictory.  Christians were to be shriven – to confess their sins and be forgiven as a prelude to Lent.  Shrove Tuesday is therefore a day to not only indulge yourself in a feast before the Lenten fast in preparation for Easter.  But there you go, who says that religious observances need to be completely logical – let the mystery be.

So, let’s celebrate and get fat (it was also known as Fat Tuesday) and turn our minds to what we do or don’t do as part of our Lenten observance.

It seems to be that we have now had a year of being shriven – we are down to the basics in our lives.  We haven’t been partying with others – or have not supposed to have been doing that.  We have been eating at home instead of eating in restaurants albeit perhaps having take out meals.  One of the things I look forward to when we are back to some semblance of normal is going out to our local restaurant on a Saturday morning for the breakfast special and reading the Saturday Globe and Mail.  Or there is the other old favourite of a movie and dinner which sometimes means the guilty pleasure of a double feature with popcorn and pop for “dinner”. 

That is not much of a sacrifice when you think of all that many people have had not give up in the last year – not to mention those that have been infected with COVID and the serious medical consequences and even death that can result.  Personally, I have little to complain about and much to give thanks for.

Will this year-long shriving – being shriven of those things which are so important in life – have a lasting effect on people and how we approach life once COVID has been defeated or at least controlled?  Will it make us appreciate more fully the joys of family gatherings, or gathering with others for many different occasions?  Will practicing Christians or those of other Religions return to worship together in person or will we be satisfied to worship by gather remotely via social media?  Christians have the assurance from Jesus Christ that where two or three are gathered together in his name he will be there.  Does gathering together via the internet qualify?  Perhaps, but I am not sure that Jesus would concur if he returned tomorrow.  To go down that theological rabbit hole further, can a concertation of the Eucharistic elements – the bread and wine in the communion - be valid if conducted electronically.  I leave that for our Bishops to ponder. 

Another thing I have truly missed is gathering with others to sing – whether it is in church or in secular gatherings.  There can be some singing on-line but, truly, it is not the same muting your self and singing along with a leader or singing your part alone on Zoom and having it put together remotely and listening/viewing the modern miracle of all the singers coming together in song in the same tempo and hopefully in tune. 

Returning to normal will, I am sure, not be the same.  However, we can reflect on this past year of being shriven by COVID and appreciate what is important and meaningful in our lives and what of that experience we want to incorporate to enable us to live more fully as God intends us to live.  The end seems to be in sight but do not let your guard down – keep social distancing, wear your mask, and don’t forget to wash your hand for the full recommended period – what is it, singing Happy birthday twice? 

Blessings on your Lenten journey shriven or not.

What’s a Christian to believe (2)?

 Last week, I began to explore the critique of Richard Rohr by Alisa Childers, who is strongly opposite to the Christianity expressed in Richard Rohr’s writings.  The blog may be found at https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/heres-why-christians-should-avoid-the-teachings-of-richard-rohr in case you wish to read it.  Childers is a self-described Christian fundamentalist who believes “scriptures are internally coherent, without error, and infallible.”  I critiqued that view of scripture; this week I want to explore the theology of substitutionary atonement – that understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross which is affirmed by Childers and is seen as a foundational belief by fundamentalist Christians among others.

 Childers’ understanding of Jesus’ sacrifice is in line with what she maintains is a traditional one, “Historically, Christians have believed Jesus died on the cross for our sins, taking our deserved punishment upon himself.”  She maintains that Richard Rohr holds what she implies is a heretical theological understanding of substitutionary atonement and quotes Rohr to prove her point:

I believe that Jesus’ death on the cross is a revelation of the infinite and participatory love of God, not some bloody payment required by God’s offended justice to rectify the problem of sin. Such a story line is way too small and problem-oriented.

Although Childers does not site the source of this quote or others by Rohr, this certainly is my understanding of Rohr’s theology of the crucifixion.  Let me, then, try and unpack what I understand as the problem with the theology of substitutionary atonement which Rohr is addressing and which, to be clear, I agree with. 

To say that Jesus died for our sins is, for me, true.  However, what follows from this?  To maintain that the only way that God the Father could redeem us was through condemning his only begotten son to a horrible death is, for me, put limits on a God of unlimited possibilities.  An all-loving God would not do that unless God had no other options.  God, who is beyond limits would not have required this of his beloved  son - what loving father would? 

What then is a different understanding of why Jesus made that journey to Jerusalem and what he knew would be the consequences of that act as he states in the Gospel of Matthew, “From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”  Jesus knew fully what he was called to do and be if he was to fully live out who he was as the only begotten son of God the Father.  To be true to that he must go to Jerusalem knowing full-well what the consequences of that would be.  To do other than that would be to surrender to the temptation which Satan offered him in the wilderness.  Jesus made clear in his rebuke of Peter which directly followed his declaration noted above, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”  He would not yield to the temptation offered by Satan to avoid the awful road ahead and go a different path and deny who he was.  To be true to himself as the incarnate God-image and yet fully human, he must go to Jerusalem and accept what would inevitably follow. 

If that is what Jesus did, how is it dying for our sins?  Jesus showed us and is the perfect model of what it means to pick up our cross and follow him.  To do otherwise is to yield to the temptations offered by Satan in which we want to turn stones into bread to feed our earthly desires, or to tempt God by demanding proof of God’s power and favour, or to succumb to the terrible temptation of earthly power in whatever form it takes for each of us.  To pick up our cross as Jesus did is to be certain that we will be crucified by this world in small and large ways.  To do other is to fall into sin.  However, because to the willing sacrifice of Jesus we are assured of forgiveness.  That is the forgiveness offered to us by sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. 

Blessings on your journey wherever it takes you.

What’s a Christian to believe?

Those who read my weekly musings are likely aware that I often refer to the work of Richard Rohr.  I find his theology and understanding of God and Christianity to be a sound guide which helps me navigate the waters of spiritual life and the cultural times we find ourselves in.  Last week a friend brought to my attention a blog by a Christian writer, Alisa Childers, who is strongly opposite to the Christianity expressed in Richard Rohr’s writings.  The blog may be found at https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/heres-why-christians-should-avoid-the-teachings-of-richard-rohr in case you wish to read it.

Let me delve into her argument with Richard Rohr as expressed in that blog and give you a taste of what she believes and why she is adamantly opposed to Rohr’s theology.  Childers firmly places herself in the type of Christianity which can be called a fundamentalist.  She declares, “Following Jesus’ own example, Christians have affirmed over the centuries that the Scriptures are internally coherent, without error, and infallible.” I would have to question whether Jesus held this comprehensive view of scripture as I don’t believe that the Gospels give evidence of that.  She quotes Rohr to support her assessment of Rohr’s understanding of scripture:

The text moves inexorably toward inclusivity, mercy, unconditional love, and forgiveness. I call it the “Jesus Hermeneutic.” Just interpret Scripture the way Jesus did! He ignores, denies, or openly opposes his own Scriptures whenever they are imperialistic, punitive, exclusionary, or tribal.

Childers does not identify the source of this quote so I don’t know the context in which it is made.  However, there are times when Jesus certainly objected to the interpretation of scripture and the Law which Pharisees and others were making e.g., the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath.  I am sure that Rohr agree with Childers’s assertion that Rohr does not believe that scripture is “internally coherent, without error, and infallible.” 

My understanding of scripture is that it is inspired by God.  However, it is also revealed to human beings.  That revelation is understood by those who receive it in different ways and through the prism of the limitations that all humans are subject to.  Humans in biblical times had an understanding of creation through the limitations of their knowledge at that time.  Therefore, they did not know that the earth revolved around the sun and they believed that heaven was somewhere up in the sky.  They did not necessarily understand that what they were receiving in revelation was being expressed symbolically and the language of God is not necessarily understood in the way we perceive it.  I want to delve into this more fully next time.  However, let me close with another quote from Rohr in a recent Daily Meditation:

In my experience, the people who find God are usually people who are very serious about their quest and their questions, more so than being absolutely certain about their answers. I offer that as hard-won wisdom.

I believe that those who believe they know the mind of God with absolute certainty are guilty of the sin of hubris.  Indeed, perhaps God is discovered more in the questions than in the answers. 

Blessings on your journey and blessings on your questions in your quest.