conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

I want to focus on a small part of this entry, possibly because it seems to have been left hanging and partly because I think that these two expressions of spirituality are not mutually exclusive.

"This is also why I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the notion that spirituality is potentially escapist. If my understanding is at all valid, an escapist spirituality is a deeply broken spirituality. And it will need correction and some kind of healing to right it."

Privacy and an internal need for communing with the Godforce, what ever that is in one's life, is not the same as escapism. I think that you are interchanging escapism with the process of escaping to integrate in private. Some of us heal better in private. For these people, the salve is the part of salvation that they seek. It strikes me that silent monasticism comes closer to escapism than does a desire to find God within one's self.

I agree though, that love is the best expression of God's presence in this world. An outward love that requires others to be fulfilled. I also think that allowing one's self to be loved is almost as important. Our society does a lot to screw up our ability to receive love.

So in the course of being human, some people need God to save them through this recharging process. To save them from the grind of living so they can get up and do it again. Others need the community to truly express and feel love. This doesn't make the first group inferior, or even underdeveloped. Their psyche's and their circumstances are simply different, and it is a living God that makes an equal place for them at the table.

So, I don't think private spirituality is "deeply broken". It may be that the people are suffering a little more, or that they are missing out on something that would give them additional nourishment, but using God's strength to help us survive in even the smallest way is still a powerful connection.

Or, did I miss your point entirely?

Hi Trip, first, let me thank you for visiting my blog. The community of the blogosphere is a great support for me. Knowing that there are people out there reading up on what I'm trying to do helps to keep me at it. And, when I was reading about you the other day, my first thought was, "I bet he knew Bob Webber." I miss him too.

My thoughts on community ring very closely to yours. This weeks class with the worship planning team was on community, symbols and the arts in worship. And I made similar points in my discussion about community. There are certainly person aspects to our spirituality and our private prayer life with God is certainly important. However, it begins in the community and is still in the context of community. God himself is community - Father, Son and Holy Ghost. So, for spirituality to be an escapist or solely private affair is indeed broken and antithetical to God.
I couldn't possibly have a healthy relationship with God outside of the community. I know God most clearly (in my own dimly lit glass) through relationships with other people. It's when I'm alone that I begin most quickly to loose sight of God.
Jesus says it so clearly when he said the first commandment was to love God with all our heart soul, mind and strength and that the second was like it. To love our neighbor as ourselves. How better to show our love for God than loving our neighbor - living and loving in community.

Oh, and I love that Wendall Berry poem. Thank you for posting it.

Rich,

Yeah, I could have found a better way to say that. I am not speaking of introversion. What you described sounds like introversion to me. I am an introvert. I always need time to myself. I try to get some every morning. But read the Berry poem again. And how that is still relational.

When your spiritual life ceases to be relational, ceases to challenge you, encourage you, uphold you, and move you into community then there is a problem. God so loved the world that God entered it and became one of us to save it. We are all burdened with the same call in some way...Because we were created in the image of God. We are to be in the world...and not away from it trapped in navel gazing.

Amy, you are most welcome. And thank you for your comments. I like to read through Acts when I think about what a spiritual community might look like. Christian monasticism is the reiteration of the Acts community, the preservation or reminder of it.

Well, heh, that's what I think at least. ;-)

Great post. The first thing that popped into my mind as I read it was:

"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

I know that's taking the scripture out of context a little, but it came to mind nonetheless. :)

OK. Two long comments coming up in response to this posting. Here's the first...

As I've alluded to before, my understanding of the divine stands outside the sin/salvation paradigm, which I believe was cooked up by ancient men who wanted to keep people in line. Here's your chance to define and defend it to me.

I don’t so much have a problem with the idea of sin, as I do with the idea of salvation. Which means we have to get into the definition of the word “salvation” as it’s being used in this conversation.

As I understand it, “salvation” represents the idea that human souls (and for purposes of this discussion we’re going to assume the existence of immortal human souls and the existence of God as described in the Judeo-Christian tradition) are damned to eternal punishment by the original sin of Eve, and that Jesus died on the cross in order to redeem humanity from that damnation.

If God is loving, why would God have damned all humans for all eternity in the first place?

Because of one person’s disobedience, all people are doomed to eternal torment? That is not the act of a loving personage.

And if God is not loving, why would I want to have anything to with God?

So. If “salvation” as you stipulate it is necessary, its very necessity defines God as un-loving, and frankly undeserving of my love and attention, or anyone else’s.

And here's the second...

I can’t do anything for you on the psychological studies front, either backing up or breaking down what you said.

Instead, I’m going to point out that “community” does not necessarily mean “church.” A person who doesn’t go to church is not cut off from community.

There are all kinds of communities. Some lasting, some transitory. Some chosen and some involuntary. Some are united by spiritual principles, others by binding factors that have nothing to do with spirituality in any form. ALL of those communities present opportunities for one to express or exercise one’s spirituality.

So why, again, is church participation supposed to be necessary? It isn’t because church presents the opportunity to exercise love in community. LIFE presents that opportunity; you don’t need church for it.

And because I haven't posted enough comments in a row...

Above, you wrote "When your spiritual life ceases to be relational, ceases to challenge you, encourage you, uphold you, and move you into community then there is a problem."

I would suggest that a church can't do any of those things (challenge, uphold, etc.) unless the individual lets it. And if the individual is letting it, then the work is basically done.

In other words, individual willingness is everything.

If the individual is willing, the church might be nice but isn't strictly necessary.

If the individual isn't willing, the church can't do a thing.

Megan,

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. As you might guess, I've been preoccupied with things that have kept me from blogging. So, here' what I have been thinking about your comments. I am going to be as clear as I can be. If I get overly simple it is in the effort of clarity and not an ill-refined comment on your intellectual acumen.

Re: comment 1

The creation story is just that, a story. So too is the story of the expulsion of Adam and Eve. It is, as I understand it, theological poetry of sorts meant to convey an understanding of why there is sin. There is an understanding that at some point we were closer to God. To me this simply helps highlight what I think is an intuitive perception of a formal relationship with God...or a former innocence. Psychologize it how you will. And likely we'll agree.

We seem to agree that there is sin. I think that we're born in it and our spiritual innocence belonged to another state...another time. And we have been struggling with that ever since. The true can be said, it seems, for all of creation. The OT and NT are full of images about the fallen nature of the created order and not just humanity.

For what it is worth, Jesus is the new Adam and not the new Eve. The original sin, according to Paul, belonged to Adam and not Eve. Now, that just underscores another kind of patriarchal blind, but that's what the scriptures focus upon. Eve is not to blame. Any such theology denies the scriptural witness of Paul and is, to my mind, suspect at best.

A question: How do you understand free will? Do you believe in free will? That's not a challenge, it's a question.

I think the poets that gave us Genesis believed in free will. And the struggle they have is how God would allow us to choose what damns us...literally or figuratively. They folded into the story. And I think that they get something important. Free will is divine. It is what makes us like God in some way. But it is also what sinks us. We have choices and we can choose what kills us. And that is God's gift to us. It is, at best, a challenging gift.

re: comment 2

Yeah, this is my struggle with an understanding of church as well. It is not the only community out there. It is not the only community that can support us and love us. It is not the only community populated by Christians. Nor is it the only kind of intentionally Christian community.

But it is an intentional Christian community. And in that it matters to the life of Christians. It is a worshiping community in the eucharistic sense..."Whenever you gather, do this in remembrance of me." To me this is the purpose of the gathering on Sunday morning. The rest is icing...glorious and expressive of Christian love at times, but icing no less.

Church participation is necessary (Or helpful? Spiritually beneficial? I am still working this through.) because of its purpose. It's purpose is worship, communal, shared, praise...and intentional gathering of the body (Wherever two are more are gathered in my name...) of Christ.

This is why church matters to me...why I think it is essential to a healthy Christian spirituality.

Note: As a left-leaning Baptist, I don't have an understanding of the institutional church as a rule-making body. So the issues you often express about this dynamic and "fencing the table" or something are not in my immediate experience. I know others wrestle with this dynamic (RCC, ECUSA etc), but it is not mine so much.

re: comment 3 (*whew!*)

If the individual is not willing...yes. You are right. And scripture is full of allusions to that idea. Yes. Absolutely. But the invitation to the individual is to join the community, to participate in a communal spirituality.

And what I was speaking of in the quoted line is the issue that some people have with prayer, spirituality, or contemplation...that it turns into escapist navel-gazing or something like that. A healthy spiritual life should lead us into community and to engage the world at face value. It should not lead us away from it. That's what I was trying to say there. I seem to have not done that well.

Okay... more there than I can adequately respond to given the other demands of this day.

So, my most burning question:

When you say "salvation," what exactly do you mean? And yes, I mean exactly, I mean all of it, I mean the whole megillah. No poetics and no mere pointing to larger things. Whole description, capisci?