Believers in rigid dogma ("Rigid Constructionists") have to believe that they are right in order for their form of worship to be effective for them. In order to be right, however, it is necessary for all those who believe otherwise to be wrong. To people who are less rigid in the way they view religion this appears to employ a sort of doublethink whereby the believer believes their rigid dogma to be true even in the face of obvious contradictions. I have recently had a dialogue with an old friend of mine who has made the transition from Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism. When I tried to discuss an interview I listened to with Bart Ehrman (a Biblical scholar, ex-evangelical and current agnostic) who discusses obvious contradictions between the four synoptic gospels of the Bible, he (my friend) responded that he was "disappointed" in me. He said this in reaction to my mentioning that I had listened to this interview. As far as I could tell, he did not listen to the interview but even if he did I am sure that he would have no problem rejecting its content no matter how cogent the arguments were. I found this response interesting and it got me to thinking. I have no doubt there is a power to Rigid Constructionism. I believe that this power can allow the Rigid Constructionist to experience an authentic religious experience. I do not believe, however, that it is the only way to have an authentic religious experience. But the rub is this, (I think) the only way for this mode of thought to be effective is that the believer must also believe that everyone else is wrong. Now, I imagine an advantage to being a rigid constructionist is that it can make life simpler and manageable. The disadvantage is that a Rigid Constructionist must be at odds with most other people. On the other hand, the advantage of being a Non-Rigid Constructionist is that the he need not jump through disingenuous hoops to convince himself that what he believes is actually true. This is not to say that all Rigid Constructionists jump through disingenuous hoops. I have no doubt that many believe what they believe and do not question, but I suspect there is a segment of their population that harbors lingering doubts. Of course it is also easier for a Non-Rigid Constructionist to accommodate those with differing views. The disadvantage is that life has the potential to become more complex and bewildering. Perhaps the Rigid Constructionist adopts his viewpoint as a means of controlling the world around him. For, to categorize and label something (even if you adopt the labels of another) is a form of control. Just a thought.
Link to Bart Ehrmans's Interview : http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895
Monday, March 16, 2009
Day Twenty - Half Way (Sort of)
If Lent were 40 days long today would be the halfway point. Lent, however, is not 40 days but is 47 days from Ash Wednesday to Easter. Here are some passages from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject:
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm)
Duration of the fast
In determining this period of forty days the example of Moses, Elias, and Christ must have exercised a predominant influence, but it is also possible that the fact was borne in mind that Christ lay forty hours in the tomb. On the other hand just as Pentecost (the fifty days) was a period during which Christians were joyous and prayed standing, though they were not always engaged in such prayer, so the Quadragesima (the forty days) was originally a period marked by fasting, but not necessarily a period in which the faithful fasted every day. Still, this principle was differently understood in different localities, and great divergences of practice were the result. In Rome, in the fifth century, Lent lasted six weeks, but according to the historian Socrates there were only three weeks of actual fasting, exclusive even then of the Saturday and Sunday and if Duchesne's view may be trusted, these weeks were not continuous, but were the first, the fourth, and sixth of the series, being connected with the ordinations (Christian Worship, 243). Possibly, however, these three weeks had to do with the "scrutinies" preparatory to Baptism, for by some authorities (e.g., A.J. Maclean in his "Recent Discoveries") the duty of fasting along with the candidate for baptism is put forward as the chief influence at work in the development of the forty days. But throughout the Orient generally, with some few exceptions, the same arrangement prevailed as St. Athanasius's "Festal Letters" show us to have obtained in Alexandria, namely, the six weeks of Lent were only preparatory to a fast of exceptional severity maintained during Holy Week. This is enjoined by the "Apostolic Constitutions" (V.13), and presupposed by St. Chrysostom (Hom. xxx in Gen., I). But the number forty, having once established itself, produced other modifications. It seemed to many necessary that there should not only be fasting during the forty days but forty actual fasting days. Thus we find Ætheria in her "Peregrinatio" speaking of a Lent of eight weeks in all observed at Jerusalem, which, remembering that both the Saturday and Sunday of ordinary weeks were exempt, gives five times eight, i.e., forty days for fasting. On the other hand, in many localities people were content to observe no more than a six weeks' period, sometimes, as at Milan, fasting only five days in the week after the oriental fashion (Ambrose, "De Elia et Jejunio", 10). In the time of Gregory the Great (590-604) there were apparently at Rome six weeks of six days each, making thirty-six fast days in all, which St. Gregory, who is followed therein by many medieval writers, describes as the spiritual tithing of the year, thirty-six days being approximately the tenth part of three hundred and sixty-five. At a later date the wish to realize the exact number of forty days led to the practice of beginning Lent upon our present Ash Wednesday, but the Church of Milan, even to this day, adheres to the more primitive arrangement, which still betrays itself in the Roman Missal when the priest in the Secret of the Mass on the first Sunday of Lent speaks of "sacrificium quadragesimalis initii", the sacrifice of the opening of Lent...
From what has been said it will be clear that in the early Middle Ages Lent throughout the greater part of the Western Church consisted of forty weekdays, which were all fast days, and six Sundays.
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm)
Duration of the fast
In determining this period of forty days the example of Moses, Elias, and Christ must have exercised a predominant influence, but it is also possible that the fact was borne in mind that Christ lay forty hours in the tomb. On the other hand just as Pentecost (the fifty days) was a period during which Christians were joyous and prayed standing, though they were not always engaged in such prayer, so the Quadragesima (the forty days) was originally a period marked by fasting, but not necessarily a period in which the faithful fasted every day. Still, this principle was differently understood in different localities, and great divergences of practice were the result. In Rome, in the fifth century, Lent lasted six weeks, but according to the historian Socrates there were only three weeks of actual fasting, exclusive even then of the Saturday and Sunday and if Duchesne's view may be trusted, these weeks were not continuous, but were the first, the fourth, and sixth of the series, being connected with the ordinations (Christian Worship, 243). Possibly, however, these three weeks had to do with the "scrutinies" preparatory to Baptism, for by some authorities (e.g., A.J. Maclean in his "Recent Discoveries") the duty of fasting along with the candidate for baptism is put forward as the chief influence at work in the development of the forty days. But throughout the Orient generally, with some few exceptions, the same arrangement prevailed as St. Athanasius's "Festal Letters" show us to have obtained in Alexandria, namely, the six weeks of Lent were only preparatory to a fast of exceptional severity maintained during Holy Week. This is enjoined by the "Apostolic Constitutions" (V.13), and presupposed by St. Chrysostom (Hom. xxx in Gen., I). But the number forty, having once established itself, produced other modifications. It seemed to many necessary that there should not only be fasting during the forty days but forty actual fasting days. Thus we find Ætheria in her "Peregrinatio" speaking of a Lent of eight weeks in all observed at Jerusalem, which, remembering that both the Saturday and Sunday of ordinary weeks were exempt, gives five times eight, i.e., forty days for fasting. On the other hand, in many localities people were content to observe no more than a six weeks' period, sometimes, as at Milan, fasting only five days in the week after the oriental fashion (Ambrose, "De Elia et Jejunio", 10). In the time of Gregory the Great (590-604) there were apparently at Rome six weeks of six days each, making thirty-six fast days in all, which St. Gregory, who is followed therein by many medieval writers, describes as the spiritual tithing of the year, thirty-six days being approximately the tenth part of three hundred and sixty-five. At a later date the wish to realize the exact number of forty days led to the practice of beginning Lent upon our present Ash Wednesday, but the Church of Milan, even to this day, adheres to the more primitive arrangement, which still betrays itself in the Roman Missal when the priest in the Secret of the Mass on the first Sunday of Lent speaks of "sacrificium quadragesimalis initii", the sacrifice of the opening of Lent...
From what has been said it will be clear that in the early Middle Ages Lent throughout the greater part of the Western Church consisted of forty weekdays, which were all fast days, and six Sundays.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Day Nineteen - The Vanity of Endurance
If one looks at Lent as an endurance test I think it then becomes a vanity. That is, Lent becomes something to merely strengthen the ego. Since the ego is doomed to death, the benefits of such an endeavor are likewise doomed to death and if the ego is all there is, then this is the best we can do. But if there is something more and that something survives the ego then surely Lent is about that. In this way Lent is about bringing forth fundamental change by chipping away at the ego so that the soul - the true self can emerge. Self sacrifice has its place and is not a bad thing in itself, but when it is used to build up the ego - when the self says I am good because I have done this and I haven't done that or I feel guilty because I have done this or neglected to do that, this is a vanity and serves to add another layer of ego over an already encrusted soul. It makes sense then, that self sacrifice must be done first with no thought to the outcome. It should be done for its own sake without thinking about the past or future where the ego tends to exist. This then starves the ego and allows the soul to emerge. This may explain why when Lent is viewed as an endurance test it becomes easier to lose heart and give up on the discipline, because it lacks soul (because it is ego). However, when self sacrifice is done for its own sake without a thought for the ego this perhaps gets to the heart of Lent.
In writing this it occurs to me that I am preaching. The next thought is by what authority do I preach. The answer of course is by no authority. This is merely a thought that occurred to me. It seems right to me but in truth what seems right to me might not seem right to everyone or possibly anyone. The thought now is that this second paragraph seems to be concerned with the thoughts of others and the hope that I might not be misconstrued or generally look bad. This of course is just the same kind of vanity discussed in the first paragraph. It is a vanity that I am particularly (I think) prone to. All the more reason for me to practice this discipline I suppose.
In writing this it occurs to me that I am preaching. The next thought is by what authority do I preach. The answer of course is by no authority. This is merely a thought that occurred to me. It seems right to me but in truth what seems right to me might not seem right to everyone or possibly anyone. The thought now is that this second paragraph seems to be concerned with the thoughts of others and the hope that I might not be misconstrued or generally look bad. This of course is just the same kind of vanity discussed in the first paragraph. It is a vanity that I am particularly (I think) prone to. All the more reason for me to practice this discipline I suppose.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Day Sixteen - Hope
I've been buying lottery tickets lately, no more than $2 per week. The idea struck me that this is an exercise in hope. It is not that I believe that I will win the lottery. But for some reason having the lottery ticket in my wallet allows me to relax a bit. I feel like there is an iron in the fire somehow and that makes a difference. This I think is the power of hope. It is not a knowledge of iminent pay off. Nor is it a desire for the possibility of payoff. It is the possession of the possibility. I tried to explain this to someone once but I did not feel like I was getting the idea across. He kept rephrasing my idea as "buying a lottery ticket with the idea that I was going to win." That's not it. That's not it. There is a peacefulness that is achieved with hope and it does not have much to do with the end result. Faith, hope and love.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Day Fourteen - The Allure of the Altered Mental State
I remember once a long time ago a good friend asked me what was the allure of an altered mental state ("AMS"). I answered the allure was "that it brings you closer to death." Now, this answer sprang forth without much thought but I had the sense even at the time I said it that there was truth to it. I never took the statement to mean that I wanted to die but rather that a glorious mystery lay beyond the veil of death and that experiencing that mystery (or even partially experiencing it) would be wonderful. As such, achieving an AMS was an attempt on some level to approach that veil and peak underneath. Recently however, I thought about this statement in the context of the "Hero's Journey" and have come to see it in a new light. There is a stage in the hero's journey when he undergoes a symbolic death whereby he is transformed from his original flawed self and reborn as a more perfect self. It occurred to me that perhaps seeking an AMS is an attempt on some level to undergo (symbolically or otherwise) the death of the self in order that the self might be transformed and reborn into something better. Often times we seek the AMS when things are not right in the world. And perhaps the AMS has a role to play in transforming the self. But perhaps the desire for an AMS itself is a message from the deeper self that change is desired and change is needed.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Day Twelve - Reaching Out
Today is the second Sunday in Lent. Although I have made it through two weekends (almost) remaining sober I feel somehow that I have lost my initial fervor for the Lenten process. It's not that I want to drink because strangely that part has not been a struggle. I thought not drinking would bring me more benefit than it has. True, I am not depressed and my mood is more stable. But I was hoping for some kind of epiphany which has not yet happened. I feel tired all the time but more than that, I'm not happy. I'm not sad either, but I am not happy. So I must look back at the act of not drinking (interesting) and perhaps see that it is opening a door that drinking had shut. But further action is required. It is not enough simply to stop drinking. I must now commit to action. I must now walk through the door.
Adendum - A thoght occurred to me that the reason I began my drinking career in the first place was to reach out to others. In my younger days I suffered from tremendous social anxiety. As a result I was withdrawn and gave people a negative vibe (I suppose) which at worst invited ridicule and bullying and at best made people feel uneasy or allowed them to overlook me. I was always able to entertain those that I felt close to but meeting new people and getting them to like me was always a challenge. Alcohol, however, freed me up socially and allowed me to be comfortable around people I did not know. This worked brilliantly for a while. However, since that time the experience has degraded. I think there are a lot of nuances to consider here, but one take home message is that I need to learn to reach out in the absence of alcohol. Until I can learn to do that the struggle will continue.
Two things come to mind. First, I am not happy with myself (again, which is not to say that I am sad with myself). The things that make me happy with myself are things that make me feel like I have accomplished something. They are also things that make me feel like I am reaching out to others (something that I have found increasingly more difficult as I've gotten older). In my mind when I feel good about myself, then I feel entitled to reach out to others because then I have something of value to offer them. By contrast, when I feel bad about myself I tend to retreat within. This creates a negative feedback loop whereby the more I retreat within the less opportunity I have to accomplish and reach out. The chain must be broken and it makes sense that not drinking is a logical first step because drinking has two effects that reinforce withdrawl. First it has the short term effect of making the self comfortable with the present situation. Because the present situation is not pleasant when not drinking I then crave the feeling that drinking provides and so I go back to it. Second, drinking has the longer term effect of causing depression, supressing drive and creativity and negatively impacting health. All of these effects reinforce the feeling of negative self worth.
So then, ceasing drinking has to be the first step. I have done that and will continue to do that at least for the rest of Lent. But now I must look for ways to reach out. I must reach out both to myself through meditation, prayer, writing etc. and making full use of any time to myself I might have. But I must do this in a way that is non judgemental or punishing. I have spent a lifetime punishing myself for God knows what. I need to let go of that tendency. I must learn to like myself again. And I must reach out to others. I recognize that my impulse is to resist reaching out to others and so I must recognize this impulse when it happens for what it is and then take action to work past it.
--GJC
Adendum - A thoght occurred to me that the reason I began my drinking career in the first place was to reach out to others. In my younger days I suffered from tremendous social anxiety. As a result I was withdrawn and gave people a negative vibe (I suppose) which at worst invited ridicule and bullying and at best made people feel uneasy or allowed them to overlook me. I was always able to entertain those that I felt close to but meeting new people and getting them to like me was always a challenge. Alcohol, however, freed me up socially and allowed me to be comfortable around people I did not know. This worked brilliantly for a while. However, since that time the experience has degraded. I think there are a lot of nuances to consider here, but one take home message is that I need to learn to reach out in the absence of alcohol. Until I can learn to do that the struggle will continue.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Day Ten - The Lenten Journey
In "The Writer's Journey," the author Christopher Vogler maps out 12 distinct stages that appear in most stories. These stages are (1) the ordinary world, (2) the call to adventure, (3) the refusal of the call, (4) meeting with the mentor, (5) crossing the first threshold, (6) tests, allies, enemies, (7) approach to the inmost cave, (8) the ordeal, (9) reward, (10) the road back, (11) the resurrection, and (12) Return with the Elixir. These stages are based upon the philosophy of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung. Campbell and Jung spoke mostly about ancient myths and the common themes that run through them. Vogler took these themes and applied them to modern story writing particularly in the realm of film. These stages are archetypes - meaning that they tap into something deep within the common subconscious shared by all humans. Stories that are powerful, that move large groups of people, that are popular or commercially successful - have these qualities because they resonate with people on many levels. Likewise, they resonate with people because they touch upon the "truths" of human experience. "Human Experience" is one of those things that falls into the category of "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." It is gnosis not episteme. That is, it is an experiential type of knowledge that cannot be readily explained to someone else who has not had a similar experience. "I can only show you the door. You must walk through it," said Morpheus to Neo in the Matrix. In the following blog entries I would like to explore these stages in greater detail and relate them to Lent because I see parallels between the two phenomena. Specifically, the person who takes Lent seriously is embarking on a hero's journey of his own. If these stages tap into truth on the story level, it must also be true that they tap into truth on the life level as well. Why else would they resonate?
--GJC
Addendum:
I tried working through the various stages in relation to Lent, but I found that there was not necessarily enough material for each stage. I have decided to attach what I have written to this post and perhaps I will add more information if a thought occurs to me.
I. The Ordinary World
The hero's journey begins in "the ordinary world" which is the world in which the hero feels accustomed to. The journey begins when the hero feels the pull from "ordinary world" to enter the "special world". This pull is sparked by something which is not right and requires fixing about the ordinary world.
In Lent we leave the ordinary world of pre-Lent and enter into the special world of Lent. Of course, the only reason that Lent becomes a special world is because we choose to make it so. As such it is our own choice to walk through the door by taking on certain disciplines.
II. The Call to Adventure
The call to adventure is different for differnt people. For my part, the call to Lenten adventure comes from within me. It is a call telling me that my life is out of balance and I must take action to bring it back into balance. This is not an easy thing to do. It require an honest self inventory of that which has taken life out of balance and then taking action to address the situation.
III. The Refusal of the Call
In this stage of the hero's journey, the hero initially rejects the idea of embarking on the adventure. I find it difficult to relate this stage to a singular Lent, however, if I look at Lent over a lifetime I can see that in my younger years I did not treat Lent seriously. However, as I got older I realized that Lent was more than just another religious experience to make a person feel bad about themselves but rather is an opportunity to embark on a spiritual adventure.
IV. Meeting the Mentor
There are two mentors in Lent, the self and God and perhaps the two are one.
V. Crossing the First Threshold
I suppose the first weekend without alcohol was the first threshold to cross.
VI. Tests, Allies, Enemies
These are the tests that prepare the hero for the ordeal to come.
VII. Approach to the Inmost Cave
This is the preparation phase before the ordeal.
VIII. The Ordeal
This is the first major challenge that the hero has prepared for and the begining of the hero's fundemental transformation.
IX. The Reward
After defeating the oposing force of the ordeal the hero reaps the reward.
X. The Road Home
After the ordeal has been surmounted and the reward has been taken the hero often experiences a lull where his new found wisdom is tested. It is one thing to have an epiphany but quite another to internalize the lessons learned and apply them to a new challenges. Here the hero is tested once more and often the test is more dire than the ordeal. In this final and supreme test the old hero dies and the new hero is born.
XI. Resurrection
The hero is then reborn fundementally changed. He has internalized the lessons and transformative power of the journey.
XII. Return with the Elixir
The hero then returns to his starting point bringing back the lessons learned which allow him to set right that which was wrong in the ordinary world.
--GJC
Addendum:
I tried working through the various stages in relation to Lent, but I found that there was not necessarily enough material for each stage. I have decided to attach what I have written to this post and perhaps I will add more information if a thought occurs to me.
I. The Ordinary World
The hero's journey begins in "the ordinary world" which is the world in which the hero feels accustomed to. The journey begins when the hero feels the pull from "ordinary world" to enter the "special world". This pull is sparked by something which is not right and requires fixing about the ordinary world.
In Lent we leave the ordinary world of pre-Lent and enter into the special world of Lent. Of course, the only reason that Lent becomes a special world is because we choose to make it so. As such it is our own choice to walk through the door by taking on certain disciplines.
II. The Call to Adventure
The call to adventure is different for differnt people. For my part, the call to Lenten adventure comes from within me. It is a call telling me that my life is out of balance and I must take action to bring it back into balance. This is not an easy thing to do. It require an honest self inventory of that which has taken life out of balance and then taking action to address the situation.
III. The Refusal of the Call
In this stage of the hero's journey, the hero initially rejects the idea of embarking on the adventure. I find it difficult to relate this stage to a singular Lent, however, if I look at Lent over a lifetime I can see that in my younger years I did not treat Lent seriously. However, as I got older I realized that Lent was more than just another religious experience to make a person feel bad about themselves but rather is an opportunity to embark on a spiritual adventure.
IV. Meeting the Mentor
There are two mentors in Lent, the self and God and perhaps the two are one.
V. Crossing the First Threshold
I suppose the first weekend without alcohol was the first threshold to cross.
VI. Tests, Allies, Enemies
These are the tests that prepare the hero for the ordeal to come.
VII. Approach to the Inmost Cave
This is the preparation phase before the ordeal.
VIII. The Ordeal
This is the first major challenge that the hero has prepared for and the begining of the hero's fundemental transformation.
IX. The Reward
After defeating the oposing force of the ordeal the hero reaps the reward.
X. The Road Home
After the ordeal has been surmounted and the reward has been taken the hero often experiences a lull where his new found wisdom is tested. It is one thing to have an epiphany but quite another to internalize the lessons learned and apply them to a new challenges. Here the hero is tested once more and often the test is more dire than the ordeal. In this final and supreme test the old hero dies and the new hero is born.
XI. Resurrection
The hero is then reborn fundementally changed. He has internalized the lessons and transformative power of the journey.
XII. Return with the Elixir
The hero then returns to his starting point bringing back the lessons learned which allow him to set right that which was wrong in the ordinary world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
