Easter in Ordinary
Funny how associations are kindled. Matthew Boudway’s post of George Herbert’s lovely poem on Lent brought to mind Herbert’s famous poem, “Prayer,” one of whose descriptive lines is: “Heaven in ordinarie.” This, in turn, reminded me of Nicholas Lash’s wonderful book, Easter in Ordinary, a title Lash derives from joining Herbert with Hopkins’ well-known plea: “Let him easter in us.”
Towards the end of the book Lash writes:
There is, in all responsible human labor, not only the labor of human relationship, but also the academic labors of the mind, a necessary discipline, respect, or courtesy which imposes upon our patterns of speech and imagination not necessarily doubt or hesitation, but at least a kind of reticence.
Theological investigation is, in itself, neither preaching nor prayer. Nevertheless, it seems to me that, if theology is not to lose touch with experience, if it is not to sever its link with that discipline of labor, interpretation, and suffering, that contemplative practice, of which it is a particular, educated, reflective, and critical moment, then it too needs to be characterized, in its uses of argument, by something close to (and often indistinguishable from) prayerfulness.
This is not a recommendation for pietism or mindless religiosity. It is simply a suggestion that theology is not exempt from that requirement of reverence, reticence, or courtesy which is, in fact, a requirement laid upon all responsible human speech and that the form of such courtesy is dictated by its relationsip to the incomprehensible mystery on which it seeks to reflect.
Sadly, theologians, in general, are neither prayerful, prophetic nor illuminating. They are, too many times, pawns of the magisterium with little courage.
Fr. Imbelli –
Do you think that theology is or should be prophetic? If so, how does that fit in with this notion of theology as reticent? I can easily understand reticence in the face of the essential mystery that is God, but what about theology as it bears upon recalcitrant man? Should the theologian be humble before God, but thunder at man: “Thou shalt not snark!!” ??
Ann,
I myself am “reticent” when it comes to claimants to a “prophetic” vocation and mission. In the face of our own recalcitrance (the prophetic “hardheartedness”) I think the best course is humbly to seek to speak the truth in love.
Bill,
I wish you would be more reticent regarding your sweeping generalizations. They do not redound to your credit.
Robert:
As I was reading your comment, I recalled the final words (see below) of Archbishop Romero’s last sermon. I wish I had a link (does someone out there have one?) to the tape recording of those words. They meet your criteria of humility and of speaking the truth; but they certainly do “thunder,” to use Ann’s word. I’d say that, in that context – a moment when tortured bodies, many of them, were turning up with great frequency — the thunder was altogether appropriate, and reticence would not have been appropriate. What do you think? I ask this question sincerely, not polemically.
Bob,
The parishes are in a lot of trouble. The only consistent thing that is organized is the RCIA and then they abandon the people after they have converted. Meanwhile, theologians are out of touch and they encourage a Vatican which is out of touch. Plenary indulgences come back while the people perish.
John XXIII tried to reform a church which was built on the notion of Empire. Now the last two popes especially have sought to restore the empire. And theologians stand aside like weak marshmallows, even sometimes praising a lackluster leadership.
I am not in the business of credit. Theologians have a charism which demands duty. It is not just another profession even though all professions must give honor to God.
Theologians have given minimal support to Votf. I understand they may have reservations. In that case give an alternative. Nothing.
At St Joseph’s seminary this month there will be a conference on life and how to stop the spread of pornography. Goals which have no chance of success. Yet the lack of leadership by theologians is the correctable pornography.
Allow me to follow up on my previous comment, and on the discussion of “reticence.”
Much has been said about how Archbishop Romero changed in the final years of his life. It just occurred to me that “reticent” is a word that says a lot about his earlier way of ministering — and that one way of describing his change is to say this: he came to feel that, to be the bishop he needed to be in those frightful times, he would have to stop being reticent. As I write this, I’m recalling the words of Hector Dada Hirezi, a layman who was close to Archbishop Romero. This next is translated and adapted from an interview I did with Dada Hirezi for the March 15, 1997 issue of Sentir con la Iglesia:
The following remark by Nicholas Lash is inviting and encouraging:
“To think as a Christian is to try to understand the stellar spaces, the arrangements of micro-organisms and DNA molecules, the history of Tibet, the operation of economic markets, toothache, King Lear, the CIA, and grandma’s cooking–or, as Aquinas put it, ‘all things’–in relation to that uttering, utterance and enactment of God which they express and represent. To act as a Christian is to work with, to alter or, if need be, to endure all things in conformity with that understanding.”
“. . . that it was necessary to fight this sin socially, mobilizing all the resources of the church.”
Gene –
(This is somewhat off-topic.) Thanks for this. In this context it clarifies something that had confused me for years. People talk often about “social sin”, as if society were an entity that chooses to do wrong. This makes no sense to me because society is not such an entity — it cannot choose. But the above in the context of the Salvadorian troubles makes sense — the “social sin” was not a choice that a society made, but the individual choices of all the reticent people who chose to be publicly quiet, to do nothing about the horrors. In other words, the “social sin” was the conjunction of all those choices not to speak out. And the same, no doubt, was true in Nazi Germany.
I don’t sit in judgment of those people. I thank God I was never in such a position where I should have spoken out when it could have gotten me killed. But the fact remains, sometimes we need to speak out together.
Can there be such a thing as a prophetic group? Maybe sometimes it takes a group to correct terrible wrongs.
I believe very strongly that the most prophetic theology to date is Liberation Theology. One representative of this type of theology is Jon Sobrino, S.J. Here is a little of what he has taught us.
“The notion of God’s kingdom not only leads back to Jesus of Nazareth but also gives a primary and preferential place to the poor people of the world. And these people have definite characteristics: They are in the majority (which makes other groups the exceptions); they are a
necessary historical product (of various `world orders’); they are dialectically poor (because there are [the] rich and [the] oppressors); they are marginalized, despised and excluded (because they do not fulfill the requirements for humankind as dictated by the
ruling cultures).
“They call the church into question, as nothing else does, which means they have always been taken some account of by the church, but they have not been its central concern. The most serious aspect from a theological point of view is that the poor have not come to possess
the theological status they deserve according to Jesus.”
Ann-
Thanks for your comments. They are very helpful.
The tragedy of Christian history( hierarchically speaking) is that Athanasius is declared a saint and Romero is not.
The word “reticence” may have sidetracked some of the discussion. As Ann indicated in her first comment, Lash is referring explicitly to the theologian’s stance before “the essential mystery who is God.” Interesting is the cluster of terms that Lash uses: reverence, reticence, courtesy. And he also draws on the analogy with “the labor of human relationship.”
When we transpose the context to one of political and social injustice, then “reticence/reverence” does not seem to me to entail passivity or pusillanimity. Indeed, “speaking the truth in love” may require the utmost courage (as witnessed by Archbishop Romero). But I do not think that the “prophet” is exempt from the Gospel requirement of discernment and self-examination: “why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, and not the beam in your own?” Indeed, as the murderous history of 20th century “prophets” of a new age cautions, he or she may be most in need of this self-examination.
That Romero, according to what I have read, frequently went to confession, is, for me, an indication of salutary discretion/discernment/reverence.
Bob, I think you’re right. Prophets and martyrs are both witnesses. Romero’s case, I think, brings to mind the fact that the first may lead to the other. So, for example, does ML King’s case.
Father Imbelli,
Thanks for your insights. Reticence about God reminds me of something Cardinal John Henry Newman wrote:
“We can only speak of God, whom we reason about but have not seen, in the terms of our experience. When we reflect on Him and put into words our thoughts about Him, we are forced to transfer to a new meaning, ready made words, which primarily belong to objects of time
and place. We are aware, while we do so, that they are inadequate. We can only remedy their insufficiency by confessing it. We can do no more than put ourselves on the guard as to our own proceeding, and protest against it, while we do adhere to it. We can only set right
one error of expression by another. By this method of antagonism we steady our minds, not so as to reach their object, but to point them in the right direction; as in an algebraical process we might add and subtract in series, approximating little by little, by saying and
unsaying, to a positive result.”
I’ve read a (very little) bit about apophatic theology. Would apothatic theology be a particular approach or tradition of the reticence about God we’re discussing here?
James,
I think you’re right in discerning in Lash an “apophatic” sensibility, hence his use of the term “incomprehensible mystery.” He owes much to Karl Rahner in this regard.
Michael,
Lash has also been influenced by Newman. He has an earlier book on Newman and an important chapter in “Easter in Ordinary” on Newman. I think your Newman quote about “saying and unsaying to a positive result” is quite apposite and reflects that apophatic sensibility.
Cardinal John Henry Newman’s quote is not an example of apophatic theology. The following quote of Maximos the Confessor is an example of apophatic theolgy
“[God] himself neither is nor becomes in any way at all any of the things that are or become, since he can in no way be ranked naturally with the things that are. Therefore, it is more appropriate to say that he is not, because he transcends being…. He has an existence that is simple and unknown and inaccessible to all, utterly beyond any understanding, and beyond any affirmation or negation.”
Theologian David Tracy tells us that for moderns, the debate over God has been about what is actual or possible. It links God with concrete experiences. It reflects concrete experiences rather than what is possible.
He tells us that when we shift to God-centeredness we shift to the mystical and prophetic approaches – to notions of God’s hiddenness and incomprehensibility. It is a shift to the impossible. The shift toward God-centeredness is a shift to the other and away from the self. It is also a shift that undoes the arrogance and limits of especially reason.
Apophatic theology (can be googled) seeks union with God by moving from physical senses and concepts to their negation in the divine darkness beyond experience and concepts. This movement brakes totality systems, especially triumphalist ones, and attends,
intellectually and spiritually, to the other and not to the self.
God is thought of in terms of faith and God is thought of as open. Faith can be as little as a small mustard seed. The experience of “the open” (God) happens or it doesn’t. It can happen suddenly and attention and spiritual disciplines can prepare one for it.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2269
Fr. Imbell,
Thanks for this additional information. I do agree that Lash and Newman have an apophatic sensibility. The Carthusians also have a apophatic sensibility. A sermon about St. Bruno their founder was given by the Father General of the Carthusian Order at their General Chapter in 1983. It was given in conjunction in with the celebration of the ninth centenary of the
founding of the Order in 1083. Here is a little what he said.
“Our Father Saint Bruno: this title does not raise thoughts in our minds of lengthy doctrine nor of elaborate teaching but rather the existence of a mature master who allowed himself to be seduced by the goodness of God and gave everything up for its sake. He has little
else to tell us except his life in the desert where, in silent vigil, the pure gaze of love wounds the beloved’s heart.”
Michael,
I suspect you are much better versed in the question of “apophatic theology” than I.
I’m glad that you picked up on my use of the term “sensibility” rather than “theology.” I have a hunch that it may be a question of “degree”. Can any Christian theology be unreservedly “apophatic” or “kataphatic?”
I certainly think that you are right in finding an apophatic sensibility among the Carthusians, and I presume among the Cistercians. This sensibility seems reflected as well in the architecture and art they favor.
It may be my Italianate temperament, but I tend more toward the Benedictine. However, thank God, in the Church Catholic there are a blessed variety of sensibilities and spiritualities.
We, I think, confuse ourselves when we use terms which are – even vaguely – part of current speech; which is to say not limited by experience. Thus, “apophatic”. This seems to mean something akin to unknowable.
It seems to be one of the contentious issues between Rome and Constantinople / Moscow. It occurs to me that to claim that God is knowable or unknowable is to make a great claim. In Catholicism we believe that God did come to earth, not in a Cloud of Unknowing, but in a specific womb at a specific time.
The difficulty seems to be in drawing conclusions, rather than acknowledging the fact. I an reminded of the French peasant who explined his relation to God in church: “I look at Him; He looks at me”.
Fr. Imbelli,
Thanks for what you have written. I posted my comment about Newman’s quote before I had read your message about Newman’s apophatic sensibility. I agree wholeheartedly that it is all a question of degree. I agree that Christian theology cannot be unreservedly “apophatic” or “kataphatic”.
I think I have a Latino’s sense of irony.
Michael
Jews, Christians and Muslims affirm that creation is a free gift from a free and single Creator.
Christians affirm God. Christians affirm that God is a free and single Creator. Fr. Herbert McCabe OP tells us that theology “is not concerned with trying to say what God is but in trying to stop us talking nonsense.” We have to be very careful about how we talk about God. The worse mistake is to talk about God as if God were part of the universe or the biggest thing around. God is the unknown beyond and behind the universe. We speak about God metaphorically and analogously.
For Christians God matters. Classical Christianity gives us a way to talk about God. We affirm and deny certain things about God. Also Christians affirm that Jesus is God and man. God walked dusty roads, sweat, ate and drank (with sinners), was tortured, and died a brutal death on a cross.
Thanks for this interesting conversation.
Apphasis is something that I find difficult to wrap my arms around. I do understand (to an extent) the caution that whatever we say about God is said by way of analogy, and/or putting words to a service for which they weren’t intended and aren’t accustomed.
If I had to choose a single word that would sum up what we do know about God, it would be “love”. Or maybe “Jesus” would be a better one. But they seem inextricably linked.
To describe or characterize this great love – this is where words and analogies start to trail off, and I find myself thinking, wondering and experiencing rather than speaking.
There is still amazement that Christianity’s central metaphor for understanding God is “God is Love.” This extraordinary metaphorical insight first appears in the First Letter of John. It continues to be part of Christian piety and reflection. The First Letter of John is written in the genre of “letter.” Some scripture scholars are telling us that it also functions as a commentary of the Gospel of John.
Perhaps the way to express this is by pointing out that the Johannine metaphor “God is Love” is the first classic Christian reflection on the meaning of the gospel passion narratives.
For the ancient Greeks and Romans it was intelligence not love that provided the major clue for the nature of the Divine. “That God must be Pure Intelligence seemed clear (recall Aristotle). That God may also be named The Good, including the Good beyond Being (The
Republic) was true for Plato and many Platonists.” [David Tracy]
How could love be the central clue to the Divine? They would seem absurd to any Greek or Roman or to any modern or ancient sensitive observer because of the horrible sides of existence.
For Christians the singular clue to the identity of God are the passion narratives. It is because of these narratives that Christians say “God is Love.” Christians know “God is Love” by
knowing the identity of Jesus the Christ.
Whoever wrote the First Letter of John did provide the best commentary on the identity of God. God is disclosed in the message of “forgiveness and judgement, the ministry of healing, the suffering of the passion and the vindication of the resurrection of this Jesus
confessed to be the Christ: God, as God is manifested as Love in the life and fate of this Jesus the Christ.” [David Tracy]
This God is more than being, this God is beyond being, and God alone is disclosed in the passion narratives. God is revealed as pure Gift, Glory, Beauty, Goodness – Love.
We need to be warned that Love is primarily “equal regard,” not self sacrifice. “This insight is especially necessary to remind us how ever-so-noble an ideal as `self-sacrifice’ can be consciously or unconsciously misused by the powerful. Self-sacrifice may indeed
prove an inappropriate ideal for the understanding of love by oppressed and marginalized peoples. Love should empower all Christians.” [David Tracy]
The Divine Reality is intrinsically relational. The deepest relational concept is Love.
“God is love”–and the ancients were right to be scandalized–one has never understood its radicality nor its oddness. To understand it rightly is the one thing needed by Christians who seek self- understanding by understanding God in and through Jesus the Christ.”
[David Tracy]
This is the summary of a sermon theologian David Tracy gave on Living Pulpit. At one time it was available online. I can not longer find it.
http://www.artofthesermon.org/
This is a very intriguing thread; it’s very rare that apophasis makes an appearance on this blog! Dionysius (pseudo-Dionysius) the Areopagite, though most famous for his Mysitcal Theology, also authored the book on Divine Names, the Celestial Hierarchy, and the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Taken together, his theology puts kataphatic and apophatic theology in their proper contexts. As the Bible suggests, there are many appropriate names for God, but none will ever capture/exhaust that reality. People have their conceptions of God; however, in order to move closer to union with the divine, one must be willing to give up those notions (aphairesis). Ultimately, when one is completely vulnerable and open before God, union can occur. Kataphatic and apophatic theology need to work with and balance each other; one could say this should engender humility.
In terms of knowledge, I think it would be appropriate to say that language falters the more one approaches God; however, something is imparted to the person. Perhaps this leaves one silent and reverent before the divine mystery.
Hmmm. According to Wikipedia,it seems that Zbigniew Herbert, the splendid Polish poet of tremendous integrity and courage,, was a distant cousin of George Herbert. Very, very different from George, but in some ways very, very much alike. Among other things, a monster talent.