bjp said My take on the topics of chapters 5 & 6: "Our frazzled institutions"; Taking O'M's evolutionary perspective, we should not be surprised that our institutions are frazzled. They too have cycles of birth, growth, and decline, constantly changing. They arise from the circumstances of their birth, grow and florish as they confront current conditions, decline and transform as they are no longer suited to changing conditions. The challenge to successive generation of humans is to have the wisdom and courage to recognize the stage of our institutions, to foster their maturity, and, when they are in decline to discern what is needed for transformation (new birth). How is this different from O'M? - No negativety, no attribution, no blame....no imputed superiority.... "Theology from the bottom up"; Accepting the above, there are sometimes 'tipping points', when conditions/events evidence (the beginnings of) discernible and significant change. More than 9/11 in the economic/political realms, I would identify Vatican II as one such tipping point. (At the time I could not decide whether it was the end of the Protestant Reformation or the beginning of a new transformation. I still can't) The continuing attempts of the RC church hierarchy to undermine its significance are probably an indication of its potential for new birth (as evidenced by all the examples O'M gives in this chapter). How is this different from O'M? - He sees the transforming change as coming from developments in the academic discipline of theology, located within the institution of education, rather than in the institution of religion itself. He seems to start with 'I think, therefore...', rather than 'I believe, therefore...' (though to give him credit he does criticize an entirely theoretical approach to theology).
G said: I found these last 2 chapters of Part 1 interesting, especially the author's thoughts about theology. I agree with his statement on page 67 that "Engagement and not escape is the crucial issue" insofar as one's life is concerned. This is a notion to which I aspire. But must this be a meaningful aspiration for everyone? O'Murchu seems to think so.
On page 68 he talks about devotional spirituality, his term for people using prayer and devotional practices to comfort themselves. This concerns him. " To be theologically responsible we know we cannot let people remain at that level" he says on page 69, and "the ultimate goal of faith is the freedom to grow into that fullness of life which God desires for all peoples."
Leaving aside for the moment the meaning of "faith" and "God" (which could be the subjects of other very interesting conversations) I feel compelled to ask Father O'Murchu - Why do you feel so compelled to intervene? Why can't a life of devotional prayer, quietly lived, even a life of suffering and pain be full and complete? Who is asking you to intervene?
I am reminded of what Thomas Merton wrote in New Seeds of Contemplation and I think it is relevant here: "...for me sanctity consists in being myself and for you sanctity consists in being yourself and...in the last analysis, your sanctity will never be mine and mine will never be yours."
I would be interested to hear from others on this point:
I've been mulling over the we-can't-let-people-remain-at-this-level comment. It put me in mind of a CBC interview I heard last night about individuals selling their kidneys. A man in the Philippines intended to sell his in order to improve his family's material well-being. His wife said she understood but that others would not understand because they had not experienced their level of poverty. This caused the documentary maker to raise an interesting question - Because these people are poor, should we say that they do not have the right to decide to sell a kidney? In other words, are we with our different vantage point and experience being patronizing, albeit well intentioned, when we object to the sale of organs?
I'm not advocating a particular answer to these questions but I wonder if O'Murchu is in the same territory when he critiques the devotional practices of those who live in what he calls oppressive circumstances.
What do others think? And how does one discern an appropriate response? Should that response be different for someone who professes to follow Christianity?
bjp replies I share your concern. Religious faith is not a matter of the intellect or educational maturity. We make a great mistake,it seems to me, when we view things entirely from our own perspective, and an even greater mistake when we impose what is good or necessary for us (assuming we even know what that is) on others. It leads to the tendency to try to control others 'for their own good' - which is usually anything but. It is the great temptation and error of 'do gooders' .....though fortunately there are many many people doing good who do not fall into this trap. Sometimes the most difficult, but best thing we can do for another is to give then the loving space to do their own thing. With regard to faith I find it disturbing that O'M would be dismissive of some he would define as being somehow at a lesser level. I cannot see how he could even think this way. I do not always agree with Merton, but I am in full agreements with the passage you quoted.
EWL said On page 68 O’Murchu says that “theologians are acutely aware of the enormous gap that often exists between the liberating power of theological vision and the entrapment that can ensue from a faith largely based on devotional practice.” Key words here for me are “entrapment that can ensue’. It’s not a 100% cause and effect relationship between devotional practice and an oppressive religious life. There is a car bumper sticker that reads; “God said it. I believe it. End of discussion.” This restrictive perspective is what I believe O’Murchu has in mind. O’Murchu has chosen to detail the circumstance of millions of people living with trauma and loss in Africa. Many of them “thinking that what they were enduring and suffering was God’s will for them and that they would all be better for it.” But couldn’t a person in trauma and loss also exist in Toronto and be entrapped in a relational and economic situation that is confounded by their devotional practices? Would we not want to meet them in their pain and give them hope and joy?
TRW wrote How do you meet them in their pain and give them hope and joy? According to OM you do that by correcting their thinking and "educating" them that their suffering is not God's will. You want to shift them towards a different theology.
Do you agree with OM's prescription? I can't tell.
EWL responded I am on board with O’Murchu when he says at the bottom of page 65; “Increasingly faith is perceived to be a divine-human, co-creative adventure, calling forth adult men and women to engage as fully as possible in the transformative task of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth.” In my mind this is the liberation that he speaks of elsewhere and it is not a process of education. When O’Murchu used the term “devotional practices” I believe he was talking about a scripted process that stunts spiritual growth. This is at complete odds with the “co-creative adventure” that he has in mind. I am looking forward to Part 2 of the book and his 21st century thoughts about the Kingdom of God.
TRW replied A life of scripted prayers that stunt growth might be all that some of us are capable of. O'Murchu makes it clear that he does not approve. Otherwise, he wouldn't have written the line that G mentions about not letting it continue.
EWL said Early on in this weeks reading, two words jumped out at me, those being “petrified denial”. The use of the word petrified indicates just how long and how entrenched our institutionalized norms have been in place. O’Murchu states that “People want to participate; they want to be involved”. I sense however that many people in todays’ society take the opposite perspective and strive to zone out and become desensitized. Perhaps this ties into the mode of institutionalized self-destruction that is mentioned.
In chapter 6 the radical paradigm shift of the “contemporary lay theologian” has really captured me. The last paragraph of page 66 describes the journey of seeking and striving “to understand what the Kingdom of God means, or could mean, in our times”. The picture comes to mind of Paint by Number art that was popular in the 1960’s. These art kits were comprised of blank boards that had imprinted on them the numbered outlines of all the elements of a picture. All one had to do was match the number within the outline to a specific paint colour and apply the paint, being careful to keep the paint within the designated outline. It appears that O’Murchu is trending against paint by number theology.
bjp said
ReplyDeleteMy take on the topics of chapters 5 & 6:
"Our frazzled institutions"; Taking O'M's evolutionary perspective, we should not be surprised that our institutions are frazzled. They too have cycles of birth, growth, and decline, constantly changing. They arise from the circumstances of their birth, grow and florish as they confront current conditions, decline and transform as they are no longer suited to changing conditions. The challenge to successive generation of humans is to have the wisdom and courage to recognize the stage of our institutions, to foster their maturity, and, when they are in decline to discern what is needed for transformation (new birth).
How is this different from O'M? - No negativety, no attribution, no blame....no imputed superiority....
"Theology from the bottom up"; Accepting the above, there are sometimes 'tipping points', when conditions/events evidence (the beginnings of) discernible and significant change. More than 9/11 in the economic/political realms, I would identify Vatican II as one such tipping point. (At the time I could not decide whether it was the end of the Protestant Reformation or the beginning of a new transformation. I still can't) The continuing attempts of the RC church hierarchy to undermine its significance are probably an indication of its potential for new birth (as evidenced by all the examples O'M gives in this chapter).
How is this different from O'M? - He sees the transforming change as coming from developments in the academic discipline of theology, located within the institution of education, rather than in the institution of religion itself. He seems to start with 'I think, therefore...', rather than 'I believe, therefore...' (though to give him credit he does criticize an entirely theoretical approach to theology).
G said:
ReplyDeleteI found these last 2 chapters of Part 1 interesting, especially the author's thoughts about theology. I agree with his statement on page 67 that "Engagement and not escape is the crucial issue" insofar as one's life is concerned. This is a notion to which I aspire. But must this be a meaningful aspiration for everyone? O'Murchu seems to think so.
On page 68 he talks about devotional spirituality, his term for people using prayer and devotional practices to comfort themselves. This concerns him. " To be theologically responsible we know we cannot let people remain at that level" he says on page 69, and "the ultimate goal of faith is the freedom to grow into that fullness of life which God desires for all peoples."
Leaving aside for the moment the meaning of "faith" and "God" (which could be the subjects of other very interesting conversations) I feel compelled to ask Father O'Murchu - Why do you feel so compelled to intervene? Why can't a life of devotional prayer, quietly lived, even a life of suffering and pain be full and complete? Who is asking you to intervene?
I am reminded of what Thomas Merton wrote in New Seeds of Contemplation and I think it is relevant here:
"...for me sanctity consists in being myself and for you sanctity consists in being yourself and...in the last analysis, your sanctity will never be mine and mine will never be yours."
G added
DeleteI would be interested to hear from others on this point:
I've been mulling over the we-can't-let-people-remain-at-this-level comment. It put me in mind of a CBC interview I heard last night about individuals selling their kidneys. A man in the Philippines intended to sell his in order to improve his family's material well-being. His wife said she understood but that others would not understand because they had not experienced their level of poverty. This caused the documentary maker to raise an interesting question - Because these people are poor, should we say that they do not have the right to decide to sell a kidney? In other words, are we with our different vantage point and experience being patronizing, albeit well intentioned, when we object to the sale of organs?
I'm not advocating a particular answer to these questions but I wonder if O'Murchu is in the same territory when he critiques the devotional practices of those who live in what he calls oppressive circumstances.
What do others think? And how does one discern an appropriate response? Should that response be different for someone who professes to follow Christianity?
G
bjp replies
DeleteI share your concern. Religious faith is not a matter of the intellect or educational maturity. We make a great mistake,it seems to me, when we view things entirely from our own perspective, and an even greater mistake when we impose what is good or necessary for us (assuming we even know what that is) on others. It leads to the tendency to try to control others 'for their own good' - which is usually anything but. It is the great temptation and error of 'do gooders' .....though fortunately there are many many people doing good who do not fall into this trap. Sometimes the most difficult, but best thing we can do for another is to give then the loving space to do their own thing. With regard to faith I find it disturbing that O'M would be dismissive of some he would define as being somehow at a lesser level. I cannot see how he could even think this way. I do not always agree with Merton, but I am in full agreements with the passage you quoted.
EWL said
DeleteOn page 68 O’Murchu says that “theologians are acutely aware of the enormous gap that often exists between the liberating power of theological vision and the entrapment that can ensue from a faith largely based on devotional practice.” Key words here for me are “entrapment that can ensue’. It’s not a 100% cause and effect relationship between devotional practice and an oppressive religious life. There is a car bumper sticker that reads; “God said it. I believe it. End of discussion.” This restrictive perspective is what I believe O’Murchu has in mind. O’Murchu has chosen to detail the circumstance of millions of people living with trauma and loss in Africa. Many of them “thinking that what they were enduring and suffering was God’s will for them and that they would all be better for it.” But couldn’t a person in trauma and loss also exist in Toronto and be entrapped in a relational and economic situation that is confounded by their devotional practices? Would we not want to meet them in their pain and give them hope and joy?
TRW wrote
DeleteHow do you meet them in their pain and give them hope and joy? According to OM you do that by correcting their thinking and "educating" them that their suffering is not God's will. You want to shift them towards a different theology.
Do you agree with OM's prescription? I can't tell.
EWL responded
DeleteI am on board with O’Murchu when he says at the bottom of page 65; “Increasingly faith is perceived to be a divine-human, co-creative adventure, calling forth adult men and women to engage as fully as possible in the transformative task of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth.” In my mind this is the liberation that he speaks of elsewhere and it is not a process of education. When O’Murchu used the term “devotional practices” I believe he was talking about a scripted process that stunts spiritual growth. This is at complete odds with the “co-creative adventure” that he has in mind. I am looking forward to Part 2 of the book and his 21st century thoughts about the Kingdom of God.
TRW replied
DeleteA life of scripted prayers that stunt growth might be all that some of us are capable of. O'Murchu makes it clear that he does not approve. Otherwise, he wouldn't have written the line that G mentions about not letting it continue.
EWL said
ReplyDeleteEarly on in this weeks reading, two words jumped out at me, those being “petrified denial”. The use of the word petrified indicates just how long and how entrenched our institutionalized norms have been in place. O’Murchu states that “People want to participate; they want to be involved”. I sense however that many people in todays’ society take the opposite perspective and strive to zone out and become desensitized. Perhaps this ties into the mode of institutionalized self-destruction that is mentioned.
In chapter 6 the radical paradigm shift of the “contemporary lay theologian” has really captured me. The last paragraph of page 66 describes the journey of seeking and striving “to understand what the Kingdom of God means, or could mean, in our times”. The picture comes to mind of Paint by Number art that was popular in the 1960’s. These art kits were comprised of blank boards that had imprinted on them the numbered outlines of all the elements of a picture. All one had to do was match the number within the outline to a specific paint colour and apply the paint, being careful to keep the paint within the designated outline. It appears that O’Murchu is trending against paint by number theology.