G wrote: I've been away for two weeks (without Diarmuid), so have some catching up to do. In this second part of the book, I find myself agreeing with many of O'Murchu's observations about contemporary spirituality, especially what's "out there" in the wider world. Few people of my acquaintance believe that there's a God-figure in the sky or elsewhere who will do it all for us. Indeed, an Anglican priest pointed out to me that clergy don't believe this either. So there you go. I don't think O'Murchu's generalizations about organized religion hold, however when it comes to their awareness of what's going on in the world. O'Murchu says that "mainline religions seem very much in denial" about the emerging contemporary spirituality. That's certainly not the case at this parish. My experience of the clergy and leadership is that they are very much aware and are responding with a spaciousness that encourages people of differing attitudes and beliefs to make this parish their home. If that were not the case, we wouldn't have a working group on "developing spiritual practices", we wouldn't welcome the public to our contemplative knitting circle, we wouldn't be blogging about this book and a program on Intergenerational Spirituality wouldn't be in the development. In addition, many of us spent time reading and studying the work of Diana Butler Bass who describe contemporary spirituality in much the same way as O'Murchu, using the word pilgrims instead of homecoming. But the same notion of a journey. So it is happening, Diarmuid! It's a process, as you say, and a process takes time.
G again... O'Murchu has spent a lot of time defining what he means by "adult" but he hasn't really explained what he means when he uses the term "faith". I keep waiting. What does O'Murchu mean when he says we're supposed to have adult "faith"? If he defined his term it in a positive sense, I missed it. I just finished a lovely, inspiring and extremely well written book called "My Bright Abyss" by Christian Wiman, an American poet. Wiman has terminal blood cancer, so it's a poignant book, rendered more so by his skill with language. Wiman wrote this about faith: "To have faith is to acknowledge the absolute materiality of existence while acknowledging at the same time the compulsion towards transfiguring order that seems not outside of things but within them and within you - not an idea imposed upon the world, but a vital, answering instinct." I find that enormously appealing. It encompasses O'Murchu's thinking but surpasses it, for Wiman's deftly addresses what O'Murchu prefers not to see, namely the phenomenon of "self-inflation" (p. 106).
bjp said Welcome back G. I was hoping when I finished chapter 10 - Stages in Adult Faith Development, that the following chapters would focus on the road ahead, but I found more than I wanted on all the things wrong with past and current conditions, much of it repeated from earlier chapters. I started skipping. I would like to hear more of how we move through the various stages outlined on pp 116-117. Instead he focuses on just the 'coming home time'. Does he think we are not fully adult until then? Age 55-70 is a bit late to be reaching adulthood. (I believe, with him, that it is a continuing process, but he introduced the stages) Perhaps we could do what he has not done, and take a closer look at the process of moving through each of the stages. I agree with you G, about his treatment of 'faith'. And I like the definition you quote.
G wrote: I just finished chapters 13 and 14, and had the same feeling that you express. Nothing felt new or exciting, a certain repetition of tone and content, and more straw men (including that pesky patriarchy) set up in order to knock them down again.
I have just started to read Eveylyn Underhill's classic, Mysticism (1911). She defines mysticism as "the expression of the innate tendency of the human spirit towards complete harmony with the transcendental order, whatever be the theological formula under which that order is understood" and she says that it "represents the true line of development of the highest form of human consciousness." I believe this is what O'Murchu is getting at but in a much more limited and limiting way due to the nature of his prose.
Underhill promises a review of Western literature and an exploration of the stages by which individuals over the ages have moved towards a truly integrated life, whether the ultimate goal is "God" or some other form of "Absolute". The footnotes and bibliography are thoughtful and extensive. I'm not trying to derail this book study or turn people into "mystics" either. I'm wondering whether Underhill will prove to be a more constructive and broad based source of information about the "stages" of adult faith and the process of moving through them than O'Murchu.
At any rate, what are your notions about the process? I would welcome hearing about same from you and others? In my own case, I would say that I am aware of directional movement as well as deepening instincts (to use Wiman's word), but it's far too subtle and unpredictable to be called stages.
TRW On the subject of stages, it is a pity that O'Murchu did not talk about himself and continue to describe the personal journey that he started to describe at the beginning of the book. Why do you suppose he chose to make general statements about others instead?
EWL comments The idea of “doing ritual in an adult way” strikes me as being quite contrary to the concept of doing church the correct way. The rubrics of a church service provide direction so that the ritual of worship is carried out as intended (at the time of publication). But I see that O’Murchu is presenting the idea that ritual is neither untouchable nor historically cast in stone. As such adult faith allows and empowers oneself to personalize sacred rituals. Within Christ Church this could be referred to as re-imagining rituals. Perhaps adult faith is not so much about the stages of faith but rather being open and vulnerable to the process of faith.
G replied I think that's right - ritual is neither untouchable nor fixed, and I'm all for inventing or personalizing rituals such as people writing their own wedding vows. A friend of mine just got remarried and she and her new husband wrote their own vows. She said it was a really profound and moving experience that caused her to reflect deeply on the commitment she was making. But I don't think these things have to be mutually exclusive. There is still room for established rites and rituals within the church and I sure wouldn't want to see them discarded. After all, some people find "bells and smells" evocative and moving too.
EWL replied We are sensual creatures and as such rituals are the glue that holds together and allows us to express the values and beliefs that are at our core. Rituals therefore can have an element of voiceless communication. The history of our human experience is certainly a huge part of it. I don’t believe O’Murchu is suggesting that old ritual is of little or no value. I believe his concern is that ritual can become a wall that freezes faith.
G added: Did you see the letter from a retired Anglican priest in the latest Anglican Journal? He was pointing out that Anglican funerals have become significantly modified by the inclusion of multiple eulogies. HIs view was that these additions were putting undue pressure on the bereaved, making people impatient with the funeral service, and elbowing out the religious aspects of the ritual. Interesting observations.
EWL replied The writer of the article states that “without clerical direction, things can easily go off the rails.” I imagine that it is very difficult to keep a sacred ritual intact and relevant if most of the attendees have no idea of the context of a Christian funeral. Yet I have heard from several clergy that the time of bereavement is an opportunity to express the faith of the Christian community simply through one on one contact.
G wrote:
ReplyDeleteI've been away for two weeks (without Diarmuid), so have some catching up to do.
In this second part of the book, I find myself agreeing with many of O'Murchu's observations about contemporary spirituality, especially what's "out there" in the wider world. Few people of my acquaintance believe that there's a God-figure in the sky or elsewhere who will do it all for us. Indeed, an Anglican priest pointed out to me that clergy don't believe this either. So there you go.
I don't think O'Murchu's generalizations about organized religion hold, however when it comes to their awareness of what's going on in the world. O'Murchu says that "mainline religions seem very much in denial" about the emerging contemporary spirituality. That's certainly not the case at this parish. My experience of the clergy and leadership is that they are very much aware and are responding with a spaciousness that encourages people of differing attitudes and beliefs to make this parish their home. If that were not the case, we wouldn't have a working group on "developing spiritual practices", we wouldn't welcome the public to our contemplative knitting circle, we wouldn't be blogging about this book and a program on Intergenerational Spirituality wouldn't be in the development. In addition, many of us spent time reading and studying the work of Diana Butler Bass who describe contemporary spirituality in much the same way as O'Murchu, using the word pilgrims instead of homecoming. But the same notion of a journey.
So it is happening, Diarmuid! It's a process, as you say, and a process takes time.
G again...
ReplyDeleteO'Murchu has spent a lot of time defining what he means by "adult" but he hasn't really explained what he means when he uses the term "faith". I keep waiting. What does O'Murchu mean when he says we're supposed to have adult "faith"? If he defined his term it in a positive sense, I missed it.
I just finished a lovely, inspiring and extremely well written book called "My Bright Abyss" by Christian Wiman, an American poet. Wiman has terminal blood cancer, so it's a poignant book, rendered more so by his skill with language. Wiman wrote this about faith:
"To have faith is to acknowledge the absolute materiality of existence while acknowledging at the same time the compulsion towards transfiguring order that seems not outside of things but within them and within you - not an idea imposed upon the world, but a vital, answering instinct."
I find that enormously appealing. It encompasses O'Murchu's thinking but surpasses it, for Wiman's deftly addresses what O'Murchu prefers not to see, namely the phenomenon of "self-inflation" (p. 106).
bjp said
ReplyDeleteWelcome back G.
I was hoping when I finished chapter 10 - Stages in Adult Faith Development, that the following chapters would focus on the road ahead, but I found more than I wanted on all the things wrong with past and current conditions, much of it repeated from earlier chapters. I started skipping. I would like to hear more of how we move through the various stages outlined on pp 116-117. Instead he focuses on just the 'coming home time'. Does he think we are not fully adult until then? Age 55-70 is a bit late to be reaching adulthood. (I believe, with him, that it is a continuing process, but he introduced the stages) Perhaps we could do what he has not done, and take a closer look at the process of moving through each of the stages. I agree with you G, about his treatment of 'faith'. And I like the definition you quote.
G wrote:
DeleteI just finished chapters 13 and 14, and had the same feeling that you express. Nothing felt new or exciting, a certain repetition of tone and content, and more straw men (including that pesky patriarchy) set up in order to knock them down again.
I have just started to read Eveylyn Underhill's classic, Mysticism (1911). She defines mysticism as "the expression of the innate tendency of the human spirit towards complete harmony with the transcendental order, whatever be the theological formula under which that order is understood" and she says that it "represents the true line of development of the highest form of human consciousness." I believe this is what O'Murchu is getting at but in a much more limited and limiting way due to the nature of his prose.
Underhill promises a review of Western literature and an exploration of the stages by which individuals over the ages have moved towards a truly integrated life, whether the ultimate goal is "God" or some other form of "Absolute". The footnotes and bibliography are thoughtful and extensive. I'm not trying to derail this book study or turn people into "mystics" either. I'm wondering whether Underhill will prove to be a more constructive and broad based source of information about the "stages" of adult faith and the process of moving through them than O'Murchu.
At any rate, what are your notions about the process? I would welcome hearing about same from you and others? In my own case, I would say that I am aware of directional movement as well as deepening instincts (to use Wiman's word), but it's far too subtle and unpredictable to be called stages.
TRW
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of stages, it is a pity that O'Murchu did not talk about himself and continue to describe the personal journey that he started to describe at the beginning of the book. Why do you suppose he chose to make general statements about others instead?
EWL comments
ReplyDeleteThe idea of “doing ritual in an adult way” strikes me as being quite contrary to the concept of doing church the correct way. The rubrics of a church service provide direction so that the ritual of worship is carried out as intended (at the time of publication). But I see that O’Murchu is presenting the idea that ritual is neither untouchable nor historically cast in stone. As such adult faith allows and empowers oneself to personalize sacred rituals. Within Christ Church this could be referred to as re-imagining rituals. Perhaps adult faith is not so much about the stages of faith but rather being open and vulnerable to the process of faith.
G replied
DeleteI think that's right - ritual is neither untouchable nor fixed, and I'm all for inventing or personalizing rituals such as people writing their own wedding vows. A friend of mine just got remarried and she and her new husband wrote their own vows. She said it was a really profound and moving experience that caused her to reflect deeply on the commitment she was making. But I don't think these things have to be mutually exclusive. There is still room for established rites and rituals within the church and I sure wouldn't want to see them discarded. After all, some people find "bells and smells" evocative and moving too.
EWL replied
DeleteWe are sensual creatures and as such rituals are the glue that holds together and allows us to express the values and beliefs that are at our core. Rituals therefore can have an element of voiceless communication. The history of our human experience is certainly a huge part of it. I don’t believe O’Murchu is suggesting that old ritual is of little or no value. I believe his concern is that ritual can become a wall that freezes faith.
G added:
DeleteDid you see the letter from a retired Anglican priest in the latest Anglican Journal? He was pointing out that Anglican funerals have become significantly modified by the inclusion of multiple eulogies. HIs view was that these additions were putting undue pressure on the bereaved, making people impatient with the funeral service, and elbowing out the religious aspects of the ritual. Interesting observations.
EWL replied
DeleteThe writer of the article states that “without clerical direction, things can easily go off the rails.” I imagine that it is very difficult to keep a sacred ritual intact and relevant if most of the attendees have no idea of the context of a Christian funeral. Yet I have heard from several clergy that the time of bereavement is an opportunity to express the faith of the Christian community simply through one on one contact.