We are living through the end times when spirit is obscured by matter as a result of which even when the spiritual is acknowledged it is often perceived through the distorting lens of modernity.
One of the characteristics of the end times is that the whole era returns as part of a general summing up of the age, but it does so in a form that is misrepresented by the reigning characteristics of the zeitgeist. Thus, we now have access to spiritual traditions of the past in a way undreamt of not long ago, but what we have access to are really only the bones on which we frequently put modern flesh.
An example of this is paganism which appears to be making a comeback in various forms. One particular form has come about in response to the feminisation of modern Christianity and the perception that it is a Jewish religion. The idea is that adopting a foreign religion has weakened the West as a whole and men in particular, and if you look at the Christian religion as it is today you can see there is truth in this. The new Archbishop of Canterbury makes it almost comically obvious. However, if you look more deeply the picture changes somewhat.
To begin with, despite appearances, Christianity is not a Jewish religion. See here and here. Obviously, it was born in a Jewish setting but Christ transcended that which was why the Jews rejected him. And then when the religion took root in the West it was transformed by its host to reflect the sensibility of Western thought and behaviour. The supposed feminine nature of Christianity is only because it shows the way to go beyond the egotistic self. Christianity has become feminised over recent years but that is not its real nature. There is nothing feminine about Christ nor his disciples who all fought and conquered the world but did so through force of spirit rather than force of arms.
Nonetheless, because Christianity has become a bland non-judgmental religion with its idea of love, originally fiery, become wet and soggy, it is not surprising that a more masculine mindset rejects it. Yet those who do reject Christianity for its supposed weakness are not seeing it as it is, only as it has become. Reacting against the soft and sentimental side of modern Christianity, some men adopt hard pagan beliefs in which self-mastery is key. Your mind must master your emotions, they say, if you are to be the master of yourself. They are right. The mind must master the emotions or you remain a slave like most of humanity.
And yet, is this spirituality or is it self-development? Are you going beyond the self or are you reinforcing it? It is easy to mistake self-development for spirituality. There is overlap but the former is only a preliminary phase, and problems arise when it is seen as an end in itself.
The resurgence of masculinity often goes with bodybuilding and working out at the gym but then these become ends in themselves, narcissistic ends. Its advocates want success and achievement and to make a mark in the world, and while these are part of human development, especially male development, they are not spiritual things. The self should be strong but it is an error to regard that as a spiritual state. It is only a foundation and it needs refinement and to learn sacrifice or it will degenerate.
Action and reaction are always equal and opposite. We should not allow the absurdities of the left, of feminism, of anti-racism and all the rest of the crazy catalogue of errors Western man has built up over the years, to lead to an excessive response. There are signs this is happening and I suspect the only thing that can keep us on the straight and narrow path, the razor's edge of true spirituality that combines both lion and lamb, is the risen Christ. Happy Easter!
 |
| della Francesca's Resurrection of Jesus |
3 comments:
A good discussion of important matters.
The Jewishness of Jesus has led to a gross, and sometimes fatal, distortion IMO - as (from very early) the attempt was made to force Jesus into the straitjacket of the prophesied Messiah who would save his people, during mortal life. This then led to the idea of the second coming, on the basis that Jesus had not finished his work, and needed to come back to make Heaven on earth.
Whereas I believe that Jesus did everything he set out to do by making possible resurrected eternal heavenly life. From then on, his main work was secondary - to do with "help and comfort"; and mainly related to helping individuals to recognize this new possibility and what it meant, and to guide them concerning how to achieve it.
I also believe that retaining the Jewish idea of monotheism in face of Jesus's personal divinity, has (combined with the rationalizations of pagan philosophical monotheism) led to further severe theological incoherence, that has caused very serious problems in explaining Christianity, ever since.
My own ideas will diverge from yours from this point, I suspect! Although I think we both agree that the "feminism" of the past couple of centuries is not wholly wrong, and does contain a legitimate and good aspiration - however evilly distorted it has usually become.
As with so many aspects of modernity, I see the fundamental impulse of enabling a different kind of relationship between men and women as valid, but the way it has been adopted and propagated (incorporating resentment and spitefulness as a political-social programme) as strongly net-evil.
I think a lot of the distortions of the present wrt patriarchy etc. come from trying to reform the present evils of totalitarian bureaucracy by reverting to strong institutions, including (especially) strong churches; and to restore a society that is based in these strong institutions.
But I am convinced that this is impossible, mainly because extremely few people (at a deep and ultimate level) actually want this - and those who do seem to want it, do so selfishly, as a means to this worldly personal ends (sexual gratification, business and monetary success, social dominance etc): -- ultimately, it's an attempted "con", attempting to manipulate others.
My sense is that what we ought to be striving for as the ideal, ought to be based on loving relationships - in which there is a particular and irreplaceable value for that between men and women; because of the qualitative differences that potentially can combine to greater than the parts.
My theology has such a "dyadic" relationship as the basis of divine creation, and also of Jesus's ministry.
Of course this is not always possible, for a range of reasons, neither is it necessary to salvation or theosis. We are each unique, and our needs and special quest is unique.
But I think we should not forget that as well as well as "spousal" love (which attracts most attention and angst - too much, from a spiritual POV); there is also the equally-valid love between parent and child, and between siblings. From this it is evident that inter-sexual love is Not the same things as love between sexes (although, of course, they may overlap).
Even when such between-sexes love (parent child, sibling, spousal) is not a part of a specific person's life, which may be the case at any point in mortal life, for many reasons; an individual will *usually* know it as an ultimate ideal and aspiration. In Heaven, if not on earth.
I don't expect your agreement on all this! But that's my current take on things.
I do agree with most of what you say. Probably the only real disagreement is that you see reality as dyadic fundamentally whereas I would regard the duality necessary for creation as coming from a further back single God, one without a second.
But I hope neither one of us is calling for the excommunication of the other from the Church of Romantic Christianity on that account!
@William - Not I! Metaphysics is always going to be a Very simplified *model* of Reality.
But the simplifications that I need in order to account for what I regard as most significant features of Reality (and the consequent types of incoherence I am prepared to accept) will not be the same as they are for every other person.
Post a Comment