where to from here?

Therefore Christ also first and foremost wants to help every human being to become a self, requires this of [them] first and foremost, requires that [they], by repenting, become a self, in order then to draw [them] to himself. He wants to draw the human being to himself, but in order truly to draw [them] to himself he wants to draw [them] only as a free being to himself, that is, through a choice.

Practice in Christianity

I woke in the middle of the night and that quote came to mind. Besides the fact that I dream of Kierkegaard quotes, and talk to him in English in a coffee shop, which is super-weird, I think the above has something very important to say.

What is Jesus all about? Or, to put it another way, what is “salvation”? As I wrote yesterday, it is not about the past or the future. It is a right-now thing. So what is Jesus’ deepest desire for me right now?

Ok, I cannot work out what my deepest desire right now is so I doubt I can of another person. And I would not dare to say what Jesus desires. But if we take Kierkegaard’s quote seriously, and I think we should, it is about becoming a self – it is about becoming me. Yes, I cannot be a self without him! And that is the central proclamation of the community we call the Church. But becoming a self in Jesus involves my freedom and choices.

I am having issues with “me” at the moment. The above gives shape to come of my issues. And it points me back to Jesus. Jesus now for becoming “me”.

now?

In relation to the absolute, there is only one time, the present; for the person who is not contemporary with the absolute, it does not exist at all. And since Christ is the absolute it is easy to see that in relation to him there is only one situation, the situation of contemporaneity; the three, the seven, the fifteen, the seventeen, the eighteen hundred years make no difference at all; they do not change him, but neither do they reveal who he was, for who he is is revealed only to faith.

Practice in Christianity

I have been thinking about some of the monastic rules I have been reading. There is often a strong note of pentitence. And sometimes some talk of reward. The asceticism described in these rules is often in terms of “soul good, body evil” dualism. Or “suffering good because it wins forgiveness”.

Of course, all that is an oversimplification. But I have wondered how to live a rule of life in a monastic way without falling into those traps. Penitence (the past) or reward (the future) are nice but it is about living for Jesus now. The present moment! So it is about balance in the now to be fully open to Jesus.

self?

The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation’s relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation’s relating itself to itself. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two. Considered in this way, a human being is still not a self

Sickness unto Death, Hong 13

I think that is one of the first Kierkegaard quotes I ever read. Looking back now at how confused I was – still am – about what he means makes me wonder if I have progressed at all.

I have been thinking about Lent, the “religious life”, and being a self. They are all about “balance”. Finding a balance between the various forces that pull and push. Finding balance with those things that I have control over. Asceticism, in the traditional sense, is about finding balance in the physical world to focus exclusively on Jesus.

Anyway, not to find a definition of “religious life” that suits me!

risk?

Life in Religion is the ultimate wager on the existence of God. The church should always be engaged in doing things that make no sense if God does not exist.

Most Revd Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury

The above is from the Foreword to the Anglican Religious Life Year Book, 2016-17. I suspect I have quoted it before.

I have been thinking about risk and paradox. Maybe we live in a world that tries to remove both? But both are required for faith. Unless we make faith simply a way of knowing without evidence, a religious epistemology that places knowledge above faith, faith needs risk and paradox.

solitary?

The terms Hermit and Solitary are often used interchangeably but for the purposes of the Handbook, the term ‘hermit’ refers to a member of a Religious Community and the term ‘solitary’ refers to one who is not a Religious.

A Handbook of the Religious Life, The Advisory Council for Religious Communities

So … the above is from the Church of Englabnd document, and there is an Australian version that is not as clear, indicating that people living a “vow of celibacy” can do so under a religious rule (hermit) or under a personal rule (solitary).

I think the term religious can be confusing. In a sense (but who am I to say this) the solitary is the modern form of an anchorite – a celibate/single layperson living alone under a rule. And that is how I use the term anchorite – a single layperson living under a personal rule inspired by the lived example of anchorites.

I have been thinking about the above a lot recently. Am I called to such a life? Especially with a few things that are going on in my life, am I called by God to embody a religious incognito type of spirituality within the context of a modern parish?

love the truth?

So here is a completely random idea: what if we were to stop talking about knowing the truth and start talking about loving the truth? Or, to put it in Christian terms, what if we were to stop talking about knowing Jesus and start talking about loving Jesus?

While I kinda understand the idea of knowing something, I think it has been drawn into a direction that is not helpful for our relationship with Jesus. It makes the relationship all about our head and then our heart. Let’s turn that around and make it about the heart exclusively. Let’s make it a human relationship rather than an intellectual.

I want to write about this more but I think this is a start!

new monasticism?

I have been reading a book that had moved me. Okay, that is not usual! It has made me glad and sad in equal measure.

The book is Living the Hours: Monastic Spirituality in Everyday Life. The authors are, I think, involved with Monos which is the UK organisation for “new monasticism”.

So here are a couple of takeaway points from my reading so far:

  • New Monasticism – vocation verses vacation?
  • Four Pillars: Prayer, silence, balance, and study
  • Living a rule
  • Monasticism as the context for being human

It is an interesting read.

rule of life?

I have been thinking of reworking my rule of life. I think it needs to be more describtive rather than prescriptive. I think it needs to be less like rules of old and more like something I can live today.

I have also been reading an article by David Law on Kierkegaard’s view on monasticism. It still amazes me that as a Lutheran in Denmark, who would have had little exposure to monasticism, Kierkegaard spends a lot of time writing about it in his Journals and in other writings. I think it shows that monasticism does offer a challenge and, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has said, is the ultimate wager on God.

Anyway, I was reading the ACARLA (Advisory Council for Anglican Religious Life in Australia) website yesterday before our prayer group. And I read this:

Another form of consecrated life is that of living as a consecrated single person. This is essentially a “hidden life” – without any distinct dress or title.

And I thought of this quote from Kierkegaard:

[the individual] is incognito, but [their] incognito consists precisely in looking just like everyone else.

Kierkegaard writes that within the context of his discussion of monasticism in Concluding Unscientific Postscript. (I have written about it before.) Maybe he is onto something?!

Anyway, I might rework my rule of life today.

experience?

To be honest I only know very little about a very small circle. One of the people I have heard about but never read is Karl Barth. The book I have been reading looks at Barth’s thoughts on monasticism. I will admit that reading it makes me glad to be an Anglican! But I was struck by this:

In Barth’s understanding, Tersteegen’s faith grew “not from confession to experience, but from experience to confession,” which is “the way of self-denial”.

Gerhard Terteegen was a pietist who influenced both Barth and Kierkegaard. So the above quote speaks even more to me.

Maybe a more Kierkegaardian way of putting that is to speak about “resolution preceding conclusions”. Theology is a systematic way of looking at the experience of faith – in Scripture and Tradition – and trying to see themes. But it is the experience that establishes the relationship.

All of that made me wonder: can a heretic be saved? Can a Christian who has experienced the love of God in Jesus be a heretic? Or, to put it a completely different way, can “doctrine save”?

So the answer to the question, that was not asked, is I need to read more!

normal?

After my recent changes I had hoped that I would return to feeling normal. I was hoping for some sense of balance.

This morning I had an insight: what is normal for me? Do I actually have any idea what a balanced life looks like for me? This is the first time in my life – all 50 plus years of it – that I have had the space to find answers to the above.

In the past, and this is one insight that has become clear to me, I defined normal by other people. I thought I could trust people. I thought I could rely on love and mercy working through people for my good, for my normal.

So while I feel somewhat stuck, I know why.