Paradox Woman

Everybody seems to be blogging about Mother Teresa these days. I'm loathe to add my paltry shredded cabbage to the stew. Anything any of us might conclude about her inner struggles is nothing but speculation, bec. even if we read all her letters contained in that new book, we are still construing our understanding from the outside. Still, the article about her decades-long darkness made me wonder.

Now, I know that some people claim she was a victim of depression, plain and simple (tho what I find significant is that this "darkness" of hers only set in once she began her work with the dying). Perhaps. But then it would take someone totally devoid of any feelings or compassion to face a life of doing the work she did and still remain emotionally and spiritually unscathed.

Some Catholics interpreted her ordeal as a matter of going thru a tougher "purification" bec. of her "stronger" personality (which to me reveals more about Catholicism's bizarrity than about Mother T.), while psychiatrist Gottlieb's equally bizarre hunch is that she was "punishing" herself for her "success." More drastically, in his by now famous cynical fashion, Hitchens accuses her of realizing the vapidity of "religion."

Having several years ago undergone a radical change of tone in my own faith (not regarding the DNA of the gospel---that has always remained unshaken---but rather, in the overall tenor of what I believe about God's working here on earth, and His answering of prayer) that felt for years like my faith was a raspy strip of sandpaper, I find this whole topic engaging me not merely as a distant, academic armchair issue.

Here are some of my own---respectfully proffered---questions:

1. Mother T., were you saturated with His Word? Or was your reading limited to excerpts from Catholic saints (Theresa of Avila/"St." John of the Cross {rolling eyes}) or Vatican proclamations? Not that even people like David (who was most certainly steeped in God's Word) don't have times of similar darkness. But the Word is an objective anchor, God's Manna which we can use to override whatever doubts and dark danglings we might find trying to drag our soul down. (You find the Psalmist often using His truth that way, viz. "I am feeling utterly dejected now, but I recall Your workings, and I know that I shall again praise You.")

2. Why was it so urgent for you to "share in His Passion"? His own Passion was sufficient for all time for all our sins; we don't need to somehow regurgitate a mini-version of it in our own lives (tho God tells us that we will undergo suffering, as it is a part of the Christian walk----but it is HE who will allow it into our lives, not WE who seek it out in some sort of masochistic fashion).

3. Were you equating feelings with faith? It seems to me that this is one of the strongest temptations in our walk with God. Take for example the word "joy" in the list of the fruit of the Spirit: I don't believe that is talking so much about exuberant or happy feelings, but rather it is a synonym for hope (bec. notice that hope is conspicuously absent in that list). God's living seed in our soul (as John refers to it in his letter), coupled with His Word, causes a constant resurgence of hope (= confident anticipation, not Pollyanna wishfulness) that will eventually always push thru even the most obdurate rocky layer of circumstances. That hope is as immortal as Jesus was.

Taking A Doctrine Too Far?

Now, it's incontrovertibly true that for us to be saved, God has to draw us to Himself. Scripture clearly teaches that. But, er, um, "Jesus Magnets?"
Other verses that come to mind are "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is His," as well as, "you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade."

Morse Code Creates Confusion

My bad: in a recent post, where I mentioned Luther, I was not saying that he exalted Reason over faith; I meant that he was the one who distinguished between the magisterial and the ministerial role of reason.

Simple example of reason rightly used contrasted with wrongly: PyroManiax vs. Dawkins or Hawking. Simple example of jellyfish theology: Merton.

Jellyfish Orthodoxy

Mush Over Protein

Just finished reading this quote over at a comments site: "...what our Savior and the writers of the New Testament left mysterious or undefined...Reason should never lead faith, for faith is the substance of what we do not know." There it is again, theological Jellyfishism: amorphous vapidity is more spiritual than certainty.

Now, as the foul fruits of the so-called Higher Criticism have demonstarted, if Reason becomes the Magisterium (Luther), then, yes, we need to put Reason in its place. But if we apply (sanctified) reason properly, as a servant of faith, not as faith's dictator, then it fulfills the vital role of checking our natural tendency to indulge in spiritual fantasies, or as Paul put it in Colossians 2: "[avoid the blather of those] insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking [their] stand on visions, puffed up without reason by [their] sensuous mind...[such practices might give] indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh." (Interestingly enough, an alternate reading is even more scathing: "are of no value, serving only to indulge the flesh.")

Flesh loves to pretend it is more-spiritual-than-thou: the more nebulous my beliefs, the more divine I am. Don't shackle me with your prosaic and Philistine propositional perorations! No, can't you see that we must bathe ourselves in oceans of pearlescent piffle, luxuriate in the foamy fluff of flimflam falderol, lest we land our guilty fannies on the obdurate granite of Fallenness?

Stiff Tonic 4 Spiritual Jellyfish

Master Lampoonist Phil Johnson continues to regale us with peerless posters. I vote this one the winner for "Best Abs-Buster." Frank Turk should market this @ his "junk shop." Hey, any conservative organization at all would be a fruitful market for it, because altho the poster specifically targets 3-Tism (Terrible Twos Theology, aka "Emergent/ Emerging Church"), it applies more broadly. I only wish I had owned a flashable wallet-sized version of this the many times in graduate school I encountered Whateverism (aka Relativism).

In the biblical-historical context, the verse that comes to mind is ROMANS 1:18 "...men who imprison the truth in unrighteousness." The Imprisoner (be he a Caiaphas, a Torquemada, a Stalin, a Hitler or a Reno) can not abide those who will not heel to the Procrustians. An O.T. passage already masterfully delineates this oppugnancy: "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training...Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death...." (W.o.S. 2:12 & 19)

Make no mistake about it: tho on the surface feigning a benign Anythingism, movements like 3-Tism ultimately issue in despotism with its henchmen-trinity of persecution, atrocities and massacres.

Who Is Greatest?

Brain: I'm fed up with having to deal with nitwits like Gallbladder, who do nothing but spew bile. And then there's Rectum, whose activities we won't even mention. I mean, really, gentlemen, any self-respecting organ would eschew associating with these types.

Pituitary: Oh, so I guess because I'm so puny, you'd exclude me, too, eh? It's the PITS!

Little Toe: Hey, Pitty, don't feel bad: everybody thinks I'm totally expendable. I don't count at all. Big Toe and gang think THEY're the only ones who carry any weight around here.

Stomach (grumbling): Brain, your arrogance is enough to cause me a bout of reverse peristalsis. I mean, you probably disdain me because I'm too "sour," right?

Brain: Nonsense, Stomach: you're one of the key players in this organisation. You provide me with fuel. Without you, I'd expire.

Lungs: Hmmnn, Brain, I do fervently hope you don't just view me as a lot of hot air. After all, you also need oxygen, which is my specialty.

Brain: Lungs, don't hyperventilate. You're definitely part of the The Coterie.

Guts: Well, Brains, I can just SMELL your contempt for me, since you already dissed my business partner Rectum.

Tongue: Not a chance, Guts: you're the most important player on this team, because without you, we'd all get ill and croak.

Brain: Oh, bite yourself, Tongue!

Nose: Of course, bigwigs like Brain have nothing but contempt for lowlife like me, but don't forget, hotshot: I'm the primary reconnaissance system for all you guys. I'm Guts' and Liver's business partner.

Lymph Nodes: Right, Nose, and so are we. We're small, but we're legion!

Skull: Brain, you crack me up: you think you're such hot stuff, but hey, without me, buster, you'd be mincemeat.

Biceps: Yo, Brain, dude, you ain't learned the 2 most important rules in this here outfit: "Knowledge puffs up" and "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak."

Eardrum: You go, Biceps! And how about "endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace"?

Heart: "Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind."

Sigh...No, Again

What is is that makes people jump to conclusions at the slightest opportunity? Why think that a writer endorses somebody's theology, just because the somebody gets mentioned as an example of something?

When in my previous post I mentioned Mother Theresa, I wasn't "signing up for her fanclub" (as some would have it). I do think that her work was good, and we need lots more people doing that sort of work, but her theology (at least what I've seen from things she said) leaves a lot to be desired. At the same time, though, it seems to me that devoting yourself to that kind of (physically) grueling, revolting and (emotionally) heartwrenching work, and for that long, would require a tremendous amount of God's strength in you.

Again, my point in the last post was that there are all kinds of spiritual types in The Body, and your type determines whether you will be, say, more attuned to cracking the doctrinal whip (and we do need those warners, because our fallen nature all too easily strays into error) or, say, to trying to understand the emotions of folks who grieve. There will be Pauls, and there will be Barnabases (and there will be people like me who are simply Tabithas. I wish I could be a Frank Turk, but God hasn't wired me that way. Where Frank's agility resides in his pen [tongue?], mine resides in my fingers.)

The Posters, Right?

No, my last entry was not a justification of the farrago called Emergentism nor an allusion to those magnificent pertinent posters. (I'm envious that they aren't my own creation.) Rather, the chaffing was intended regarding an almost 2 year old feud (but one that is emblematic of a longstanding, larger problem in Christendom) between parties who won't allow for variety in The Body.

You've no doubt heard of the various psychological temperaments. Well, there's a spiritual parallel: if, spiritually speaking, you are a Choleric and I am a Phlegmatic, or you are a Sanguine and I am a Melancholy, then allow for that difference to affect the way we approach the whole Christian life. As little as I care for Gothardism, sometimes he comes up with something valid, as in his "Christian Temperaments," where he says that some folks are "prophets," and others "mercy workers" (I don't remember all the others types he lists). The prophet will most likely resemble Jeremiah or Isaiah in his approach to walking with Christ, whereas the "mercy worker" will be more like Mother Theresa. All together, the various spiritual types make up the amazing multifacetedness of His Body.

As vital as correct doctrine is, we mustn't equate differing spiritual temperaments with heresy. Receive ye one another, even as Christ also received you, to the glory of God.

The Protracted Conflict

"If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?"

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for iron sharpening iron (and I relish satire), but at times I wish that certain parties would "start their day a little bit better" by taking their spiritual supplements:

*To regulate their bile: "A soft answer turneth away wrath."

*To help them keep perspective: "I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment... For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

*To improve their understanding: "Be quick to hear."

There's a huge difference between conflicting doctrines vs. variant perspectives. Let's say we look @ the Versailles Palace together: maybe you are interested in photographing the gardens, I'm fascinated by the outer architecture, and our other buddy is intrigued by the interior decor. Are we contradicting each other in our differing foci when we give a joint slide show later? Are we not all still talking about Versailles? Might it just be that all of us together provide a more complete picture of Versailles?

Sheesh.