I am really sorry, but due to the huge amount of spam I receive into this site I am being forced to switch off the comment box (at least until it is fixed). At least I will be free to say things without any comeback :) If you have comments please email them to me at Pete@ikon.org.uk.
Posted at 16:42 |
Link to this post
Here is a second reflection on the last post:
Does not part of the truth of Christianity lie in the maxim that hell is reserved for those who seek heaven, i.e. that those who seek pleasure, life and comfort end up dwelling in the dank, dark catacombs of a solipsistic hell. We could even contrast this maxim with another: only those who renounce heaven can escape hell i.e. only as we lay down our own freedoms and pleasure in a pursuit of justice for the other that we find true freedom. To say it in a slightly different manner: we must lose our life in order to find it.
Is this not the deep message of the parable concerning the pearl of great price? If the kingdom is like a priceless pearl that someone gives all in order to posses, then how wealthy do they become? If they seek the pearl for the wealth it will bring, then they become the poorest of all, for a priceless pearl is of no real value when it is owned: one can’t buy groceries with it, or shelter etc. In contrast the one who renounces their wealth to be with the pearl becomes truly rich – possessing that which is of infinite value. To seek the pearl in affirmation of the self results in radical poverty while renouncing the self in affirmation of the pearl leads to real wealth.
Is not the inner logic of the parable that the wealth of the pearl is not possessed (when one has the pearl they do not have the monetary value of the pearl, when one has the monetary value of the pearl one does not have the pearl), but rather the wealth of the pearl calls forth a renunciation of wealth?
Posted at 09:40 |
Link to this post
It’s been a while. But I am back. I wanted to share the following anidote, told during the troubles about the RUC, before asking a question. The story tells us that funding had been offered to the force as part of a training initiative that would enable a select number of officers to travel to America in order to train with the FBI and CIA. As part of a team building exercise all three groups were driven out to a large forest and told to retrieve a rabbit. The FBI went first. Ten men, fully armed, ran into the undergrowth through a thick cloud of tear gas and smoke bombs. After five minutes the sound of a single shot rang through the air and moments later they returned with a rabbit, one bullet hole through the centre of its head. Next, the CIA had their opportunity. Twenty minutes passed without a sound, then the echo of a single twig snapping momentarily broke the eerie silence. Shortly afterwards they returned with a lifeless rabbit: no marks on its body. Finally it was the RUC’s turn. The group charged into the forest with batons raised. Eventually they returned, led by an intimidating RUC officer who smiled as he held up their rabbit. The instructor shock his head and spoke, “Firstly, you were in there for three weeks, and secondly, that’s not a rabbit, that’s a bear”. The RUC man said nothing but looked deep into the eyes of the bear. Without hesitation the bear turned to the instructor and cried out “I’m a rabbit, I’m a rabbit”.
The simple question is this… how much so-called evangelism operates with a similar disavowed logic… using Pavlovian style methods of positive (heaven, forgiveness, happiness) and negative (hell, sin and guilt) reinforcement to get people “saved”. The point here is not to do with whether the ideas used in this approach are true or false but rather to draw out the problematic manner in which they are employed i.e. as a carrot and stick. For in this approach of communicating the Christian message the individual is being asked to accept Christianity solely for reasons of self-interest. Whether it’s accepting Christianity as a means of escaping the destructive powers of hell, sin and guilt or in order to enter into the liberating world of heaven, forgiveness and freedom the individual is ultimately being asked to put him or herself at the centre.
Yet is it not true that within Christianity we are encouraged to transcend ourselves, to move beyond the mundane aspects of our own existence by engaging in an outward focus toward the other? Is this not what we find in the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew when asked by some Sadducees’ and Pharisees’ about the greatest commandment. In rely Jesus said, “Love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and “Love your neighbour as yourself”.
We do not witness here a total negation of the self (indeed we share with all animals a sense of self-preservation that enables our ongoing survival), the point here is that our gaze is turned outward, toward God and the other, rather than toward the self. Here we find a radical asymmetry between how we encounter the self and the other which does not result in a hatred of the self but rather in a continual movement out from the self toward the other.
It would be a strange world if Christianity sought to help people out of this solipsistic, self-interested world by encouraging the gaze of the individual to reflect back upon itself i.e. by appealing to solipsistic self-interest. It is sad to think that someone who may care more about such things as the Israel/Palestine conflict, the well-being of their family and the state of the environment than their own physical well-being is sold a Christianity which encourages them to put themselves before all these things.
