LOVE OR CONTROL
Shortly after the September 11 massacre in New York City my daughter sent me an op ed piece which had been published in the London Guardian. Authored by Ian McEwan its masthead declared: "Only love and then oblivion. Love was all they had to set against their murderers." Among other beautiful words he wrote:
"....Manhattan is one of the most sophisticated cities in the world, and there were some uniquely modern elements to this nightmare that bound us closer to it. The mobile phone has inserted itself into every crevice of our daily lives...."
"All through Thursday we heard from the bereaved how they took those last calls. Whatever the immediate circumstances, what was striking was what they had in common... those three words that all the terrible art, the worst pop songs and movies, the most seductive lies, can somehow never cheapen. I love you....And that is what they were all saying down their phones, from the hijacked planes and the burning towers....Love was all they had to set against the hatred of their murderers...."
"If the hijackers had been able to imagine themselves into the thoughts and feelings of the passengers, they would have been unable to proceed. It is hard to be cruel once you permit yourself to enter the mind of your victim. Imagining what it is like to be someone other than yourself is at the core of our humanity. It is the essence of compassion, and it is the beginning of morality."
"The hijackers used fanatical certainty, misplaced religious faith and dehumanizing hatred to purge them- selves of the human instinct for empathy. As for their victims in the planes and in the towers, in their terror they would not have felt it at the time, but those snatched and anguished assertions of love were their defiance."
Fanatical certainty, misplaced religious faith and dehumanizing hatred do not come with birth. Yes, the seed does find a fertile spot somewhere in our souls but it must be learned to blossom. It requires a particular environment, a tremendous discipline to teach, to learn before it asphyxiates its nemesis - empathy and become the operative principle of action. This is the discipline required to rape, to torture, to hang, to enslave, to strap upon one's waist or that of a son, daughter, compatriot the explosive belt augmented with nails, to press that button, to manipulate a people and their values to undertake a "holy war", a crusade, a jihad.
It is fascinating to me that one can embrace "God", "Church", "religion", "Jesus" or "Allah", ultimate reality or value of whatever name or tenor and still manipulate, kill, rape, steal, maim, enslave and massacre. It is however, only in the absence of empathy, its lapse, momentary or otherwise, that we will entertain, enact or tolerate hatred and evil.
Did "empathy", "compassion", its emotional counterpart "love", or its less altruistic sibling "sympathy" come to humanity, to creation with Jesus, with the Roman Catholic Church at its conception or with its hellenistic reconfiguration, with Christianity? Is it a gift of God to we "Euro-genetic Christian people" and not to Jews, Arabs, Orientals, Asians, Africans before, during and after Christ? Does it require Catholic theology, the "holy magisterium", papal authority and/or orthodox compliance and obeisance or platitude, quoted or invented, or even sacrament, to understand and inculcate? No, no and no. Empathy and compassion, the root of human civilization, of morality, and of justice are gifts of God to the human race, to you and to me with creation.
Four hundred years before Christ, Aristotle defined love or friendship as "...a mutual benevolence, mutually known". "Love", that analogous essence of being human - when I see myself in the other and recognize, judge that independent of me that "other" warrants my respecting his or her right to be, to be safe, secure and without harm with its imperative to act accordingly; when I know that I too warrant to be perceived and treated in this way also, as do all those with whom I share this planet, this universe. This holds in the intensity of family, the familiarity of community and the communion of the human race.
Jesus Christ did not become man to bring "love" he came to teach it, to free what was already here,to renew the spark, to remind us of its absolute imperative and, most of all, to elevate its efficacy in the human race, creation, to enter into a love relationship with and in God. Personally, I cannot but believe that the incarnation was and is an integral element of the creative process that along with his death and resurrection permeate time and space. Jesus Christ taught with words and act to the ultimate that broke the distinction of proximity, of degree, and the constraints of space and time.
One can choose to empty oneself of one's humanity, through any degree of mortification, abnegation and self-denial and in turn be "re-created" in Christ, taking on the mantle of Christ as defined, dictated and delivered by institutional church. Or, I should say, one can think that one can, or try, or one can attest poetically to doing so, because one really cannot. That one can become holy through this route is not disputed, but it is like the son who buried his gift lest it be lost or stolen rather than cultivating it and treating it in the spirit in which it was given. To truly empty oneself would be to suicide oneself of the capacity to recognize God, as one who blinds oneself divests of the capacity to see a flower. To seriously attempt it is to risk becoming a "soldier in the army of Christianity" armed with certitude, divested of responsibility but capable of crusade or jihad, rather than being a "blood brother" with Christ.
Unless one seeks to see and grow and heal in relations and disciplines of human love and friendship, that begin with "self" and leap to "other", one cannot truly hope to eradicate, let alone avoid, that seed of evil. Without it one cannot control its malignant progress in self or in institution, nor adequately assimilate the gift that is Christ. Unless we strive to free it where ever it is enslaved or denied and tend it as the destined tabernacle of Christ's sacramental presence we deny both the Father and the Son. Christ choose to become totally and completely human. He expects nothing less of us and of His Church.
Thomas ~ "...it is possible
Thomas ~ "...it is possible to reconcile your statement with my understanding but only with some uncomfortable and unnatural effort." That does not bother me.
In response: a)"Don't worry, be happy", or b)all growth, particularly empathetic growth implies effort,even discomfort, or c) read the little dialogue between the fictional Pope and the old Jesuit astronomer, in Morris West's "Lazarus",pp. 187-188. Not profound theology but close enough for me.
I pick and choose below:
"Are you saying that the traditional formulae of faith have no meaning?"
"On the contrary. They mean much more than they can say. They are man-made definitions of the undefinable."
"Let's take one formula then". The Pontiff pressed him, "That which is at the root of our Christian faith,"Et verbum caro factum est. And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us". God became man. What does it mean to you?"
"What it says- but also much more than it says; otherwise we should be making human words a measure of God's infinite mystery."
"I'm not sure I understand you,Father."
"I look at the heavens at night. I know that what I am witnessing is the birth and death of galaxies, light years from ours. I look at the earth, these hills, that dark water down there. I see another aspect of the same mystery, God literally clothing himself with his own creation, working within it like yeast in a dough, renewing it every day and yet still transcending it. The godhead clothing itself with human flesh is only part of that mystery. I find myself moving further and further away from the old dualist terms...."
Hello too Thomas ~ As I
Hello too Thomas ~ As I wrote in my acknowledgment I am neither theologian nor anthropologist. I take it that you have some credentials in either or both. That combination might hinder or help. I hope it helps.
I may, as you say, have "a way with words" but it is only because of the value I place in the matter I am trying to communicate and of the possible truth imbedded somewhere within. I have a strong sense that human compassion and its progression in love are neither adequately acknowledged, understood, respected, appreciated, nor taught nor pursued, whether as gifts of creation, or as infrastructure to Christianity. As you have done with me, I will take issue with you, not to dispute, but, hopefully, to clarify what obviously I have failed to do.
1.You comment that "Maybe you meant only what I have insisted upon here, and we do not differ on this point..."; then you qualify your own maybe concession. So,upon reflection, it is difficult to simply agree or disagree. To clarify maybe, Christ either was or was not totally human as He was or was not totally divine? I believe, but do not insist, that He was each and both.
2. I don't know if my declaration of orthodoxy above effects my "other conclusions which are "lacking precisely because of this (possible) incomplete view of the incarnation"(as in 1). "Our life is not, I assert, dependent upon the fullness of (merely) "human" love". Our life hinges upon the infusion of divine grace unto the love of God in or hearts", you write, and later, "I assert that human love and friendship (and man himself) is limited and bounded unless it (he) is lifted by grace into the divine". I suggest that you might have overlooked my less eloquent statement: that "Jesus Christ did not become man to bring "love", He came to teach it, to free what was already there... and most of all, to elevate its efficacy in the human race, creation to enter into a love relationship with and in God". From what I can see, my "science" in both may be deficient but not in disagreement. What then seems to differ you and I?
I will risk that the difference is mainly in perspective, neither right nor wrong, just different. The problem with "neither right nor wrong" though is that it implies the right to chose. I will also risk the assertion from your words, that the difference of perspective seems to be that you to see "love" as subsumed by and defined by the Roman Catholic religion. My perspective is that "love" is a gift, of the creator to humanity in creation with consequential obligations and that Jesus Christ historically extended its definition and expectations but essentially, renders that love efficacious in our relationship with God.
You are careful to qualify human love with "merely" twice, to underscore the absolute distinction from the divine and/or the relative unworthiness of the human, I assume. Why would one feel that they had to underscore the distinction between creature and the creator, between finite and the infinite when it is so obvious? Maybe not you but it seems to me that our inherited Roman Catholic wordage and dominant perception seem to almost belittleingly concede to the human, the created, and that as sullied, to be controlled, emptied, and then filled with the new fire of Christ's grace and Church's word.
My point in this essay, is that God's creating us, (God's loving us, loving us so much that He set us free, and when we "transgressed", not only did He send His only Son to rescue us but to rescue us by becoming totally and completely human) implies a perspective on man by God and a message by God that Church seems to have misplaced in its priorities and approaches.
So on both counts, God's creating in the first place and Christ becoming man suggests something pretty significant about man that is worthy of analysis and reflection, respect for and pursuit of its created magnificence (or "merely" relative to the infinite) and the consequent obligation to be the very best we can be. This does not diminish in any way the "awe-fulness" of the creator or the Word. Quite the contrary, I contend that seeking to understand the magnificence of creation, human and otherwise opens and expands our capacity to love God, to appreciate the infinite and follow Christ, to execute our custodianship of self, other and creation and, like the "little drummer boy" more humbly and completely acknowledge and return what we have and are.
My point about human love and compassion also denotes something we share genetically with all humans, all faiths, all forms of spirituality. It is the gift of creation that historically, conceptually and in practice goes beyond Christianity, is not restricted to Christians and it is a, not the only but a, valid and extremely significant "meeting place" and antidote to hate, violence, deceit, etc., etc. What distinguishes we Roman Catholic Christians is not "...see that they love one another" but rather, "...see how they love one another".
Wonderful, Dennis. I see
Wonderful, Dennis. I see that your article has prompted a set of assertions. I would like to offer a few of my own in light of your excellent message:
MY ASSERTION: I assert that our human desire to experience the *divine* is limited and bounded unless lifted by grace into the fully human. I assert that we are made for communion with each other as the Children of God, and through the presence of our grace-given experience of human love we are "pointed" to God. Ideas of love, alone, cannot take us there. Only the lived experience of love enables our spirit. And it is there, in the love for each other that we come to know the love of God and gain a capacity to offer others love for God. This is the humility within which human love finds its true intended fullness and meaning. There we find salvation.
YOUR LESSON: Your beautiful expression of love is very moving: "'...a mutual benevolence, mutually known'. 'Love', that analogous essence of being human - when I see myself in the other and recognize, judge that independent of me that "other" warrants my respecting his or her right to be, to be safe, secure and without harm with its imperative to act accordingly; when I know that I too warrant to be perceived and treated in this way also, as do all those with whom I share this planet, this universe. This holds in the intensity of family, the familiarity of community and the communion of the human race."
YES! mutuality, recognition, respect ... and the imperatives to act thus!! Wonderful.
How impossible this would be without the warm flesh and blood of human life. How amazing is the gift of Incarnation given to us in the original covenant of Life and in the continuing New Covenant of Jesus, Our Christ. It is this very thing that enables us to begin to discover the wonderous and intimate Divinity of our Creator.
Thanks!
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"All who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear..." (Romans 8:14-15)
Dear Dr.McCoy ~ Thank you
Dear Dr.McCoy ~ Thank you for your comment. I take a "humanist" position, because I feel that "God the Father" is so often shortchanged by our failure to acknowledge the beauty and magnificence of Creation;is not well served by diminishing or under-stating the starting point of salvation- the (imperfect and sinning) human race, nor by leaping immediately beyond the human to the Divine.
I feel too that "diminishing" the created is often a subtle but real diminution of personal responsibility to act, to care, it is also the vestibule for control by the "keepers" of the Divine.
Dennis, I've been meaning to
Dennis, I've been meaning to respond to this thread since you posted it. It's taken me awhile because I find any discussion of love and the Incarnation of Jesus as human to be a theological minefield.
You wrote to Elaine: "I feel too that "diminishing" the created is often a subtle but real diminution of personal responsibility to act, to care, it is also the vestibule for control by the "keepers" of the Divine."
I agree with that one hundred percent. Diminishing the created does frequently lead to the real diminution of personal responsibility. The problem I have with some of the Incarnational theology is that Jesus never seemed to see mankind as incapable or less than, but the Christian theology as developed over the centuries certainly seems to see created humanity as less than--a position which certainly secures a place for the dogmatic movers and shakers to be the "keepers of the Divine."
I think it's interesting that Jesus never said "Come, worship me." instead He said, "Come, follow me."
Colkoch ~ I think I
Colkoch ~ I think I understand. The anonymity of the posting process overcomes some of the shyness but not the reserve nor the "fear of the cold".
A lady friend,who recently passed away, was as intelligent as she was beautiful; she was a genealogist, naturalist, local historian, etc., etc., and a tromper of the woods and fields, despite the pain of age and whatever else that crippled her. I don't know whether there might have been formal creditation for my attributions, she claimed none; it never seemed relevant. Someone asked her once in a conversation I shared, what it was that really thrilled her. She answered that it was when she found for herself a new species of plant she had never seen before.
She saw that plant as an individual thing of beauty, complexity, intricacy, to be looked at from all angles and perspectives; to be described, maybe even drawn, likely photographed, certainly recorded and shared. And yet that was only the start, she also recognized the many in that one. As a result she saw the one in the many. Nothing new in that but certainly uncommon in the real world. The creator is never diminished by a respectful look at the one, whether the one is "self","other" or "thing'. We should be prevented from beholding any idol, statue or representation until we reach that insight.
I think Augustine is attributed or blamed with the Christian notion that all creatures, even other people, are somehow "tools" to be used towards holiness/salvation. How sad, creatures are tiny bits and pieces of divinity wherein we find or at least find our path towards....
(One final theological liberty....To take a certain perspective in one's spirituality is not necessarily a negation or denial of another.)
...One that "path", I see Jesus more as an empowering brother, like that Protestant hymn ~ "...and I will walk with Him and I will talk with Hum..."
Dennis, I find your comment
Dennis, I find your comment "I think Augustine is attributed or blamed with the Christian notion that all creatures, even other people, are somehow "tools" to be used towards holiness/salvation. How sad ..." very liberating. I thought I was alone, and rather ashamed, in thinking that the concept of "seeing Christ in each person" was short-changing people. I want to be valued for myself and not as a symbol/substitute for another, even Christ. Sorry if I have misconstrued your meaning and thank you if I have not.
Jim Houston
Jim ~ Thank you. You have
Jim ~ Thank you. You have not misconstrued my meaning, so you are welcome. The Father sent His Son, His Son agreed and fully concurred because of their love for all and each.
Hello Dennis - Much of your
Hello Dennis -
Much of your post is brilliantly written - you certainly have "a way with words"! Maybe I should take the time to point out the many well-crafted turns of phrase, very powerfully used to point the reader to your conclusions. But rather I will try briefly to comment on what I see as an important weakness in the whole: I read an inadequate christology, and anthropology too, since one's view of man will necessarily be lacking if one's view of Christ is lacking.
What I read as deficiency in your christology is here: "Christ choose to become totally and completely human." Maybe you meant "totally" in a different way than I read, but the Son did not become "totally" man in the Incarnation, in the sense that the totality of Christ is not human. He is more than His humanity. He remained fully God, while assuming a full human nature. Thus He was (and is) not "totally" human: He is true God and true man.
Maybe you meant only what I have insisted upon here, and we do not differ on this point - yet it seems to me that your other conclusions are lacking precisely because of this (possible) incomplete view of the Incarnation. Our life is not, I assert, dependent upon the fullness of (merely) "human" love. Our life hinges upon the infusion of divine grace unto the love of God in our hearts.
You wrote,
"Unless one seeks to see and grow and heal in relations and disciplines of human love and friendship, that begin with "self" and leap to "other", one cannot truly hope to eradicate, let alone avoid, that seed of evil."
I assert that human love and friendship (and man himself) is limited and bounded unless it (he) is lifted by grace into the divine. I assert that we are made for communion with God, and although the presence of (merely) human love does point us to God, it alone cannot take us there. And it is there, in the love of God and for God, that human love finds its true intended fullness and meaning. There we find salvation.
But again, I complement you on a finely crafted, powerfully written article.
Thomas
Thomas~ "Maybe you meant
Thomas~ "Maybe you meant only what I have insisted here". Yes, but maybe with a bit of a nuance. I agree completely and totally with your statements of Christ's more than humanity, as well as the lifting "by grace into the divine". I agree that my Christology and anthropology are limited; I am neither theologian nor anthropologist. I also love and appreciate your tone. I will try to comment more adequately to your post as it deserves later, for now I simply ask that your reread my post from the perspective that the points you make were never questioned.
Hello Dennis, Thank you for
Hello Dennis,
Thank you for your response, and for your initial assessment of my comments. In rereading your post, again I find myself stopping where I find something crucial, essential, missing in your writing. This portion perhaps can serve as a focus for it:
"Jesus Christ did not become man to bring "love" he came to teach it, to free what was already here,to renew the spark, to remind us of its absolute imperative and, most of all, to elevate its efficacy in the human race, creation, to enter into a love relationship with and in God."
Again, it is possible to reconcile your statement with my understanding, but only with some uncomfortable and unnatural effort. There was much "already here", inherited in the potentials of human nature given by God from the beginning. But there is also something lacking, that only God Himself could introduce into creation. More than renewal of what had been lost happened because of the Incarnation - indeed, something truly new came into the world.
We can ponder the word "new" in Scripture - here are a few of many uses of the word, pointing us to a mysterious and new reality come upon us in Christ:
Mt 9:17 Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved."
Mt 13:52 And he said to them, "Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old."
John 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
2Co 5:17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.
Eph 4:22 Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts,
Eph 4:23 and be renewed in the spirit of your minds,
Eph 4:24 and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
The Catechism also points us to the radical and new reality in Christ, surpassing that which God gave to Adam:
-----------------
CCC 374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.
-----------------
And here, the Catechism speaks rather explicitly of the surpassing glory opened to man - beyond that which had been possible in Adam - in Christ:
------------------
CCC 412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, “Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away.”
------------------
These references should be enough, I think, to clarify my point: in Christ is more than a "freeing of what was already here."
And maybe also to clarify my assertion that only in Christ - in the "new birth" into the "new creation" of divine grace - can one find the fullness of love that is our vocation.
Thomas
Arrows~ Those arrows
Arrows~
Those arrows pierced
Their targets unwary
So many...so many
No time to prepare
But, no lifetime to mourn
Like those left behind
So many children
Over the years
Bent, hurt and killed
Too many Tutsis
Jews, Arabs and others
Over the years.