Letting Go (Of Love)

Love is immanent and yet transcendent

We experience love but we never contain love

We do not own love

Love is a reality that just is

Love exists whether we are a part of her or not

Love is an absolute mystery

Love naturally gives herself

Love is not an it

Love is not a thing

Love is not an object

Love is bigger than our experience of her

Any time we decide to withhold love from another it is not love we are withholding, as if love is something we possess and contain within ourselves, it is merely ourselves we are withholding

Love just is…

Love is a mystery to be participated in

If we allow her

If we trust her

If we let go

She will transform us

A few Thoughts on True Self/False Self

Having a clear understanding of the categories of the true self and the false self (other labels may be used since it is not the labels that are important, but rather the realities they seek to describe) is critical for spiritual growth and transformation.This understanding can help us negotiate the process of deep spiritual transformation. One of my desires for writing this short post is the countless followers of Jesus I have encountered that are still weighed down by their insecurities, enslaved by their anxiety, driven by the need to prove themselves, controlled by their fear, or exhausted by their compulsive need to be productive. These are not characteristics of the liberated life that Jesus came to set us free to experience.

 What is the true self? At the risk of providing a seemingly simplistic answer to this question, I’ll begin by saying that the true self is the self who knows and experiences that it is completely accepted by and embraced in the love of God. Although conceptually this answer sounds horribly cliche, when this reality is experienced, it is that which carries the potential to awaken and transform humans at the very depths of their being. No earning. No conditions. No hoops to jump through. Just pure grace and unconditional love. The true self is the self that has allowed itself to be stripped poor and naked, has let go and surrendered to this reality, and collapsed into a place of pure grace and complete acceptance. The true self is loved for no other reason than simply that it exists.

 The true self:

 Has nothing to prove.  (What does it have to prove, and who is it supposed to prove it to?)

 Has no need to establish itself. (This self is so loved and so secure, that it completely lacks any need to establish its worth and or value.)

 Has nothing to defend. (Why would it have any need for defending itself, when it claims to own nothing, and has embraced its own nothingness?)

 What is the false self? This self is what I would call our relative identity. It is a relative identity because it only knows who it is in relation to what others say or think about it. This false or ego self has no inherent value or worth, and this is why it spends the bulk of its energy trying to create value through various external forms. The false self is completely disconnected from the foundation of God’s, grace and love, and as a result, is completely insecure. Without being rooted in the absolute embrace of grace, this self constantly has to prove its worth to others, establish its value to others, and is completely dependent of the acknowledgment and recognition of others for its sense of identity.

The false self:

 Is constantly trying to prove itself to others. (It has to prove itself to others because it is has no inner experience of approval.)

 Is obsessed with establishing itself. (This self is completely insecure, and thus in a continuous state of trying to gain security.)

 -This is not meant to be exhaustive…I felt compelled to write this after a profound experience I had of grace and embrace during a time of silence and solitude.

Importance of Story in Spiritual Formation

When the whole story of the Bible is not the context for the life and formation of communities of faith, it is too easy for parts of the gospel to be mistaken as the entire gospel itself. One example of this is the particular version of the gospel that has been the predominant rendering in evangelical communities in the United States in the past century. This rendering is one that often presents the gospel as a cosmic legal transaction (Jesus’ atoning sacrifice on the cross and the forgiveness of sin) that is almost completely dislocated from the rest of the narrative of Scripture. If one were to engage the people who make up these communities and asked them what the gospel was, the standard answer would consist of some articulation of the penal substitutionary atonement theory.

Not only is this conception of the whole gospel unfaithful to Scripture, it also has tremendously damaging effects on the concrete outworking of these community’s lives when genuinely desiring to be faithful to God’s call to be a part of His mission. When people have a partial view of the story they will be unable to faithfully play out their role as a character in that story. This is expressed in the lives of so many people whose discipleship has been developed in these communities who end up not having a clue about how their lives contribute to God’s story and mission. The version of the gospel their community of faith has been shaped by has not given them the ability to see the larger story of God’s cosmic redemption.

The centrality of approaching the Bible as a story is already showing itself to be as prevalent of a need as the Church has today. This confusion about the significance of the life of an individual in the Church is dissipated when the story is given its proper place. Bartholomew and Green note one reason why this is so, “Individual experiences make sense and acquire meaning only when seen within the context or frame of some story we believe to be the true story of the world: each episode of our life stories finds its place there.” The hope is that the follower of Jesus will be able to view their entire life from the perspective of the grand story in the Bible. This not only allows the individual to see meaning in their entire life, it also enables them to see how all of the decisions they make matter since they are playing a part in the fulfillment of that story. Describing how a vision of the larger framework of God’s story shapes how we live our lives, Bartholomew and Green write, “I can only answer the question. ‘What am I to do?’ if I can answer the question, ‘Of what story do I find myself a part?’”

A common approach many people take when engaging the Bible is one that seeks to extract timeless universal truths that are meant to be applied to their life. The framing question often lying within this approach is: What does this mean for my life? One major problem with this approach is that the individual coming to the text is the focus of the interaction taking place. This is so because this approach begins with the individual (asking the question: what does this mean for my life?)  and has its ultimate end in the application of these “truths” to the life of the individual.

The narrative approach rejects the individualism embedded within this alternative approach mentioned by placing God and the story of God as the focus of one’s interaction with the Bible. When focusing on God and his story the reader is “…invited—urged—to become a part of the story of the church, to follow Jesus and continue the kingdom mission in the steps of his earliest followers.” The reader is called to find their place within the story. So the call for the individual to change in response to the text is not disregarded; rather it finds its proper place within the context of changing for the purpose of playing out their part in God’s story more faithfully.

Financial Security as Salvation

(Note: This is primarily a challenge to my brothers and sisters who consider themselves to be followers of Jesus, and not to those who do not consider themselves to be on this path)

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, at any given point in our lives we allow something to have the power to regulate our activities, shape our decisions, and have the ultimate say in what we do with our lives. I would assume that the majority of people who claim to be following Jesus would say that it is He alone who carries this sacred power, and he alone who is allowed to have this place of ultimacy in our lives. Despite this claim, my contention is that for many of these very people in our contemporary Western setting of consumer-capitalism, it is not actually God who functions as this ultimate source; but rather, it is financial security that truly sits on this throne. And when this is the case, we treat financial security as the source of our salvation.

By illuminating the meaning of the categories of “theoretical believer” and “practical unbeliever,” a decisive clarity will emerge and enable us to see how financial security truly functions as salvation in so many of our lives. Drawing primarily on the work of Peter Rollins, the distinction must be made between that which we claim to believe theoretically, and the actual concrete practice in our lived existence. Following this, it is possible to profess our belief in something theoretically while demonstrating our unbelief in it practically. An example of this that Pete often uses is a person who, while engaged in a conversation with a friend discusses the futility of pursuing status, goes on and on about how money will not make anyone happy, and how the obtaining of material possessions is ultimately meaningless. But, when the conversation ends, and this person goes on with their life they act as if they don’t believe these things. They continue to work tirelessly in a job they truly do not like so they can make large sums of money, purchase a fancy car, the nice clothes, and the impressive house, while all of the while increasing their social status. So when it comes to the theoretical beliefs this person made in the earlier conversation about these issues, they demonstrated in the practice of their lives they actually do not believe what they claim to believe.

In light of this presentation, what emerges is how it is possible for followers of Jesus to theoretically believe that it is God alone who is their source of salvation and security, while acting as if they do not believe that God is their source of salvation, and thus end up living lives that are deeply insecure. And in the place of God, so many of us look to financial security to provide this sense of security, and as a result, to truly be our source of salvation. It does not require that many conversations and or time spent observing one’s life to identify where their faith and hope actually lies–despite whatever it is they claim theoretically. And over and over, I have witnessed so many of my brothers and sisters who consider themselves followers of Jesus to allow financial security to be the ultimate source of security, and the force that is driving their lives on a day to day basis. And, without hesitancy, I claim that this trust in financial security is idolatry. A force such as this becomes idolatrous when we place our ultimate faith in it, when we believe and trust the promises of its claim, and when we are willing to make all of the sacrifices requires to obtain it. The god of financial security must be unmasked for the lie that it is, and we must be willing to speak truth into each other’s lives when we see this idolatrous force at work.

Spiritual Practices: Contemplation

 

Contemplation is one of the hardest spiritual practices to define because it is not like the other practices–it actually is not a practice at all. Instead it should be understood as potentially being sustained by other practices, but not identical with the practices themselves. It is unique in relation to other practices because it is not so much something you do, but more like a place you go. This is why conceptually contemplation remains elusive. Without over simplifying, true contemplation is an experience of conscious union with God. It is a place where we can experience our true being in God, one that involves radical embrace, complete acceptance and an unconditional grace that is not contingent on anything we do. Concerning this experience Richard Foster writes, “Put simply, the contemplative life is the steady gaze of the soul upon the God, who loves us.” It is when we enter into this luminous space that we are able to rest in God’s command to “Be still and know that I am God.”

It is striking to see how integral the practice of prayer and contemplation was in the life of Jesus. There are numerous examples of Jesus retreating to be alone so that he could rest and experience union with God the Father. With Jesus’ life and ministry as a model, we must structure our lives in such a way where we consistently create space to experience union with God. This practice is indispensable to our spirituality. Concerning this practice, Jones writes, “Spiritual writers. ancient and modern, are unanimous in saying that silence and solitude lead to a love of God, a love of self, and a love of others.” Fr. Luke Dysinger, O.S.B. captures the heart of what is happening in contemplation well when he writes, “In contemplation we cease from interior spiritual doing ad learn simply to be, that is to rest in the presence of our loving father.”

I agree with Fr. Dysinger when he writes of this importance of learning to be, but see the need to make the connection between followers of Jesus learning to be, and a sustainable participation in mission. I begin with the premise that many people who burn out in ministry do so because their participation in God’s Mission is in part still fueled by a compulsion to be productive and the need to prove their worth, which are both birthed out of insecurity. A major part of them still feels like they need to do certain things to earn God’s love (or the love of others), and as a result still live as if they are what they do. It is this very enslavement that contemplation is able to set people free from. With this in mind, Fr. Dysinger’s claim that we need to learn simply to be, takes on new life. It is in contemplation where we experience God’s radical grace. Where we see that God’s grace and love are fully given to us, ever present, and are not contingent upon anything we do. When we get that God’s love just is, we can be set free to simply be. When we are aware that we are completely loved at our core, we can begin to be liberated from all our needs to prove ourselves or establish ourselves outside of this love. This liberation to simply be, is so critical for our participation in God’s Mission because we will then be able to give ourselves fully and authentically from a place of freedom. We will give ourselves organically out of love as opposed to selfishly for approval.

Spiritual Practices: Lectio Divina

Lectio Divina (or sacred reading) is a contemplative way of approaching and reading the Scripture. This approach differs from other approaches to Scripture that read for the sake of gathering information because the primary goal in Lectio Divina is not the gathering of information, but rather seeking to experience union with God. Richard Foster describes Lectio Divina as “a prayerful reading in which we turn our heart and mind and spirit ever so gently to the divine creator.” The need for this kind of meditation on God’s sacred text is evident in God’s command to Joshua to meditate on the Book of the Law day and night, and in the claims by the psalmists about meditating on the Law all day long. We are able to practice this meditative reading of the Scripture with confidence “because it is God’s inspired word, it’s a living and active text, that has something to say to each individual believer.”

As with other spiritual practices it is not the actual practicing of Lectio Divina that is the point; rather the point is how God is happening in the space inside of us that has been opened up through the practice of Lectio Divina. If Henri Nouwen is correct when he writes “a spiritual discipline is the human effort to create space for God to be active,” then Lectio Divina is simply creating the space. Through Lectio Divina we seek to become aware of what God is doing in this space. If the natural result of encountering God is transformation, and the process of transformation for followers of Jesus is death and resurrection, then it follows that in this space we are setting God free to expose all of the areas in our life that need to die in order for God to touch and transform them so that new life can be born. This is why Lectio Divina is able to play such an invaluable role in the spiritual life. It can create such a potent space for the Spirit of God, speaking through the text, to awaken us to ourselves in ways we have yet to experience, and as a result, awaken us to ways in which God is speaking to us and calling us forth in ways we have yet to see.

This is why when Tony Jones writes, “As you attend to those deeper meanings, begin to meditate on the feelings and emotions conjured up in your inner self,” I agree with him, but propose that he needs to push us further. We need to go further because he does not answer the question of why we need to meditate on the feelings and emotions conjured up in our inner selves, or even, what these feelings and emotions might be. If in Lectio Divina we are asking people to allow God to touch them at their core, then it would be beneficial to provide a framework for people to understand what it is that God might be touching in this place, and how we are to respond when this happens. What is needed is more time not only explaining these practices, but actual engagement with these practices in community so that people can be comfortable and familiar with their interior life. Although this is not necessary for everybody, I contend that it is necessary for most because the majority of people are not able to intuitively maneuver through and explore their interior world with wisdom and fluidity.

By being guided through this process that Lectio Divina opens us up to people will begin to see that which needs to be transformed in them. This transformation leads to liberation because transformation is a process of liberation. We need to be liberated from all that enslaves us and keeps us from trusting God. The more we let go of all that holds us captive and allow ourselves to trust God, the more profoundly we will be able and willing to abandon our lives and give ourselves to God’s Mission.

The Spirituals, the Blues, and Hip Hop

Since Hip Hop did not rise out of a socio-political or historical vacuum, in order to understand it we must first understand the historical trajectory and legacy that it is a part of. With this exploration limited to the musical legacy that hip hop is an extension of, it will focus on the continuity between the Spirituals and the Blues, and Hip Hop. The main elements of the Spirituals and the Blues that are manifested in Hip Hop that will be presented are: (1) the honest presentation of all of the existential realities of life; (2) the affirmation of humanity and dignity in the face of dehumanizing definitions of blackness by whites; and (3) each of these musical expressions being birthed out of a context of oppression and white supremacy.

One word that is used by artists in Hip Hop, along with various others when describing the nature of rap music is raw. This adjective reflects the honesty being employed by rappers when describing the reality of life in ghettos across the United States of America, along with an honest presentation of how they responded to these harsh environments. The same “tension in the spirituals between hope and despair, joy and sorrow, death and life” that Cone identifies has been and continues to be present in Hip Hop as well.

The myriad of spirituals sung by these enslaved human beings involved the acknowledgment of all aspects of life; which would inevitably leave them oscillating between the celebration of that which could authentically be celebrated and the mourning of that which undeniably was in need of mourning. This same form of oscillation can be seen in various songs written by the same Hip Hop artist. While one song on a single album might have the artist in a state of deep introspection reflecting on the severe evil they witnessed in their life, another song will be an ecstatic celebration of their current life situation.

The second element of the Spirituals and the Blues present in Hip Hop is the musical affirmation of their humanity and dignity in the face of dehumanizing definitions of blackness by whites. Cone suggests that “the slave songs reveal the social consciousness of blacks who refused to accept white limitations on their lives” while the blues “affirm[ed] the essential worth of black humanity, even though white people attempted to define them as animals.” Although rappers did not grow up during slavery or in the post-emancipation south, they continue this tradition of affirming the humanity and dignity of blackness in the face of the same institutionalized racism and white supremacy that informed both of these moments. These realities just happen to be manifested more discreetly contemporarily because of the decrease in individual bigotry and racism, while continuing to be manifested structurally. While the larger society marginalized, demonized and or tried to forget about black people in the ghetto, rappers proclaim the collective cry of the inner city by saying, “we are human and you are going to recognize us as such.”

The last connection between these genres of music is the shared context of oppression, marginalization and white supremacy that each of them was birthed out of. Cone describes the blues as “an artistic response to the chaos life.” This is true for the Spirituals and rap music as well. Hip Hop artists are artistically responding to the chaos of  the ghetto where death is always near, drugs and violence are devouring young brothers and sisters, the schools charged with shaping them and preparing them are dilapidated, blacks are still treated as less than human by those in power, and hope seems to be impossible. Hip Hop, in many ways, are the Spirituals and the Blues of this generation, and it will help people continue on that “way out of no way.”

We Can’t Get Closer to God

Anybody who has at some point encountered the reality of God being present and experienced the transformation that ensued will be left with a deep-seated desire to return to this place where this transformative event occurred. This place we desire to return to has nothing to do with the geographical location, but everything to do with the experience of the Reality we encountered. These moments can never be fully be captured with words and anytime we attempt to explain them to others, the explanation ends up falling short and degrading the happening that took place. Maybe these moments are not meant to be figured out and reduced to concepts because they transpire in a place that is beyond the conceptual realm. Even if in the aftermath of these occurrences we are unable to articulate what happened…we know that it was God and we know that we’ve been changed.

Those who have experienced “The Real” (the words of Thomas Merton) and have been changed, naturally want to return to this place again and again. Often times they might even use the phrase “I want to get closer to God”. What we mean when we say this (I assume) is that we want to experience the connection with God that was present in those wondrous moments. If when we use the phrase “getting closer to God” it functions as a metaphor that helps suggest the intimate encounter we long for with God then I believe that it is helpful and revealing. But the problem I see with this phrase is that when it is taken too literally and not seen metaphorically it creates this idea that getting back to this place where we are “closer to God” requires some kind of a striving on our part that subsequently moves us closer to God as if their is some kind of a spatial distance that exists between God and us in the first place. The perpetuation of this misconception can leave us struggling to “get close to God”  failing miserably and as a result not only leave us feeling disconnected from Him but frustrated at our futile attempts to draw near to Him, leaving us with a dryness in our spiritual lives.

The mystery of God’s presence not  only permeates all of reality (check previous post), this same Presence is actually living, breathing, active and dwelling within the lives of those who have entered into this life changing relationship with Him. This spatial distance between us and God that is actually a part of  so many of our views of the nature of our relationship, (albeit, unknown to most of us) is actually non-existent. How can one get closer to a God whose life is dwelling within them via His Spirit? In light of this, we discover that it is not that we get closer to God, it is that in these places where we experience this transformative encounter, we are simply awake to the reality and presence of the loving God who was already there. We do not need to learn how to get closer to God; we need to learn how to become awake to the living God who is already here.

There is effort involved in this process of learning to become awake, but it is not the kind of effort involved in the grasping, striving, laboring, grinding and working that is so prominent in the culture we are a part of today that bows down to the altar of materialism, consumerism and shallowness. What we need to do is cultivate mindfulness, develop awareness, enhance our sensitivity, become more conscious of, and be more alive to the presence and reality of God. In contrast to the portrait I just painted of the expressions of the kind effort that is the norm for the culture we are a part of today, the effort involved in the activities that help one become more awake to God is expressed in silence, solitude, stillness, reflection, patience and waiting. All of these activities can be encapsulated by and find their unity in what is known as a contemplative stance. In this posture of contemplation we see out of the wider landscape of our being, where we discover our true selves and our true God.

A Few Thoughts on Thomas Merton, Contemplation, and Mission

How does one begin to explicate the nature of contemplation, when Thomas Merton himself claimed that “contemplation cannot be taught[?]” Perhaps the best way to shed light on this mystical happening is to begin with the same apophatic approach that had such an immense affect on Merton’s spiritual formation. It is absolutely critical to understand that contemplation is not something one does. Contemplation might be sustained by practices such as solitude, silence, or centering prayer; but it is not the act of these practices themselves. Following this, we see that it would not be accurate to claim that contemplation is a spiritual practice. If contemplation cannot be rightly considered a spiritual practice, it also cannot be considered a method of prayer. Out of all of the books Merton wrote on the subject, along with all of the lectures he gave on contemplation, he never once taught a method of prayer.

Contemplation is not something one does, it is more of a place that one goes. It cannot be taught, it can only be experienced. In Thomas Merton’s own words, “Contemplation is the highest expression of man’s intellectual and spiritual life. It is that life itself, fully awake, fully active, fully aware that it is alive.” He also claims that “Contemplation is always beyond our own knowledge, beyond our own light, beyond systems, beyond explanations, beyond discourse, beyond dialogue, beyond our own self.”

Merton’s comment about contemplation leads me to contend that Merton held his metaphysical presuppositions and doctrines loose enough to be able to have the kind of experience that is “beyond systems” and “beyond our own knowledge.” This is where “we pass through the center of our nothingness and enter into the infinite reality at the center of his [God’s] Being, where we awaken as our true selves.”

This place is where we are fully and intimately present to the presence of God. This is where we know experientially that “the root of Christian love is not the will to love, but the faith that one is loved.” Contemplation is the experience of conscious union with God.

This intimate experience of “grace and presence” is the only context in which one is liberated to wholeheartedly engage in God’s Mission free of the compulsion to be productive, free from the need to prove or establish themselves for the sake of obtaining status, and free from the need to seek out love in any place that is outside of God’s will and God’s love. All of these motivations are birthed out of the “false self” that does not know or trust God. Contemplation is the ultimate place of freedom. And it is from this place of internal freedom that Merton was able to give himself to the world with authenticity, integrity and compassion. The radical liberation from his egocentricity through contemplation allowed Merton to live as if he had nothing to protect, and also enabled him to live as if he had nothing to prove. Again, it was this kind of freedom, birthed out of trust that he was loved by God, that unleashed him to live out his convictions without fear of what anybody would say or do as a result. His doing was so linked with his being that I would claim that his participation in mission was simply contemplation in action.

2pac Embodying and Articulating the Collective Cries of the Ghetto: Can White America and the Church Hear?

2pac’s voice transcends the boundaries of his own existential experience, and in the process ends up becoming an extension of all of the black voices that are crying out and yet not being heard in the most brutal and poverty stricken communities in the contemporary United States. As 2pac steps into this space and allows the cries of countless oppressed and struggling people to be expressed through his music, a couple critical socio-theological questions begin to emerge. These two questions are: (1) Is God truly a God of the oppressed? and (2) Does White America in general, the white church specifically care about the nightmarish conditions that the black community in the ghetto lives with everyday?

This first question of whether or not God is truly a God of the oppressed is one that is instantiated momentarily in different places through out “2pacalypse Now” and continues to do so through out 2pac’s entire body of work. Commenting on the sustained interaction between 2pac and God through out his career, Dyson writes, “His relationship with God during his rap career took the form of an ongoing argument about the suffering he saw and the evil he endured and expressed.” By stepping into the forgotten space where the cries of the ghetto find their unfortunate destination in white America, 2pac puts flesh, blood, and lyrics on each one of these cries. From the tragic story of a young girl Brenda dealing with pregnancy at an extremely young age, the harrowing and complex web of broken relationships woven through the song “Part Time Mutha,” or the seemingly hopeless conditions of young black men present in the song “A Soulja’s Story.” These impossible circumstances, that are not isolated events, but rather normal occurrences due to the systemic oppression of black people in the United States, begs the question of whether or not God is on the side of the oppressed.

In his brilliant work, The Spirituals and the Blues, James Cone offers a description of the uniqueness of the black experience in the United States, “America became the land of freedom for white people only; for blacks it was the land of bondage.” Although 2pac is speaking from a much later socio-historical situation, he is trying to explain that this bondage has not been eradicated, but instead has transformed into a more inconspicuous reality. As a voice for the black community in his music, 2pac is using all of his creative energy to make it impossible for white America to ignore the brutal reality of–along with their contribution to and perpetuation of–the black experience in the ghetto. When exploring the socio-theological implications of this question, the question then becomes: Can the white churches see this problem, and if so do they even care? Sadly, at the time 2pac was recording this album, and in our present situation, the answer still seems to be, at large, an undeniable no.