I saw this quote on a blog called Iambic Admonit. I was really just drawn there because I have such a fascination with formalism, i.e. specific styles of constructing writing or other media (Iambic). This quote jarred me a bit, and it speaks to a sour feeling I get sometimes when I think I have written something profound. It also speaks to the icky feeling that I have had recently while reading some blogs. I am new to blogging, and I wanted to find some others who had interesting things to say. Much of it, I was half surprised to find, consists of this or that socio-political rant. When I look up Christianity, it tends to be just the same, or moreso. The quote is this:
Every poet and musician and artist, but for Grace, is drawn away from love of the thing he tells, to love of the telling till, down in Deep Hell, they cannot be interested in God at all but only in what they say about Him.
--C. S. Lewis
This hits home pretty hard, and is a good thing to remember. I have been writing a scene in a novel recently in which a character gives some unorthodox ideas about truth. This could speak to that as well. If what we say is lacking in love, compassion and edification, there is little it can do to help. If it is spoken with a proud ego, it is rare that the truth itself is heard above the din of our self-centeredness. The more we become absorbed in our ability to convey truth, to dazzle with witticisms, the greater danger we are in of losing sight of the importance of that truth over our own pride. Ego is the first to jump in front of the bus. And even when it gets run over time and again, we keep pampering it, believing that our ego and our value are synonymous. This could not be further from the truth. In the words of Eric Clapton, "I am an egomaniac with an inferiority complex." And it is such a common thing. The Bhuddists say that enlightenment involves the death of ego. This does not mean endless self effacement; far from it. It is refraining from feeding our petty illusion of self over the greater, Universal Self which we are privvy to. Or as a hindu guru said to someone who could not understand why he would choose to live in poverty, "I have renounced the finite for the infinite, but you have renounced the infinite for the finite. Which renunciation is greater?"
I think that it is important to keep ourselves in perspective when we create. I tend, more than anyone I know, to define my own value by how well I can create. But this is not so. My value is inherent, as is yours. It precedes our actions. Ego is what follows them. What I have learned recently, is that in giving up my own attachement to my acheivements, in relenquishing the idea that it is about me making something, saying something, and not what I am talking about, the boat flies farther. And yes, the boat flies.
The denizens of far right Christianity seem utterly preoccupied with differentiating "capital T truth." I would admonish them only by referencing them to St. Paul: ...Faith, Hope and Love, and the greatest of these is Love. I may speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but if I lack Love, I am no more than a loud gong or a clanging symbol.
2 comments:
Leopold:
Thanks for your comment on Iambic Admonit & for the posting here. I appreciate your good thoughts, & the ongoing discussion you’ve raised. Glad the quote got you thinking, & I’m thankful for your reminder about speaking all things in love & not just banging & pounding on our own soapboxes. Of course, Lewis there was concerned with “Capital T”—Truth about the nature of God, but sometimes we get caught up in the little details of how we think we understand Him rather than what He says about Himself. & as one of my students just reminded me a few minutes ago in class, “How do we know our own interpretations are correct?”
You gave me a timely & relevant reminder about watching to make sure we (I) are not absorbed in trying to impress people with our own articulations, witticisms, etc. Thank you. Keeping ourselves in perspective, yes.
I wonder about the “Universal Self” you mentioned, what that is?
it always come back to Love….
Admonit
Hey, thanks for your thoughts. If anything I wrote was helpful to you, then I am glad I could return the favor. I have very much enjoyed reading what you write. It can really be a breath of fresh air.
In response to your question, and also in response to what you wrote on you blog about teaching different religions/worldviews and the problems with that, I guess I come from a slightly different background than most Christians. I was raised Christian, but I did not really choose that faith until a few years ago. In fact, for a long while, I flat out rejected it, while studying many different worldviews and religions academically. I have a great amount of respect for these other traditions. I should say, maybe just so I don't seem totally out in left field to you, that I believe the bible to be the words of God, given to us so that we will understand truth. And I don't omit things from it based on personal preference.
Universal Self (in caps)... I guess I am not sure if the idea has a basis in the Bible, at least not directly. My hero, Thomas Merton might be able to say it better. But strictly speaking, the Universal Self is a Hindu/Buddhist idea which is something akin to "Now we see as through a glass darkly..." If we could see ourselves fully, we would be able to see through our own egos to a Self (look up Atman, if you wish to study further) which is not so easily distinguishable from God. It may seem antithetical to Christianity, but then, Hinduism and Buddhism are practical religions, and don't place nearly as much emphasis as we do on dogma. So if you keep that in perspective, all it is saying is that if we shut off our blabbering egos, we will see ourselves and God clearly. Personally I interpret this to mean that I should be come as much like my truest self as possible, because if God made me that, then I assume that that is what He wants me to be. I measure that in accordance with what else I know about Him. I think (I may be erroneous here) that that is what it means to be a saint. And if my self comes from God, then I have no need to rebel against Him in order to assert that self. This could be naval gazing, but only if the goal is being what I want to be as opposed to what God wants me to be.
There is a wonderful article which Thomas Merton wrote called "A Christian Look at Zen." Merton was a Catholic Monk, also good friends with a Zen master named D.T. Suzuki. He begins the article by saying that because Christianity and Zen are such uniquely different religions, covering very distinct ground, it is very possible to be a Christian and a Zen Buddhist. This also may sound impractical, maybe even a little nuts, but Merton also operating under the assumption that the Bible was the absolute truth, and word of God. Being a Christian and a Zen Buddhist is sort of like being a fireman who plays the guitar.
When I spoke about capital T truth, I did not mean to say that truth was a subjective thing, or that it was mutable. My concern is that "The ways of God are not the ways of man." The truth of God is not easily comprehended by our rational minds. And I think that one of the greatest problems with Christianity as an institution, is that we're always trying to prove it rationally to a world which seems at odds with it. One of the reasons which Eastern traditions intrigue me is in that they place the emphasis not on knowing rationally but on experiencing directly, which they say can be done simply through silence. Merton, as I said, my hero, took this deeply to heart as an ascetic, as did the desert fathers of early Christianity. When we say that we know capital T truth, this runs into the problem of whose truth it is. It is not to say that there is not capital T truth, but I believe that there was a distinct reason for Jesus to speak primarily in parables. Because it is not so easy to define truth, but we certainly can use it in a sentence. Then he says later to his disciples that God has chosen to reveal himself more directly to them through the Holy Spirit. To me, this points to many experiences I have had where I felt like God was directly present, or that I was suddenly aware of His presence. Times when I felt like I had experienced God directly, and not through rational, speakable truths. In terms of other religions and their correctness or lack thereof, I loved what Rosie said:"There are some bits of truth and beauty in other religions, and in all fairness, we have to acknowledge that, even if they are totally misguided about the central figure of our faith." Or in Romans: "His invisible qualities and divine nature have been clearly seen throughout His creation..." We are under the false notion that we as Christians have exclusive access to God. This is not so. So I think that even if we do not agree with other religions entirely, we have much to learn from them.
Understanding how to read something and give it a due respect, but not necessarily accept it all just because it is written down, is a part of being a discerning, free thinking adult. I think there is undue fear about other religions among Christians, that somehow we need to conquer them, either intellectually or otherwise. If this is the case, then thinking freely is the enemy of the church, and truth, capital T or otherwise, along with it.
I hope that is of some use to you, and if it has not been, feel free to forget all of it. Thanks again for your thoughts, and I hope I haven't been too overly verbose.
Post a Comment