For the last few years, I have been feeling God gently nudging me away from the way I've seen my Christianity.
When I was very young, I was very literal in my approach to my religion, and I rather think that is the product of an eager spirit coupled with a rather limited mindset.
As I grew up and began to encounter new ideas and expand my horizons, I began to abandon my literalism, but something else stuck to me, which is the idea that I need to always have a set of formulas about what I believe, those formulas changed over time, shifted and sometimes were replaced... but they always were in the shape of formulas, and lately I've begun to move away from that as well.
You see, formulas allow you to clearly describe what you're thinking of, however they can never fully capture it. A process of simplification must take place when making a statement of creed, to stress the point (as you see it) of a certain belief and strip away the less important things. Which is okay, since formulations of belief usually have a specific purpose (apologetics, for example).
And although that is important in many instances, it cannot be the way we think of our religion in general, because sometimes the less important things are, well... quite important as well!
For example, the way St. Athanasius described the Incarnation was very good, but it was especially good because it fitted the purpose at hand, which was to argue against the Arians. What details St. Athanasius may have left out about the reasons and mechanics of the Incarnation because they weren't in question by the Arians, those same details may in some other situation prove very useful.
And another thing, it's not only that simplification loses some details, it also loses the undertones of some our Scripture and Tradition. There are many ideas that haven't reached the level of clarity of a "detail" in almost every piece of Scripture, but are more like whispers or subtle motions towards something inexplicit in that same piece of Scripture. And that doesn't make those ideas any less important, but it does mean that they must be conveyed in a way other than a simple statement or a rigid definition.
I suppose this is why it is said that "Theology sings", that some of our most profound spiritual revelations may best be described in song. Some Coptic Hymns are a great example of a "singing theology", another example is Iconography.
That idea completed a cycle that had been open and disconnected to me. I knew why we insert our theology in our prayers and how we pray in our songs, but couldn't understand how theological study should use song. Now I see that proper theology should make use of but not be limited to philosophy, and it must rise above rigid formulations.
It must sing and paint and use every form of art and literature... Because to express our relationship with Christ, we'll need to use everything we've got.
So, this is to remind myself to approach theology with the imaginative and transcendent heart of a poet, to sing with the fervent and modest heart of a monk, and to pray with the inquisitive and meticulous heart of a theologian.
here's another way to put it (as i see it), the most basic damage that may occur to an individual's sense of divinity is when a certain religion is treated as a set of rules, i'd have said that any child could see that but, as it seems, a lot of non-children seem to think this way, anyway, a further level of damage occurs when the religion, while it is not treated as a set of rules, and those who are actively working towards spreading its spirit openly acknowledge that it's a life to be lived not a set of rules to be followed, yet they go ahead and state that the theology itself is, after all, a set of rules, in this case also the whole thing breaks down because, most of the time, people treat religion the same way philosophers (i really wanted to avoid this word, alas...!) treat the word cosmology, like, when u sit down to think of how the universe works, u've got to come up with a system that explains everything and includes everything, consequently, when religion is treated as such, it has to include life, the universe and everything, and here's the thing that a lot of non-children fail to see: it ain't that simple !!
ReplyDeletelife is, by definition, a bit more complex, elusive, ambiguous and hard to catch using a simple set of rules because, after all, a system based on a bunch of rules sound like a system based on logic, and logic, as we've seen lately, just can't capture everything effectively, something will get lost somewhere, and, i'd dare to say, that something is what we're essentially made of, the cosmology based on rules will have to kick us out of existence and replace us by....another set of rules ??
So...where can art be dragged in amidst all that stuff? well, simply art is the most efficient tool humankind has used to talk about that thing that gets lost in the rules, this is not the place to discuss how or why, suffice to mention that art is, by its own definition, the most perfect place to model all those nuances and undertones and whispers that get lost in the rules.
So here's how the whole thing stands with me, Religion is cosmology, and art is the language of the humanity to discuss a cosmology, not theology.
No...never theology.