the cliched advice to people who talk alot is: “think before you speak” ok, so that’s common sense advice. but i find it fascinating how much talking (speaking) helps me to think. It’s almost as if for me (and I assume many other people) it’s better (necessary?) to speak before you think. Somehow the process of language (or of conversation) provides new possibilities.
I get excited when I hear myself saying something that just sounds like it’s going somewhere…
Like tonight… a friend and I were talking about spirituality and religion. her initial question related to the fact that many different people pray to different Gods - All?h, Yahweh, Vishnu, Jesus, etc. - and they all find a measure of help in doing so. how do we make sense of all these different experiences of the divine?
- one common response is to simply reject and condemn any expression of faith other than your own. This response works well for some, but for people who work with or live with (or are married to) people who believe differently, this no-compromise approach could lead to hurt in homes, families, friendships and communities.
- another response is the “many roads up the mountain” view of religion. this view is all-embracing - suggesting that the different names for God, and religious expression, are all ultimately leading a person to the same destination along a different path. This view works well for those who don’t want to condemn people who are different to them. But it doesn’t really honour the vast differences and distinctiveness of the different world religions.
As I was talking with my friend I suggested some ideas that seem to be an alternative to both the above positions. I don’t think it is a middle-road, but rather quite a different way of thinking about the spiritual journey.
We humans have notoriously “made God in our own image” (I think Frederich Schleiermacher first suggested that idea). There is a lot of Talk about God. But we need to distinguish between Talk about God and God’self. Surely we must all agree that all conversation about God is limited by our human understanding. Language cannot fully or finally contain mystery. Our words only point to the mystery.
By saying this, I am not suggesting that God is not Real. The reality (or existence) of God is not in question. Faith takes the Creator, the Source, as a foundation of all conversation. We kind of take it for granted. Asking “Does God exists?” is not even a consideration. Without the Source, there wouldn’t be anything to ask a question. So the question (and the questioner) assume there is a Source.
But what is in question is how helpful our Talk about God is. There is a lot of talk. And there is a lot of difference and disagreement. Some people say God is like this… others are sure God is like that… and no-one is willing to give an inch. Some people even say “there is no God” - which seems like a different category of statement at first, but ironically it turns out to be a part of the same Talk about God. And the surprising thing to discover is that the so-called “Atheists” have valid things to say about religion, faith and God! They are some of the most ethically and morally convicted people in society… and some highly regarded spiritual teacher once suggested we should “judge a tree by the fruit it bears”…
Athiests have recognised, along with many contemplatives and mystics, that Talk about God can easily degenrate into a powerful idolatry. We worship our idea of God. Our God loves Jews (or Americans or Christians or straight people or “born again” people or whatever WE decide…) and hates others. Our religion becomes a prejudice of our own making. There’s very little about it that is connected with the Source.
So contemplatives and mystics suggest that a good way to God is the apophatic way. this refers to the way of negation. the apophatic way senses that God is being - to be experienced, not an idea to be described or understood. Along with talking about God goes pictures, symbols and complex rituals and practices. Instead the apophatic way embraces simplicity and silence. In the silence (and the negation of thoughts, ideas - our mental activity and agility) mystics seek encounter with the very being of God. Be still and know (read experience or encounter) that I Am God. I Am.
The cataphatic way - the way of affirmation - celebrates what can be known, spoken, proclaimed about God. This is the way that celebrates scripture as revelation. Lots of words. And also Jesus as the Word of God. It’s no surprise that the cataphatic way loves preaching. There is conviction and certainty. These are the evangelists. They have a truth to proclaim - because it can be heard, considered, accepted (or not), believed and therefore received. Jesus is the Truth - and that truth feels a lot like a set of ideas (teaching) about life and God that ideally must be believed, accepted as true.
I think both ways have insights to offer, and both have grave dangers.
The apophatic way is in huge danger of a withdrawal from the everyday experiences of ordinary people. (This might, in part, explain why so many ordinary people embrace the certainty and mindlessness of certain expressions of the cataphatic tradition.) The cataphatic way must answer for many expressions of faith that lack compassion and actually encourage judgement, condemnation and self righteous religion.
I believe we need to distinguish between God and our Talk about God. Keeping that distinction allows us to embrace both traditions.
The distinction is made from the apophatic insights that all descriptions about God are deficient - they can never contain the whole truth. But, the distinction also honours the cataphatic tradition - in that it allows us to continue our Talk about God. We need a language. We need symbols, and songs and words and conversations and doctrines etc… We aren’t mystical saints living in some higher plane. We are ordinary people with the need to share together in community a common life of worship and service. So we embrace Talk about God with one proviso - we never equate our Talk about God (and the conclusions we draw) with God. We always remember that our conversation is limited. It is connected with Reality - but it isn’t the whole reality. It is vitally in touch with the Source - but it never contains or totally grasps the Source.
If it needs a description, perhaps this “way” could be called honouring mystery in the midst of the ordinary. A bit cumbersome… perhaps someone can suggest a word to describe this “way”…
one last thought: colossians 1:19 says that “in him (Jesus) the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”. could it be that the bible presents us with a “way” in Jesus, that honours both traditions - the immanence and tangibility of Jesus, Emmanuel, God incarnate… affirming the cataphatic way. but also, the recognition that Jesus is in many ways limited in ways God is not (e.g. God is omnipresent while Jesus squeezes the fullness of God into time and space.) So Jesus represents this apophatic insight - that there is mystery and wonder beyond the Jesus we can see. (and hear and follow…) The Word is more than enough - everything we need to know about God. But it doesn’t delimit God - God remains the Creator God, ground of our being, Source, that is mystery, beyond our full and final comprehension.
let’s talk! (about God)