Ok, I know...this is the third post on mystery. Well, nothing like running with a winner. I only continue because maybe I am learning myself. I learn best through writing, interacting, and thinking outside my "noggin". So, I keep forcing you to read my thoughts. Wait...I didn't make you come here, but I am glad you did.
John made a good comment to the first post on the subject of mystery and the faith, reminding us that when mystery is held as the focus, it can become detrimental to our faith. I agree wholeheartedly. Yet, we are all living in a context where mystery has not only not been the focus, it has been forgotten. Coming from the enlightenment, the modern age focused on the ability to "know", making faith a scientific experiment.
For example...throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries we see the training of ministers/priests/clergy as primarily one of academics. I don't have any problem with academics, but why is it the most important, and primarily the sole makeup of clergy training? In contrast, in the first few centuries to become a clergy member meant you would live with and learn under another clergy, or in a community of clergy. You would "experience" the ministry and it would be the main vehicle for which you came to "know" God's call in your life. Why the shift? What happened? I believe the enlightenment, and the raising of the human intellect had a profound effect.
In the first few centuries there was no underlying belief that the most important thing was head knowledge, for I believe they understood that our head knowledge was limited. They understood the mystery of the faith. That one might come closer to feeling the care of God while caring for the needy, rather than studying a book about his care.
This is why the Eucharist is becoming so important to me. I believe that there is something I learn/receive from God in the Eucharist that I can not explain with my brain. I am submitting myself to an act that makes no "logical" sense because I am humbly admitting that I can't understand God, he understands me. And through this action of recognized limitations, I come to know him better.
Am I making any sense here? Or am I way off?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow. that might be the first (and the last) time anyone called me an intellectual :) I don't consider myself intellectual. I have just read books over the years, in seminary, and outside of seminary, that have shaped me. I do believe that we need to make a purposeful effort in reading more, and learning more. If you are interested I can give you my limited bibliography on subjects that you might read in my posts. Just ask me and I will tell you if I have read any books about it.
BTW, you are just as much an intellectual as I am.
-ben.
Ben,
I don't think you are off target by any means. For centuries the Church fought over definations of exactly how/what happens in the Eucharist.
The Anglican and Lutherans I think have the best idea, Christ is Present in some mystical way He isn't at other times.
He is with us in the Bread and Wine in truth, fact, and I could not prove it to any scientist's satisfaction, yet I know. For me it is Sanctifed by the Holy Spirit to be for me the
Body and Blood of His Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in Him.
Every week I thank God for this, a Holy Mystery.
I couldn't have said it better. "He is with us in the Bread and the Wine in truth, fact, and I could not prove it to any scientist's satisfaction, yet I know". That is right. And that form of knowing is maybe even more powerful, more real, than anything "known" from a book.
For a post-evangelical like myself, I am still waking up to the beauty of the eucharist. But it is swelling in me each time he meets me in the meal.
Post a Comment