Hard and Soft Hearts
Wednesday, April 5, 2006 -- Week of 5 Lent
Morning Prayer begins on p. 80 of the Book of Common Prayer
Evening Prayer begins on p. 117
An online resource for praying the Daily Office is found at www.missionstclare.com
Another form of the office from Phyllis Tickle's "Divine Hours" is available on our partner web site www.ExploreFaith.org at this link -- http://explorefaith.org/prayer/fixed/index.html
Today's Readings for the Daily Office (p. 957)
Psalms 119:145-176 (morning) // 128, 129, 130 (afternoon)
Exodus 7:8-24
2 Corinthians 2:14 - 3:6
Mark 10:1-16
Hard and Soft Hearts
Three readings today reflect on the heart as the focus of human character. God wants us to have soft hearts, able to respond to God and neighbor with compassion and service.
Pharaoh's heart is hard. Pharaoh's paradigm is power -- political and economic power over others. The Hebrews are commodities to be used to build more buildings as expressions of Pharaoh's pride and greed. When Moses shows Pharaoh signs from God, they are signs of ecological disasters. Today the life-giving waters are turned to blood. Hardness of heart produces human oppression and ecological damage.
Paul writes in his second letter to the church in Corinth that his teaching has been written by the Spirit upon the hearts of the members of the congregation. Christ's Spirit lives within their hearts. When they live from that heart-centered Spirit, their lives speak more eloquently than words on hard tablets of stone.
Mark speaks of the legal practice that allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and be divorced from his wife. Jesus condemns the practice even though it originates from Moses and the Torah. "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you."
In his fine little book "The Heart of Christianity," Marcus Borg traces the many meanings of a hard or closed heart -- blindness and limited vision; a darkened mind; bondage; a lack of gratitude; insensitive to wonder and awe; forgetting God; self-preoccupied and cut off; lacking compassion; insensitive to injustice. He writes, "Not all hearts are equally hard. In severe form, hard hearts are associated with violence, brutality, arrogance and a rapacious world-devouring greed. ...The mild form of violence is judgmentalism; of brutality, insensitivity; of arrogance, self-centeredness; of rapacious greed, ordinary self-interest." (p. 151-4)
An open heart sees more clearly the person or landscape right before us -- enlightenment. An open heart is alive to wonder; the world is not ordinary. An open heart is grateful and compassionate, with a passion for justice. Borg says, "The purpose of the Christian life, of life in Christ, is to become more and more compassionate beings." He quotes from the journal of the late Dag Hammarskjold:
Give us pure hearts that we may see you;
Humble hearts, that we may hear you;
Hearts of love, that we may serve you;
Hearts of faith, that we may abide in you. (p. 161-3)
Not a bad prayer to begin the day.
posted by Lowell @ 8:18 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Again, wonderful readings. It's interesting to think of the role of the Church when it comes to "hardened hearts." I grew up in a very conservative denomination. In my childhood denomination, I would often hear about people with "hard hearts" or those who had "hardened their hearts against the Gospel," as if it were too late for those people to experience the light of Christ. I even overheard my mother talking about me on the phone with a friend, saying that she was worried that I had not been "saved" yet (at the ripe old age of 13). She was afraid that my heart would harden and salvation would not be available to me after a time (probably my 14th birthday!)
Needless to say, as an Episcopalian, I have a very different view of the church and its role in salvation. I've been reading a book titled LISTENING TO THE HEARTBEAT OF GOD: A CELTIC SPIRITUALITY by J. Philip Newell. It's fascinating because, in my humble opinion, the Episcopal Church is greatly influenced by Celtic Spirituality (and influenced by Jewish thought when it comes to Orthodoxy vs. Orthopraxy--but that is for another post).
Chiefly of note in Newell's book is the "heretic" Pelagius, who wrote:
"There are some who call themselves Christian, and who attend worship regularly, yet perform no Christian actions in their daily lives. There are others who do not call themselves Christian, and who never attend worship, yet perform many Christian actions in their lives. Which of these two groups are the better disciples of Christ? Some would say that believing in Christ and worshipping him is what matters for salvation. But this is not what Jesus himself said. His teaching was almost entirely concerned with action, and with the motives that inspire action. He affirmed goodness of behavior in whoever he found, whether the person was Jew or Roman, male or female. An he condemed those who kept all the religious requirements, yet were greedy and cruel. Jesus does not invite people to become his disciples for his own benefit, but to teach and guide them in the ways of goodness. And if a person can walk along that way without ever knowing the earthly Jesus, then we may say that he is following the spirit of Christ in his heart.
We can imagine how this was a threat to the up and coming Christian church. Regarding Pelagius' doctrine, Newell writes: "Rather than accentuating the difference between them [the Church and the world], the ministry of the Church is to liberate and free the goodness of God that is already at the very heart of all life, yearning, as St. Paul would say, for its release. The Church becomes liberator rather than custodian...the treasure is already present, though hidden, waiting to be unlocked, in every person" (Newell 18-19).
Fascinating! In early Celtic Spirituality the goodness of God is within all people, even those (like Pharaoh) who have hardened hearts. Also, since all people are born with God's light within, they are naturally good rather than depraved. Needless to say, Augustine was not a fan of Pelagius!
Bad deeds only cast a fog over the light of Christ, but as St. John writes, that light will never be overcome.
I think one of the most difficult things, at least for me, is to see the light of Christ in all people. But I have to remember that no matter how hard someone's heart is, no matter what kinds of things they have done, It is my bounden duty to try to see through the fog, to seek out the heart of Christ in all hearts.
*sigh*
Okay, I'm going to be difficult and argumentative. I have no problem -- indeed, I find some inspiration -- in Newell's theology, but why must he totally distort the teachings of the real historical figure Pelagius, and concoct an ahistorical mythical "Celtic Church" to justify it? For anyone who has read the actual writings and documents of early medieval Christianity, such notions are a distortion and a disservice to the very real thoughts and concerns of the people of the time.
And I'll be even more difficult, and ask why we must twist the very simple and clear lesson of Jesus in this Gospel teaching? How can one possibly read this as anything other than a condemnation of divorce, because it puts the human will above the plan of God? Maybe because we don't want to admit that many of the things we (and I include myself) really want to do and consider necessary for my own well-being are frankly contrary to God's clearly stated commands? (I'm not picking just on divorce here. If anything, Jesus and the prophets are even more explicit and unforgiving about the accumulation of wealth -- and I surely fall short of following these biblical precepts!)
Yet one must be really profoundly motivated to interpret these clear cut commands as some sort of metaphorical illustrations; as *endorsements*, moreover, of "doing whatever feels right and "authentic", God will bless it as long as we mean well." I don't see a lot of discussion in Scripture about being "authentic", and "enlightened"; and the entire concept of "spirituality" seems very very alien to the Bible and to most early Christian thinkers. To me, they seem much more conscious of a sense of being out of joint, of having failed in adjusting to God's plans. But that brings up all sorts of ugly, old-fashioned implications, doesn't it?
I realize the concept of "sin" has long been used by Christian institutions as a bludgeon and a tool of domination. But I also fear for a Christianity that goes too far in the other direction -- that in essence, sets each human up as Creator and Judge. "Does the teachings of the Church make me feel bad, unworthy, unfulfilled? Well, it must be the Church's fault -- it can't be mine. Obviously, millions of Christians over two thousand years have clearly misinterpreted what Jesus was trying to say!"
I realize that I'm sounding very negative here. And I do very much appreciate Lowell's reflections, as well as the thoughts of the contemporary writers on spirituality, and the responders on this blog. And I enthusiastically endorse that the single most important message -- the very heart of the "Good News" -- is that God loves us: completely, absolutely, unconditionally.
But I fear that we become so focussed on that wonderful news, that we forget the humility that must necessarily accompany it -- that that love is also completely, absolutely unearned and un-deserved. To quote the best Ash Wednesday sermon I have ever heard, "God loves you; but He doesn't always like you very much."
Maybe it's because I grew up in a church that put far more emphasis on this kind of "I'm OK -- You're OK" kind of self-affirmation, and have never really experienced the fire-and-brimstone sort of sects more prevalent around here. And the Church has surely been guilty of putting far too much emphasis on the last part in the past. But I would hate to see us wallow in the comfortable security of God's love, and neglect our responsibility to try to deserve God's liking and respect.
Lesley--
Thanks for responding. I know that the idea of a Celtic Church is highly controversial, and many would say ahistorical, but there is no doubt that pre-Christian Spirituality influenced the Britons. I've read some more on Pelagius and I don't think Newell (at least in this book) has distorted early Christianity greatly. I am fascinated by early and Medieval Christianity, myself.
I was inspired by Newells writings whether they be 100% historically accurate or not. If I were going for historical accuracy I would have to abandon my dearly beloved Holy Bible. Something I would never dream of!
I also think that some people can go to far with an "anything goes" attitude. Anyone who has ever read the teachings of Christ knows that not everything goes. I also believe that those who encounter Christ in the scriptures are usually profoundly changed--for the better, one hopes!
So Jesus said don't commit adultery. But then he says that lusting after another woman is adultery. Taken literally, I admit that I'm not guilty of that one, but I'm sure several people are. And in one place Jesus says anyone who is divorced and remarried is an adulterer. In another place he says that remarriage is allowed if fornication be a factor in the divorce. So which clear Gospel teaching do we go with?
So, you see, I don't think that all of the "clear-cut" teachings are that clear-cut. That's where tradition and reason come in to help guide our understanding. There is, after all, a lot of grey area out there.
I think that adultery is a great wrong, and I certainly don't expect the church to condone it--it causes social chaos (think of the children!), it can wound another human being to the point that the one cheated on commits suicide (I know of an almost suicide case, personally), etc. etc.
The laws were given for a reason. I don't think God just said, "Hey, I'm going to outlaw adultery, today." I think God's law is for our own good. But, as you admit yourself, we all fall short of those laws.
That's why we have the Sacraments of the church, the support of the church community, and caring priests. We need to be humble, yes. I think most people truly are deep down. But we also need encouragement and love, and yes, some "Good News."
Personally, I think you have to take adultery or any other kind of wrong committed on a case by case basis, looking for the good in the person involved, but also urging right action in the future. Excommunication, I think, is no longer a relevant tool. Times have changed, to be sure!
At least, that's what I think.
Most of us are spiritual babes in need of nourishment and understanding.
Leslie--
I've been thinking, and I would like to add a few more things:
In my opinion, You can't get much more "enlightening" or "spiritual" than the Gospel of John (which Newell says influenced Celtic Spirituality) So, there was definitely a strain of mystical/spiritual Christianity at least as early as the Second Century, whether there was an alleged Celtic Church or not.
And there were mystical/spiritual leanings in several early church fathers. The fact was that there was no consensus among them, but a more mystical leaning element was present, especially in Eastern Christianity. After all, the path of Eastern Orthodoxy is supposed to lead to the "deification" of human beings.
And these debates between early thinkers had EVERYTHING to do with the real thoughts and concerns of the average people at the time. Lay people fought it out in the streets over the "divinity of Christ." Even our mythologized St. Nick was said to have socked a few people in the nose!
Sometimes our own House of Bishops nearly comes to blows. I might also add that our own Episcopal lay people nearly come to blows in the street or at least over blogs! Theology is powerful stuff! It can even become an idol.
I think the best way to go about this Christianity business is a straddling of the fence between belief (or spirituality, or seeking enlightenment, fill in the blank) and action. Our beliefs should motivate our actions, but they should not be an end in themselves. On the same hand, our actions should not be an end in themselves either:
"O Lord!
If I worship You from fear of Hell, cast me into Hell.
If I worship You from desire for Paradise, deny me Paradise
but if I worship You for Your own sake,
then withhold not from me Your Eternal Beauty"
- Rabia al-Adawiya
Mmm. Josh, you make a lot of good points. Of course spirituality in the sense of mysticism is important to early Church thinkers, and all over Scripture. I was referring to "spirituality" in the sense you hear too often today -- you know, "I'm spiritual, but not religious" -- which when you pursue the topic, seems to be a vague sort of feel-good affirmation of "something more", but not something that requires and sort of personal transformation or response other than an acknowledgment of its niftiness. Alas, that's what way too many people (Not you, and certainly not Newell) mean when they allude to "Celtic spirituality" -- they seem to roll circle-crosses and St. Brigit and Enya and elves all together into some sort of bizarre blob. But that's a whole 'nother rant.
And issues of faith and practice were of course central to the real needs of real people, as much in the fifth century as they are today; but I don't think that the question Newell or you or I are asking are the same as the ones that Pelagius and Augustine quarrelled over. Or maybe they are; but I don't think it's a division between faith and action, as you suggest.
Rather, I'd go back to William James's astute observation that there seem to be two fundamentally different views of the human condition, and more specifically the human problem. On the one hand, there are those who see humans as basically okay, acceptable, righteous -- pick your word -- and the problem is that we just don't know it, or won't believe it. The solution therefore is to teach us -- by words, by example, by corrective discipline if necessary -- to accept our "okayness", and to live acordingly. This is where Pelagius staked his tent, and it more or less flavours the general "tone" of Celtic Christianity -- if you can generalize so far without distorting history, a proposition I tend to doubt.
On the other hand are those who see humans as basically sick, or flawed, or sinful -- again, choose your metaphor -- and no matter what we do, we have not the power in ourselves to be acceptable, to be "good", to be justified. The solution for this group is to humbly acknowledge that failure, and turn to the One that has the power to heal, to fix, to forgive. This was the point Augustine continually hammered home, and to a certain extent, it remains the dominant strand in Roman Christianity even today.
I really don't think that this distinction is a matter of culture or tradition, though. It truly has more to do with the individual's temperament. I don't think that you can argue that one is right and the other wrong, or one is better than the other. I suspect that folks on either side have a great deal of difficulty even talking intelligibly to each other: Pelagius and his adherents characterized Augustine as simply lazy and morbid, while Augustine and his cohort viewed Pelagius as elitist and arrogant.
I wouldn't be surprised if this difference also lies behind much of the Christological controversies of our heresy -- one side looking to Jesus the human teacher and examplar, the other looking to Christ the source of Divine power and mercy.
But as Christians were are called to witness the Incarnation -- two natures, distinct without mingling, but both necessarily present. I'm stuck on how we can bridge this divide. Maybe we can go back to your astute observations about bridging the "fence between faith and action." Two very different "faiths" as it were, or worldviews, yet they both lead to the same "actions", or response: "to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."
Sorry to ramble on at such interminable length -- but you have given me much to chew on!
Lesley--
I think we're on the same page. But the conversation has been stimulating! I guess I tend to straddle the fence, myself, and as with most people interested in religion, my own views may influence my theological language. Augustine's certainly did. So did Pelagius'.
It presents a problem that Bishop Spong has written about. Whether you are a fan of his or not, he hits the nail on the head when he writes about the difficulty in using language to describe the ineffable. Our very own ideas of the word "spirituality" conjured up two entirely different images.
I'm like you, when it comes to the "spiritual but not religious." To me, to be spiritual is to be religious and to be religious is to be spiritual. I admit, I kind of scowl when I think of some of the vapid ideas of spirituality floating around. But then, on the same hand, I have a great compassion and sadness for these people--I know that many of them have been wounded by the Church, as many of us have, but for some reason these people really ingrained the injustice against them and lash out at "The Institution."
I, at times, make light of "The Institution" myself. It can be quite contradictory at times. For instance, The Episcopal Church did not allow divorce until about the 70's. My Episcopal Church, St. Peter's turned William Faulkner away because his wife had been married previously. I doubt the same situation would occur today. But when I think about the people turned away in those years, I can't help but think of ole Henry VIII, the founder of Anglicanism! He had more than one marriage, to be sure!
But that is the history of any institution. Human hands can really make a mess! Sometimes our institutionalized contradictions and (at times outright meanness!) really hurt me, but I have to remember that everyone is, at heart, a child of God. I guess that would put me with one foot in Pelagius' camp.
But, despite its flawed nature, I think the Church is one of the greatest Bodies around. I take courage and strength from the Sacraments. The Liturgy is transendental. I think we have the best church in the world. (Maybe, I'm biased!!) And by church I mean people and our particular form of worship and sacred spaces. I think tradition and ritual are important. I also think our season of Lent-- a sort of institutional repentance-- is also of great importance. I think the teachings of the church are important, but are subject to questioning at time!So, I guess I'm in the other Church Fathers' camp too. Some less charitable people might say that I want to have my cake and eat it too! Oh well!!
I just wish those "spiritual but not religious" people could taste and see God the way we do. Not necessarily because I think they are "wrong," but because I think that we as spiritual AND religious people have water that we can offer them, so that they never thirst again. I make it my mission in life to bring that water to others.
Peace and manifold blessings be upon you, Lesley! I look forward to future correspondence!
"Christ be with me, Christ within me, Christ behind me, Christ before me, Christ beside me, Christ to win me, Christ to comfort and restore me."
--Hymn #370 HYMNAL 1982
P.S.
I do LOVE Enya! But I may like Gregorian Chant a bit more! ha!
Now I gotta go to the Church House...I want to read all of Hymn #370! Thanks to all of you for these postings.
Post a Comment
<< Home