God, Knowledge, and My Dog

There seem to be several misconceptions concerning my recent reflections on God, psyche, soul, and spirit. I believe that Jungian depth psychology with its notions of a creative thrust (the God-image), and an integrational formulary (the Christ-archetype) provides the modern world with a new way of seeing that which the doctrines teach, and creeds proclaim. It is because we are so constructed psychologically that we are able religiously to so express our “heart’s desire.” Theologically, our psychological construct reflects the founding grace. The God-image is not God; it indicates the God who is above every soul and psyche. The God-image and the Christ-archetype are not per se a grace within; they point towards something more profound, the founding grace, the grace of creation, the free Grace that wills not simply a creation but an incarnation into that creation as its perfection. Psyche, soul and spirit are not synonymous; they indicate layers within the mystery that is life, depths within the mystery of our being. Like the God-image and the Christ-archetype, they are conceptual anatomizations of something which is organically a whole. Those dissected bits provide platforms from which to discuss certain aspects of the singular mystery that is life.

Continue reading
Posted in on Denial, Doubt, and Divinity | Comments Off on God, Knowledge, and My Dog

God

There is of God in se nothing to say.

Consideration 1—the proofs of God

Man has always had much to say about his gods, or rather to report about that which the gods have had to say of themselves. Anciently, that there were gods was not muchly debated. If there was a question, it was more in the order of which from among the gods was the right god, the true god, the potent-most god, or the effective-most god. Few were vociferously agnostic or atheist. In the early years of Christianity scholars were occupied with the reasonableness of the faith in God’s Christ, and in the internal relationships of a singular God who had within itself three “persons.” God, however, was a fact. The only question was the right understanding of this one triune God.

Continue reading
Posted in on Denial, Doubt, and Divinity | Comments Off on God

Sin and Sinfulness

Sin is not in vogue. Myriads insist they have no sins. Even churches seem increasingly hesitant to use the word. I was recently at a Roman Catholic funeral wherein the priest expressed his hope that God would not consider the “mistakes” the departed had made in life. Where, I wondered, had gone the Dies irae with its plangent intonation of man’s culpability and its firm faith in the mercy and love of a God who himself died to bring back man into his arms, his heart, his life? Does sin have any meaning in this age? Does anyone know the meaning of sin?

Continue reading
Posted in on Etiquette for the soul | Comments Off on Sin and Sinfulness

Satan

Reading between the lines of the few things the apostle Paul has to say about the angelic hosts, we find that when Satan and his cohorts rebel it is not against God per se, but the divine proposal of creation. The moment God sets his in-Spirited Word forth as creation, the incarnation of God begins. That God intends, as scripture has it, that the Word not go forth without accomplishing its end, the divine intention is patent. The act of creation is teleological and not simply causal. God wills his incarnation into the created to the end that it will reach a pivotal point wherefrom it will turn, and proceed back into God. The moment of first light, the Fait Lux [Let there be light] aims toward its manifestation as Lux-mundi [Light of the world], the God-man. It is in the Lux-mundi that creation begins to apprehend the truth of its origins and purpose, and so is empowered to turn toward that moment when sun and moon are no longer givers of light, but when the Lux-mundi becomes before all enthroned within the Godhead from whom than proceeds all light. This is both the resolution of the divine incarnation that began with Fiat Lux and its superseding, the new creation, the new heaven and earth.[i]

Continue reading
Posted in on Sacred texts | Comments Off on Satan

Reflections on Inconceivability and Humility

The question put was: “Are Coptic Christians orthodox or monophysite?” Few would be concerned with the arcane query. Was Jesus, the Christ of God, one person with two distinct natures, human and divine, or, to put it inelegantly, one person of a divine nature subsuming something lesser, as before the divine all must be, and so only seemingly of human composition? If one were inclined to play with Greek metaphysics and proceed logically in this matter, the monophysite position seems the stronger. As the son of God and a woman, as an admixture of a divine person and nature and a human nature, Jesus would logically be only half human. If one added to the monophysite arsenal the latter doctrine that Mary was spared the taint original sin, she would not be a woman like unto others. She would be a woman according to the order of nature before the fall from Paradise. The divinity of Jesus would therein be in no manner contaminated by humanity’s fallen nature. The role of Jesus would seemingly then be, not to be the incarnation of God, but to initiate it. Thus, as the designated mediator for humanity, he (as indeed he did) would ask the Father to send forth the Holy Spirit that they who embrace the gospel might become through the second birth of grace and faith the “children of God.” (Welcome to a Sunday afternoon in my world.) It ought to be patent that the controversy here is about the philosophical understandings of what exactly constitutes a person and what exactly constitutes a nature. The incompatibility of Hebrew religious vision and Greek meta-physical concepts did not occur to them involved in the tossing of volleys toward one another. Neither did “where charity and love prevail.”

Continue reading
Posted in on Denial, Doubt, and Divinity, on Etiquette for the soul | Comments Off on Reflections on Inconceivability and Humility

Attempts and Temptations

Attempts

The unconscious is a reservoir of the experiences of terrestrial life. It, in a sense, remembers everything from the dawn of life to the present. In it resonates all that was and, as the power of life, all that wants to be. It is a formidable force. As a type of living archive it has a structure, or more accurately, a format for communicating itself forward. Its forms for forward movement are akin to those Kantian a priori forms the rational mind has to move itself forward into the world: the notions of time, space, substantiality, relation, etc. that organize the field of sensations in order to make them workable bits of information creating a navigable world. The “forms” the unconscious applies are symbols. The prime symbols of our existence are the arche-types. The unconscious constantly reaches out to the conscious mind to direct it toward pragmatic positivity and integrity of self and world. When its the attempts are ignored or frustrated, it counteracts. It forces forward frustrations that command attention be paid it. It wants to challenge into growth, but it also seeks balance.[i]

Continue reading
Posted in on Sacred texts | Comments Off on Attempts and Temptations

Imagination and Communication

Several years ago the latest work from a contemporary philosopher was recommended to me. As the request came from someone I hold dear, I obliged. While the arguments were being celebrated for their prescient insight, from the start I could not but feel I was reading something rather old, specifically David Hume. The technical vocabulary was different, somewhat. The arguments, however, were simply eighteenth-century British empiricism réchauffé. They were of life desperately literal, full of practicalities, desiccating of anything that touched upon imagination.

Continue reading
Posted in on Etiquette for the soul | Comments Off on Imagination and Communication