(no subject)
"Religionless Christianity" by Susan Brooks Thistlewaite (www.washingtonpost.com)
Lately, I've thought a bit about the paradox of the sacred manifesting in or being pointed to by the profane, as well as extent to which dogma contains truth in the typical sense of the word or rather is "true" in the sense that it is spiritual beneficial by pointing toward a realization of the divine beyond doctrinal formulations (thank you, Wikipedia article on Mahayana Buddhism for this notion of truth as that which is spiritually beneficial, versus truth in the conventional sense as that which is factually accurate). In one of the Zen traditions, the koan ("the problems") are riddles likened by one author to a brick that one uses to break down the door; once the door is broken in, he/she says, you throw away the brick. It goes without saying that such a notion is largely foreign to traditional Christian orthodox teaching (at least insofar as I understand it). So much of Christian doctrine, at least as I presently understand it, hangs on questions of Christology and soteriology.
I'm particularly struck by the following portion of the linked article:
Yet, it is also true that “form” and “content” are not neatly compartmentalized. The forms of religion and the relationship of faith influence one another. And we human beings are finite. We can’t do without some form of religion to hold the content of faith.
It reminds me of a similar statement that C. G. Jung made in regard to psychological theories. Although, as one of my text books says, he strove to rid himself of all unexamined presuppositions, he ultimately concluded that a theory was essential for understanding, even bearing in mind that it was an imperfect model. Gerald May made a similar remark in one of his books when he opined that some sort of theory of the divine (I believe it was the divine to which he was referring) was necessary to talk meaningfully about the subject (citation needed, but I'm too lazy to look up the book).
I'm currently reading Zen and the Birds of Appetite by Thomas Merton, the American Trappist (Roman Catholic) monk. Having leafed through the book a bit, I'm looking forward to his thoughts on the nature of religious tradition, dogma, etc. and Zen.
Lately, I've thought a bit about the paradox of the sacred manifesting in or being pointed to by the profane, as well as extent to which dogma contains truth in the typical sense of the word or rather is "true" in the sense that it is spiritual beneficial by pointing toward a realization of the divine beyond doctrinal formulations (thank you, Wikipedia article on Mahayana Buddhism for this notion of truth as that which is spiritually beneficial, versus truth in the conventional sense as that which is factually accurate). In one of the Zen traditions, the koan ("the problems") are riddles likened by one author to a brick that one uses to break down the door; once the door is broken in, he/she says, you throw away the brick. It goes without saying that such a notion is largely foreign to traditional Christian orthodox teaching (at least insofar as I understand it). So much of Christian doctrine, at least as I presently understand it, hangs on questions of Christology and soteriology.
I'm particularly struck by the following portion of the linked article:
Yet, it is also true that “form” and “content” are not neatly compartmentalized. The forms of religion and the relationship of faith influence one another. And we human beings are finite. We can’t do without some form of religion to hold the content of faith.
It reminds me of a similar statement that C. G. Jung made in regard to psychological theories. Although, as one of my text books says, he strove to rid himself of all unexamined presuppositions, he ultimately concluded that a theory was essential for understanding, even bearing in mind that it was an imperfect model. Gerald May made a similar remark in one of his books when he opined that some sort of theory of the divine (I believe it was the divine to which he was referring) was necessary to talk meaningfully about the subject (citation needed, but I'm too lazy to look up the book).
I'm currently reading Zen and the Birds of Appetite by Thomas Merton, the American Trappist (Roman Catholic) monk. Having leafed through the book a bit, I'm looking forward to his thoughts on the nature of religious tradition, dogma, etc. and Zen.