|
|
| | Against Normalcy
It feels good to be writing this entry from the patio of our new house in Chattanooga. We haven't really had a patio in about ten years, so it feels more like a vacation house than a permanent residence. There's also a sprinkler combing the treeline lackadaisically, a bench next to a campfire pit, a swingset, and beyond that, a marshy area from which come assorted chirps and mechanical whines - evidence that the natural is hemmed in by the artificial more than a first glance at the backyard would suggest. Everything works together, though, since the artificial isn't so much superficial as aedificial. The only thing out of place is the dog who won't shut up next door. There's a good feeling here, not because I'm having some sort of physical need met, but because I'm at peace, and the world seems to be at peace with me. Call it ontological equilibrium, or normalcy.
Normalcy is not a popular concept today. After a few hundred years of reformulated pagan philosophy, ethical and ontological standards have been reduced to vague statements about "helping people" and "making the world a better place." There is a lot of talk about feeling good, but only when good is colloquial shorthand for "comfortable/happy/fulfilled" and not "the presence of good things." Here on this patio, I feel good - in the weird chirps from the marsh and in the breeze sifting through suburbia. I feel comfortable and happy and fulfilled, too, but those are results, not ends.
Mother Kirk has not escaped the Cult of Good Feeling, unfortunately. Before addressing that, one tangent: Have you ever wondered whether the phrase "worship service" is oxymoronic? Worship is for God's benefit, not ours. But what about the word "service"? Does that mean our service (servanthood) before Christ, or His serving us? There should not be a division here; Christ serves us through His Eucharistic presence, just as we serve Him in our lives and collective humility. Once the idea of service becomes solely about our being served, the phrase does become oxymoronic. A worship service ought to be about the mutual relationship between the Church and God. Lose either part of that relationship, and it will become stale. Such is why both the me-centered rock-concert-patterned evangelicalism and the doctrine-centered seminar-patterned Protestantism fail; the first forgets to worship, and the second forgets to be served.
What a true worship service practices, then, is the presence of good - the presence of God. Through fellowship, we see the good in others' lives. Through the Eucharist, that sublime fellowship with God, we taste of the good things given us by Christ. After which, we feel good - feel it in a handshake or a blessed piece of bread. There are probably parallels here to Benjamin's idea of the "aura" in artwork. In any case, "good feeling" is not primarily about how we feel, but about what we feel. If we feel good without feeling a good thing, we are disconnected, or worse, deceived. Another question, from that: have you ever heard someone say they prefer "spirituality" to "religion"? That distinction is against normalcy. Spirituality is about feeling good. Religion, properly practiced, is about feeling good things.
Hundreds and thousands of years through history, there was an understanding of "God." Until the Enlightenment, one would have been foolish not to believe in a transcendent spiritual entity governing the affairs of humanity. After the Enlightenment and into the era of spirituality, this common understanding has been lost. So, too, has normalcy. The idea that "spirituality" is something one acquires, or to which one converts, is like saying that eating is something one comes to grip with after some thinking. Spirituality - an understanding of a greater spiritual being - is the bottom rung of a healthy spirit, just as eating is of good taste. The idea of a separation between spirituality and religion is anti-normalcy; it makes spirituality abnormal (in the ab sense of "coming from," not "away from") and makes religion absurdly artificial. Does this mean that "spiritualists" are right when they say religion is "binding"? Absolutely. And thank God. I would much rather have my wayward spirit tied down to good things like call-and-response and the Lord's Supper. Let the world feel good if it wants to. The Church needs to be after good things.
"I feel so fine! I feel so elated!"
--D
| | | Posted 5/29/2007 11:49 AM - 9 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- give stars
- votes1
- email
 - sent0
|
|
