Phase 1: Make broad, sweeping statements of such forcefulness and cocksure-ty.
Phase 2: Think better of it and start apologizing and making retractions.
So with that said, onto Phase 2.
Is it mysticism that I have a beef with? Probably not. It just happens to be part of the collateral damage.
What is it that I have a beef with?
1- The exclusive portrayal of God in his soft, likable form.
Is it politically incorrect to say that God is angry? That he is pretty damn pissed off and that his anger results in sending people to Hell? It may be crudely expressed in such terms but it is Biblical to express it this way. Mystical writings like the one quoted in my previous entry almost always present God as friend, as lover, and so on and so forth. It's correct, don't get me wrong, but it is incomplete. What is lacking is the portrayal of God as Judge, as Executioner, as King, as the Sovereign Lawgiver. What does the word "majesty" mean? "Awesome"? What do those words really mean? Where is God's grandeur? God
2- Mysticism is not for the tough.
Mystical writings all too often leave me with the sense that there is little grit or toughness, little meat to the soul of a mystic. I get the sense of a soul that's been fed with cookies, fruit tarts and ice cream. So much of mysticism is "God, I wuv you lots and lots and lots. Aww, you wuv me too?" That strain of thought does appear in the Bible but in particular places and portions, a few Psalms, an allegorical reading of the Song of Songs, and a few more. But the kind of religion, the kind of faith that I want is Pauline, Jesus-ist. I want a gritty, hard-nosed, dirty faith. I want a Rocky Balboa, "It ain't about how hard you can hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep on going." kind of faith.
I see that kind of faith in Paul. "I've fought the good fight. I've run the race." I see that faith in Jesus. "Father, not my will but thy will be done." I see that faith in missionaries like Jim Elliot.
What mystic tells me that? I have no interest in a soft, contemplative life.
Reading Ayn Rand completely overturned my idea of the heroic. Even before I started this blog, I've been planning for awhile to write about "heroes." I don't have a single hero who is considered a literary figure, even though I'm a lit major. I find nothing worthy of emulation in them. What is heroic? I agree with Rand, the capitalist, the corporate tyrant, the entrepreneur, the inventor, the pioneer, that is heroic. Personally, the athlete is heroic in his endurance of pain, of strife, of his ability to work on days he doesn't feel like it, to rise to the occasion and perform when others would crumple and fail. Those are on my list. And to me nothing is more heroic among men than the figure of the father, the patriarch and provider, the one who is willing to endure and tough out any situation for his family.
I don't find that in mysticism. I find softness. I find a lot of navel-gazing and crying. There's no crying in baseball.
Now, I wonder how much of my distaste for the mystical is influenced by my gender. Do I believe that sentiment and feeling are the realm of the feminine and that the realm of action and doing is masculine? No, I don't particularly feel that way though observation may hint at that, I don't think it is anything intrinsic but rather cultural and learned.
I do believe in male responsibility though. I believe men have a responsibility to rise up and lead by example and by word and that it is biblically mandated. Men, I believe, will be held responsible for their actions or inactions in fulfilling their duties come judgment. Adam was punished for Eve's deception because that was his jurisdiction. He was to guard her and protect her from that. He had no one to blame but himself.
How does mysticism fit into all that?
Well, I don't believe I've ever read a mystic talk about responsibility. And if I believe that men are defined primarily by responsibility, well I guess then that makes mysticism at best, non-masculine and at worst, emasculating.
Man up!
No comments:
Post a Comment