A few days last week, it was so cold outside I didn’t want to breathe. When I did, it was like inhaling icy steel nails, piercingly cold. I did, however, keep on breathing. I kept on breathing even when I had to crawl through our trunk and across the back seat to kick open the iced-over door from inside. My self-control was incredible, but even when it hurts, You Gotta Keep Breathing.
Stupid, I know, but I’m actually after a different paradigm. To invert this picture: Prayer, I believe, is just as essential as oxygen in cold weather. But when prayer gets painful, hard to maintain, do I continue? Inhaling icy air can be physically painful. Prayer is different—I am “discharging” something, exhaling, but when prayer becomes like icy air, or like pulling splinters, what happens then?
The redemptive essence of prayer is not, as some would maintain, the mere act of “breathing out.” Spiritually speaking, prayer is more than baroreceptors reacting to dangerous levels of CO2. In other words, it transcends catharsis—something beyond the emotional relief brought on by a good cry.
We may as well say the main benefit of breathing is the “religious” exercise of the diaphragm. Rather prayer, like an elliptical orbit, is only as strong as its central object. Reflexive, undirected prayer, unless accompanied by a heart in earnest, does no one any favors. As Shakespeare put it, “My prayers go up, my thoughts remain below. Prayers without thoughts never to heaven go.”
To return to the original “breathing” parallel: I’m convinced that failure of the prayer-reflex, like a flat-lining EKG, is an indicator of dire things. A non-breathing person will likely soon be pulse-less. A person without a pulse is called a corpse. Likewise, a person without a prayer life is, at the very least, clogged and asphyxiating at heart, descending toward spiritual unresponsiveness.
The analogy would of course need to be tweaked to really hold water, er—air. Oxygen would have to be a transformative entity, capable not only of life maintenance but something like cell-regeneration as well. Not to mention conversation. And breathing, I suppose, would have to be voluntary.
But there’s another sense in which, I think, the analogy does fit. Prayer, or the lack thereof, does ascend continually. There’s a sense in which we’re all, at all times, emitting a scent, if you will, either of spiritual deadness or of life. Don’t confuse this idea with some kind of new age “aura”—I’m simply saying that our spirits emanate life signs—soul diagnostics for those who can read them. Our souls are “beating,” whether they are in relationship with Christ or not.
We could say the “prayer” of a prayer-less person is not nonexistent but empty, like oxygen-less breath, carrying disintegration through the bloodstream instead of life.
I’ve come a long way to say it, but the crucial question is whether there is life in your spiritual breathing? And when will I learn, finally, to keep "breathing" through adversity?
I'll take frozen oxygen over an iced-up soul any day.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Breathing Through Adversity
Subscribe to:
or 
or
6 comments:
"Blue signal" - "keep alive signal;" hey, take the analogies where you find 'em.
>>...there exists a permanent connection between the mundane and the spiritual and that therefore the trick is not so much to make the connection, but to use it. That seems much easier.<<
I like that thought. As Christ said, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Earth is awash in a higher reality than meets the eye. And the "connection" has been made - established by Christ; the real work is done. The question is whether we're willing to bow the knee.
Jung, eh. I haven't read him...yet. Was he a Christian? ;)
Before I start in I've got to say, Roy, that you get the award for "best contributing author" here. Your comments are consistently eye-opening and Nice.
Now, seeing that neither of us claim to know much about Jung, this conversation could be remarkable mostly for its ignorance. :) Yet still I plunge on...
My knowledge of Jung is restricted mainly to the "body type" stuff ("mesomorph, endomorph," etc.)from my Intro to Psych days, which we infinitely wise coeds found pretty laughable. I know that explaining human physicality was probably not his true forte, though.
In terms of what makes one a Christian, I'd offer an explanation that appears fairly simple at first glance. A Christian is one who has "believed in his heart" and "confessed with his mouth" that Christ is Lord (Romans 10:9) - and lives a life that demonstrates the reality of the professed belief. This is utter commitment to Jesus, actuated by a transformed life.
From what I know of Jung, I doubt he was a Christ-follower, but I have appreciation for philosophers who find their way clear to "leave room" for faith. In the last couple centuries, this has become increasingly unhip in so-called enlightened circles. My wish, of course, would be that Jung, and others like him, could have exercised the "freedom" they allowed others, and actually traveled into faith...rather than merely delineating its edges.
As to Jung's idea "that we are predisposed to religious thoughts and feelings," I surely agree. But not, probably, in the same way that Jung would have presented the idea.
And now, back to the library...
hmm.. I would say that Jung's fascination with metapsychology and his interpretations of the human psyche would leave little doubt upon who (or what) reigns superior over his intellect. The highly charged spiritual milieu (both father and grandfather were pastors) he was raised in was of great influence to who he became. In using the word spiritual, I am refering to metaphysical concepts not necessarily pertaining to orthodox Christian beliefs which were propounded (I am unsure about whether directly or indirectly)in Jung's early childhood years. Jung's terminology and abstract concepts about the human psyche is thoroughly mystical, and extremely seductive to the mind of an intellectual (especially one who is a closet mystic).
Of particular interest would be his view upon his father who was a struggling pastor. Jung is extremely empathatic towards his father and his 'spiritual impotency' for his father seems to be daily battling for his faith. I was deeply moved when I read of it, and grieved.
In the context of the definition put forward above by ariel, I would most definitely say Jung wasn't a Christian although some of his psychological precepts were subtly grounded in Christian theology and literature. The operative word here would be 'conflict' I think because when you read his work, you find that his enthusiasm in psychoanalysing Christianity hides traces of personal discontentment, rather than pure scholarly pursuit.
Without meaning to sound obtuse, I wouldn't say he left 'room for faith'...in fact, Jung was rather passionate about his beliefs (which has a sense of great 'mistrust' towards God which most probably conceded upon disturbing experiences he had in his childhood). His perception towards symbols of Christianity (the cross and the fish)is almost blasphemous and his interpretation of the Manhood of Christ is most definitely a notion that would be abhorrent to Christians.
I am not very familiar with Jung's primary work of literature, but if you're looking for a good introduction to Jung, "Anthony Steven's on Jung" is excellent. And for some heavier reading (thus, leading to heavier consequences ;)), Jung's 'Psychology and Religion' will prove most insightful into this forray of philosophical views upon Christianity. Jung's "Memories, Dreams and Relections" is also a good book, not only as a (further) introduction to Jung but.. just a good book in general. *grin*
Jung is really someone wonderful to study about, for the sake of acquainting oneself with a man of a great history, of a great mind and of great ideas (albeit relatively disconcerting ones, especially for Christians). There is this excerpt that I find most charming.. and most precocious for a young boy but.. nevertheless, deeply insightful.
"Often, when I was alone, I sat down on this stone, and then began an imaginary game that went something like this: 'I am sitting on top of this stone and it is underneath.' But the stone could also say 'I' and think: 'I am lying here on this slope and he is sitting on top of me.' The question then arose: 'Am I the one who is sitting on the stone, or am I the stone on which he is sitting?' This question always perplexed me, and I would stand up, wondering who was what now. The answer remained totally unclear, and my uncertainty was accompanied by a feeling of curious and fascinating darkness. But there was no doubt whatsoever that this stone stood in some secret reationship to me. I could sit on it for hours, fascinated by the puzzle it set me."
-taken from Memories,Dreams,Reflections
Jung, in my personal opinion, would be a terrifying example of a Christian *stupid grin* with his intimidating philosophy, convincing at some aspects till one is susceptible to hold it in high astute ... but I am reminded that despite such attainment of knowledge, it is all still meaningless. (Ecc 2:12-16)
I thoroughly admire those who continue to press on in their pursuit of secular knowledge because if they are anything like me, they must be terrified when faced with such surrealism in modern knowledge.
But honestly, at the end of the day (and as corny as this sounds, I will still say it): For "Whom have I in heaven but You? and earth has nothing I desire besides you." (Psalm 73:25)
And as always.. someone will have something to say.. I'm sure Jung has alot of things to say about my shallow, simplistic and naive view of God.
But still, honestly, at the end of the day (though in between it I may flounder), I have this on my tired mind:
I dont care.
*beaming smile*
love,
beaming smiley (anonymous just doesn't do it for me anymore *stupid grin once again*)
P/S I find this remark rather true yet uncomfortably ironic.. I mean considering that we live in a post-modernistic age that is.
"From what I know of Jung, I doubt he was a Christ-follower, but I have appreciation for philosophers who find their way clear to "leave room" for faith. IN THE LAST COUPLE CENTURIES, THIS HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY UNHIP IN SO CALLED ENLIGHTENED CIRCLES."
Thanks for an extremely thoughtful, informative post, "beaming smiley." And c'mon, this anonymity of yours is going to have to change! "Anonymous" was clearly not going to cut it. And frankly, I'm not convinced that "beaming smiley" is a suitable handle for one of your attainments. So fess up on the identity issue. ;)
>>I find this remark rather true yet uncomfortably ironic.. I mean considering that we live in a post-modernistic age that is.
"From what I know of Jung, I doubt he was a Christ-follower, but I have appreciation for philosophers who find their way clear to "leave room" for faith. IN THE LAST COUPLE CENTURIES, THIS HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY UNHIP IN SO CALLED ENLIGHTENED CIRCLES.">>
I could hardly agree more. I didn't pause to think about the full irony of what I was typing. As you said, uncomfortably ironic...
Post a Comment