Once we got beyond the basics, the conversation with the woman who’s joined the team of one of our regular events went in an unexpected direction as she described the comfort she’d derived from visiting spiritualist gatherings, and how Christian friends had reacted (she said) with horror. We discussed why someone might want to engage in spiritualist activity and what the problems might be from a Christian point of view. She agreed that there were possibly malign things lurking in the hidden world, but stressed how her experience had been positive. ‘You’re not going to hear this church announcing “And now we’ll have a séance”’, I said, ‘but I’m not shocked’, which I’m not.
Curiously the readings at mass the day after were the
consecration of the Temple from 1Kings, and Christ’s critique of the concepts of
clean and unclean practices in Mark 7: these led into a reflection about one of
my recurring themes, the contrast between two opposed approaches to religious
life. The first is that you ring-fence the sense of the divine with rules and
structures to prevent it being contaminated by the profane world and eventually
eroding altogether; and the second that you use the sense of the divine to find
its presence elsewhere. In my own Bible reading in the morning, too, I found
the Lord assuring Moses in Exodus 4 ‘I will be with your mouth and teach you
what you are to speak’, encouraging a degree of trust in God which I fall short
of all too often. ‘He reigns’, I concluded to our small congregation, and if he
reigns there is little to fear in the sometimes wayward spiritual practice we
encounter in others. One of the issues, in fact, with seeking solace in talking
to spirits is that it’s based in a basic lack of trust in God that we are
called to grow away from.
If we are critical of what others do, we must surely
know that they aren’t simply going to change as a result of something we say.
Nobody is going to blink at us and reply ‘You know, I never thought about it
like that. I’m going to stop from this point forward’ – although they might, at
some point distant from now, shift their ideas and reflect that perhaps we were
right. If we don’t expect change in that way, it raises the question of what we’re
doing when we react ‘with horror’ at someone else’s behaviour. I think it may
be that we fear that if we don’t rebuke the sin, God will blame us for not
distancing ourselves from it. The sin will contaminate us and we need to
protect ourselves, to signal to God that we want nothing to do with it, to put
up a protective barrier between us and it. It’s not the other person that’s
uppermost in our minds.
Now, there might well be particular sins that beset us and from which we do need to flee. When Christ says to St Peter ‘get behind me, Satan’, it’s because the Apostle is raising something that’s a genuine temptation for him: it’s actually important. Knowing this is just proper spiritual self-awareness. But that’s not the other sinner’s fault; most of the time it’s not at issue (I have no desire whatever to contact my long-dead relatives); and our words are seldom as much to the point as the Saviour’s.
No comments:
Post a Comment