Upcoming events
Recent blog posts
- Peace Church Weekend Away, 4-6 July 2008
- Evening conversations on (re-)reading the Bible - part 2 - What is this text?
- Evening conversations on (re-)reading the Bible
- Do you want Lockheed Martin to run the next UK Census in 2011?
- Putting it Plainly...
- Spirtuality
- Amazing
- Peace church en masse weekend away - interested?
- Peace One Day - 21 September, 2007
- Pilgrimage Walk No 4 - Hailes Abbey, nr. Cheltenham
Active forum topics
Events
| « | August 2008 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Ekklesia News
Who's online
Newsletter
The Monastery Pt. 2 - Engaging Emotionally
In wanting to take the 5 participants further in their spiritual journey at The Monastery, Abbot Christopher spoke to several of them about 'engaging emotionally' with the issues of Christian faith being presented to them during their soujourn at the abbey. His intention was to get them go further than merely an intellectual engagement that remained in the head, and to start to consider what it might be like if they were to take the matters being presented as true for them. How would it be for them if they were to engage emotionally?
In our discussion afterwards we had several different reactions to this suggestion. One reaction was of alarm at the potential for manipulation that could result. In such a cloistered environment, far from the normal experiences of home, work, etc., with the intensity of the times of silence and the psychological power of the liturgy, the chapel environment, the intense discussions, the spiritual mentors, etc., surely it's inevitable that the men would have some sort of spiritual experience during their time in the monastery. But how valid could such an experience be in an environment created specifically to facilitate spiritual experiences? It was suggested that this kind of experience would be little more than a self-reflection; that prayer in this environment would not return more than one's self-expression of one's desires and hopes and angst; that there would be no response from any metaphysical 'other' because the participants could only percieve their self-reflection; and this suggested both no need for any metaphysical 'other' and no reality of any metaphysical 'other'.
These are very important observations and reflections on the psychological, emotional and social dynamic of the 5 men's 40 days in The Monastery. Psychology and experience and the sociology of religion are very important issues to be aware of and to understand fully in the context of any faith community, especially the intensity of The Monastery. The dangers of manipulation and coercion are very real.
There were several things about the conduct of the monks in The Monastery that impressed me, though.
Firstly, the call to engage emotionally was not at the expense of intellectual engagement. The 5 men were still taking regular studies of the Bible and the monastic Rule during which questions and conflicts were encouraged and engaged with. They were not asked to leave their brains outside.
Secondly, in situations where people are being psychologically manipulated there is frequently a single protagonist in a position of power who exercises control over the participants through loaded situations such as meetings where the group dynamic can overpower the individual. This didn't seem to be so in The Monastery. The Abbot certainly had a position of authority, but his excercise of his position was not authoritarian. In fact he seemed to me to be an extraordinarily gentle man.
Thirdly, the expression of the monastic tradition was remarkably understated, and the 5 men were always left to make up their own minds. This could be seen in the very different approaches taken by each of them. Peter, the poet and retired teacher, was very reserved, clearly rather sceptical of what he was being presented with, and though he was encouraged to explore further was not coerced to move further or faster than he was prepared to. Nick, the post-grad researching Buddhist theology, had serious intellectual and philosophical objections and these were respected as the monks engaged with him where he was at. Big Tony, on the other hand, said he really wanted to 'get this', whatever 'this' was that he saw in the lives of the monks, and he was encouraged to move on with that.
Fourthly, with TV cameras following you round, it's hard to see how the 5 men could not be able to stand back and observe themselves and the dynamic of the place.
Peace Church
October 7, 2005 - 5:37pm
I have not seen this episode but am very interested in pyschology and sociology of religion. First up I understand what you say Joe about normally one person manipulating but I think how groups work and function, things which come to be accepted as normative or true, or right or the good can also be oppressive and manipulating (not neccessarily manipulative) to members of the group leaving them feeling marginalised, an outsider, as if they do not really fit, that they are somehow less than, without it being articulated. An example would be a single mother in a church where no-one says stuff, indeed no-one means to be anything other than supportive and yet the culture of the community leaves those kind of feelings in her. I think we may need to be careful in our own community - I know I have my middle class norms, values, assumptions, ways of doing things, that could leave others who join with some of those feelings.
I have been asking for a long time now how one can know or experience 'God' outside ones own constructs, needs, tribe, drives - whether 'God' is not actually just a way of us coping with the world. I may be reading you wrong, but as I understand what you are saying that these insights are really important but it doesn't take away from faith in an external 'God?'(which incidentally when push really comes to shove I believe in too - but maybe that is my pyschological needs?!!) How do you marry the insights of pyschology and sociology of religion with 'knowing God'
Tim
October 16, 2005 - 9:38pm
Yes, you're absolutely right about the oppressive potential of group dynamics, Tim. Thanks for reminding me of that. I guess what you're indicating is about overt and covert or concious and subconcious manipulation. You said about being 'careful' on this track in our own community...how do you think we can guard against 'institutional manipulation' whilst still being an 'ekklesia'? What do you think are the paths for holding the tension of being an open community that celebrates individuals but is also specific and focussed, as a local church might be? Can a group of people be inclusive of persons and exclusive in its direction/mission at the same time, do you think?
On the questions in your second paragraph about marrying the insights of psychology and sociology of religion with faith in an external 'god', I'm not sure I've got a fully thought out and definitve answer, so sorry for that. I do have some thoughts and some experiences which are meaningful for me, though, if that's a helpful contribution to the conversation.
Similarly to Jon, I probably start my belief in an external god in natural revelation (from what Loius said Jon talked a bit about his connection with god/God through nature during your evening at the curry house - v. sorry I couldn't be with you, sounds like I missed a corker of an evening!). My science degree, much to my surprise, rather than destroy my faith actually gave me a greater marvel in the Universe and I see many hints at teleology and design. My experience is that sociology of religion poses a far more fundamental challenge to religion than that posed by science.
After that, the challenge is going from a very generalised 'god' to any specific portrayal of God, such as the Jewish/Christian/Islamic monotheistic God, the Hindu Gods, the Ancient Greek Gods, the more contemporary pantheistic portrayals, and so on. It's at this point that I find the questions posed by sociology of religion most acute. If you're born into a Roman Catholic Christian social context, how can you be anything other than a Roman Catholic Christian? I find that a very tough question to answer, and yet there are many people who don't fit that aphorism. For every person there are many social spheres that overlap and many psychological, social and biological factors that will affect their responses to those influences. How or why any individual reacts in any specific way is chaotic, in many ways - on the macro scale, clear patterns and trends can be seen; on the micro scale, who knows what's going to happen! Sarah and I have been married for coming on 10 years. I know generally what her approach to life is pretty well and can frequently second-guess her reponse in a given situation fairly accurately, but she consitently surprises me.
I have plumped for a Christian understanding of God. How I've come to that point is both complex and simple. I was born in Britain in the 20th century to middle-class, educated, white Christian parents I was biologically related to, so there's much about my life and beliefs that could easily be described as predetermined. The trouble is, I'm not a simple product of social forces. In many ways I am not an 'average reader' but have taken the time to become an 'informed reader.' I have invested and am investing the time and energy to educate myself about life, reading and listening to a wide cross-section of views (that could always be wider) and trying to understand the macroscopic patterns and trends as well as some of the micro-scale detail. I'm trying to temper any Pavlovian psychological and sociological tendencies I may have with my crical faculties, critquing from within (self-reflection) and critiquing from without (reading/listening to reflections from outside myself and outside my social context ).
I'm not sure any of that helps, and I feel like I want to talk a lot more about this, but don't have the words to voice my thoughts. I guess my overall perspective is that I have heard and rumninated on (some of) the insights of psychology and sociology of religion, and I need to carry on listening to and reflecting on them. I must go on suspecting the idols of naive faith. But I need to be able to retrieve something of value, because I can't shake off a belief in an external God, when push comes to shove. So I find my self using the suspicions to tear down the idols in order that the symbols might live.
Recent comments