Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary

This very Franciscan saying (not attributed to Francis, though) describes a problem I've had all my life--when is it "necessary" to use words and are they all that helpful anyway. Ham used to speculate that writing was something we did for ourselves, helping one to focus and clarify one's thoughts. As a family systems therapist, I think of words as filling the "space" between actions and an attempt to manipulate others. As a communications therapist, I think that words are like arrows shot into the void--at best accidentally hitting some "target". Given that Francis spent much of his time in contemplative solitude in rude hermitages, I bet he didn't center his life on words.

Yet, Francis is known even secularly for his writings--among the first extant ones in the "Italian" vernacular. He used words to preach to the birds and the wolf as well as the people. Perhaps his speech was simply an integrated part of his actions, an unconscious action like lifting one's feet when running.

I think I am uncomfortable with words because they often do not point to mystery. They often appear vain, pointing to my intellectual vanities rather than to the glory of God. This gets paradoxical again--speak without "speaking", simply revealing. Perhaps words are okay as long as they are art, pointing to the golden shekinah that expands from the icons to fill the temple. Yes, that seems to fit: when they reveal God's presence they are golden and when they reveal my emptiness they are drab.

Uncertainty and Mystery

As I was watching and reverencing the elements of consecration during the Great Entrance of the Divine Liturgy on Sunday I suddenly was aware of the meaning of Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty. An odd thought, you may wonder, given the context. Actually, I was remembering a discussion with Dr. Hawksteeple as to exactly when the elements are transubstantiated. He had made the wonderful point that it was very Western to ask "when"; he offered the uncertainty that the transubstantiation could have "already" occurred by the epiclesis.

The problem is the paradox I create by trying to apply a (Western) filter of sequential time to an eternal event that is viewed through transubstantion. This is similar to the paradox Heisenberg uncovered, except he was thinking of location--that hitting an atomic particle with a photon (to "see" it) changes the position of the particle, so I can not be certain where it is even when I "see" it.

Part of my "breathing with both lungs" is learning to view the world in other ways than the Western way of locating things in four dimensions, which frees me to "see" the eternal in this world. I find this difficult because I don't like to feel uncertain about the world I construct around me--a poverty, no?

Eternal and Everlasting

The difference of emphasis between Eastern and Western Christianity can be seen in little things. For example, in the Western Rites we pray

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit,

as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.

whereas in the Eastern Rites

Glory be to the Father + and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,

now and ever, and forever.

It may seem a small thing, the difference between the last two phrases, yet it shows the difference in emphasis. The Western focus on beginning, present, and future, with its implicit notion of sequential time--everlasting life. The Eastern focus is on the now as it is across time, as we experience it in Heaven--eternal life. Both are important for Christians, as we contemplate God both incarnate in time and beyond time as a mystery.

O Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth! You are everywhere present and fill all things. Treasury of Blessings and Giver of Life, come and dwell within us, cleanse us of all stain, and save our souls, O gracious Lord.

Primo unctio et postea

Yet another newbie blogger; this one is about the balance and tension between "Eastern" and "Western" Christianity; analytical and emotional mind; Occidental and Oriental; Mythos and Logos (but not "or"). How do we live in balance between the personal search for holiness as we encounter the mystical and yet receive the benefits of the shared wisdom of the Logos ("the kingdom of God is within/among us"). I am recently a Byzantine Rite Catholic, a long-time computer professional and licensed marriage and family therapist, as well as a "recovering" intellectual (not yet a "barrel rider", though).

I'm not interested in psycho- or theo-babble. This is hard work, staying in balance between spacious language and living the Gospel of Jesus. Right now I'm meditating on the motto "Primo unctio et postea speculatio" (First holiness, then learning), and the Franciscan ideal of learning. Francis was wary of the Universities and their appeal to the independent authority of "learning" (nice discussion of the medieval appeal to authority) that was pitted against the authority of the Church and the "Holy Roman Empire". He had been a participant himself in the bloody fruit of this struggle. He became more keen on taming Brother Ass, perhaps because he had realized the emptiness of "learning" outside of his relationship with God. How can we, besotted with books and webpages, stay on our via crucis while partaking of the experience of others?