|
Ian Anderson, the genius of Jethro Tull,
introduced me to the concept: "In the beginning, man created
god." According to James (as I read him), Tull's music might have
guided me in the right direction, for each psyche creates its own concept
and "figure of God" (263). There is, after all, much to be
accomplish in this ever-changing world of saints and sinners - humankind
desperately needs the diverse gods it creates to justify and empower its
diversified and conflictual will to do. When gods no longer serve, they
are discredited and discarded in favor of other, newer, and more useful
ones.
On the level of the individual, there are therefore perhaps as many figures of gods as there are god-fearing people. Groups formed around similar figures of god(s) (no matter whether their origin are found in the individual or the group) become institutionalized sects or churches. Figures of god(s) conflict, and people conflict. Conflict arises mainly because individuals or religious institutions who use their god(s) in particular ways cannot find use for the god(s) of others. This being the case, those persons or groups who need a monarchical tyrant of a god will find no use for the ritualized and transcendent god of the "paltry" (264). Like Darwin's players, gods and religions also find themselves in a survival contest of the fittest, evolving from one form to another, changing, and dying out. James notes this interesting progression: Religion conceived within the psyche of the individual, once fostered and excepted by the few, becomes a recognized sect. Established religion, seeing no need for "heresy," persecute the sect to either extinction or antidisestablishmentarianism. Time is also an ingredient; Over time, those of the sect begin to live only vicariously in the shadow of the original visionary, codify their beliefs, achieve experience-stifling orthodoxy, appreciate corporate and dogmatic dominion, then become the persecutors of those with fresh visions (unless, of course, such visions can be exploited by the corporation) (269ff.). On the other hand, fruits of individual religion are "liable to excess," including the practice of saintliness and/or good deeds. Balance is what is demanded of the virtuous saint, if his/her saintliness is to be counted as virtue (by James, and most others). Unbalanced virtuosity, which originates in narrowness of interests, is dangerous, and may lead to extremes. Devoutness, for example, if unbalanced may lead to "theopathic" fanaticism (extreme loyalty): One is so spiritually minded that he/she is of absolutely no earthly good. Likewise, unbalanced purity leads to seclusion and self-worthlessness; tenderness and charity ("genuinely creative social force") to parasitism or being a "dupe" of the object of the charitable act; asceticism to corporeal mortification (271-287). No extreme of poverty ("liberation from material attachments"), is mentioned; but poverty is recommended by James to the English-speaking people (291). The question then becomes "does religion stand approved by its fruits, as these are exhibited in the saintly-type character"? The answer is, "Yes," as long as saints' outlook and interest range is not too narrow. Saints, after all, can be "damnable" (292). It is therefore most wise for mental health, James seems to advise, for the religious, the saints, to become adaptable to new theological ideas as the need arises, keep a wide range of interests, and thus avoid internal conflict and external scrutiny (266). Let your god evolve a little!
One of the greatest satisfaction that I have experienced this week has been from using the word antidisestablishmentarianism in a research paper. I learned the word in 5th or 6th grade, maybe. It was thought by my peers to be the longest word in the English language. I worked hard to learn to say it. As I was groping for a word to fit into "extinction or ...," that word flew from my mind like a thunderbolt, through my nervous system, and onto the keyboard. With great satisfaction, I wondered afterward if I was being antidis-establishmentarianistic by using it. There, I've done it again. After all, antidisestablishmentarianism seems to be what these lectures are all about - the eternal battle and replacement of the "figures of gods." Bellah did some work on this subject, tracing the sociology of religion from what he supposed were its primitive roots in 5 steps. (1) primitive: "to be a person is to be religious," (2) archaic: gods take on personality and hierarchy, (3) historic: monotheistic - god is transcendent, (4) early modern: reformation, human-centered, (5) modern: rationalized, differentiated. Fowler adds another, (6) post-modern, his public church concept. These stages seem to me to be developmental and progressive - they might even be compared to faith stages theory (although the connection was not made at the time I studied them). I think James implied that all these models are simultaneously in use and at work in religious individuals, yet I might append this by limiting the potential for use of models to the level of the stage (model) achieved, and previous stages. Using myself as an example: I feel pretty comfortable about where I am in stages of faith. I am equipped through developmental theory with the knowledge of where I have been and where I want to go. Where I am does not prohibit me from regressing for a time, if I need to use some tidbit from a past stage to either justify my position or deal with somebody who I believe to be at that stage. If for instance I am disputing a theological point over an electronic bulletin board (as I do), I might feel no prohibition from reaching back to "mythic-literal" for a "proof text." In the other direction: Last night there was a class exercise that I could not successfully participate in unless I forced myself to construct the short-term reality of a higher stage. It was a stretching experience, but like elastic, back I went when the exercise was over. In linking James' ideas of use with my own experience of faith stages, I can't help but consider him to be a pioneer of faith development theory based on this series of lectures. To take it one step further: If we synthesize religious development, faith development, and James' evolution, and apply these to the nature of the "figures of god," we may visualize a serpent with its tail in its mouth. Imagine the public church/conjunctive/inter-individual "presence" (god) succeeded by a primitive/intuitive-projective/self-deifying "figure" not so unlike the panentheistic god of Matthew Fox or the pantheistic gods of Sallie McFague (so popular now among intellectuals, becoming the current winner(s) in the battle of the gods, proclaimed so not only by religious American Indians, eco-feminists, wiccans, satanists, new agers (etc.), and some professors, but by the masses out of their desperate need. The earth as the body of god, and each dear soul a cell in that body! That sentence had something in common with the word antidis... - both are long (I cut the sentence in half through editing). But going to such lengths shows me that I am really trying diligently to make all these incredible ideas fit into MY concept of deity, MY need, for MY use, just like James said I would. <Back Top^ |