"to get behind the façade of conventional gestures and attitudes which he presents to the world, and to bring out his inner spiritual freedom, his inmost truth, which is what we call the likeness of Christ in his soul… " I like that , in other words, you have to be spiritual locator before you can be a spiritual director.
Thanks! You stirred up more thought. I like your "spiritual locator" but AHH adds in the quote you cite, "The spiritual director cannot do such a work himself.” I'm wondering whether "locating" makes our agency pivotal when "spiritual receptor" might be truer to "trusting God to do the real guiding," as Hart puts it, receiving what we cannot perceive or achieve on our own.
spiritual discoverer might be a better way of putting it. Seeing Christ in others when we would normally close ourselves off to seeing him in others. Even those who seem repugnant to us. Maybe especially them.
Your work has somehow helped provide me with a clarity I desperately needed. It's telling that, not long after subscribing to your Subtack, I had the conviction that I must deactivate my social media accounts - maybe permanently - and back away from the internet, more generally. As always, thank you. By the way, have you seen the documentary *The Social Dilemma*? I'd say it's required viewing, relative to your thoughts here.
Do you think the NT is to give us only general moral aims, such as self-giving love for others, but not specific dogma on matters of marriage, divorce, sexuality, gender relations etc? I think this is one of the more difficult issues to discuss with agnostics who live in a modern western world where the meaning of things like "love" is so different from the ancient world of the apostles. On the one hand I can understand concerns about rigid, strict moralism ... but on the other end of the spectrum we end up moral relativity that makes it almost impossible to even figure out what is sinful. Just to give one example: Jesus gets very specific about divorce in that only adultery should merit a divorce. But, what if thousands of people in Christian cultures have endured excessive amounts of abuse from a spouse because they heeded Christ's words on this?
The NT is the "canon" (meaning literally the "measure") of the Tradition, but the latter is broader in scope than the NT. I believe that the moral principles of the NT are to be adhered to (including in sexual matters), but the Tradition at its best has also applied reason in its pastoral guidance. Jesus' statements regarding divorce and remarriage were set in the context of specific first-century Judaic questions of law, and he addressed the subject by invoking the original understanding of the union of the sexes. In cases of abuse and other circumstances that make a marriage unsustainable, the NT has little to say (and marriage itself has been a changing institution in practical details since the middle ages in the West). Remarriage has been permitted by almost all the churches in certain cases (even when they have adopted the legal lingo of "annulment" of a former marriage) because some marriages simply cannot continue without causing real harm, and insisting that the persons involved should remain single isn't usually the best option. So, in short, we stick with the principles as best we can in a fallen world, and trust that forgiveness and growth in self-discipline (for example, a "remarried" couple that decides to live "as brother and sister" -- I speak from experience) are possible through the grace of God.
Excellent. This resonates so well with texts in The Philokalia - opening up and clarifying insights and guidance for us in our complex, contemporary times. Thank you.
Well this is just perfect timing. Thank you.
"to get behind the façade of conventional gestures and attitudes which he presents to the world, and to bring out his inner spiritual freedom, his inmost truth, which is what we call the likeness of Christ in his soul… " I like that , in other words, you have to be spiritual locator before you can be a spiritual director.
Thanks! You stirred up more thought. I like your "spiritual locator" but AHH adds in the quote you cite, "The spiritual director cannot do such a work himself.” I'm wondering whether "locating" makes our agency pivotal when "spiritual receptor" might be truer to "trusting God to do the real guiding," as Hart puts it, receiving what we cannot perceive or achieve on our own.
spiritual discoverer might be a better way of putting it. Seeing Christ in others when we would normally close ourselves off to seeing him in others. Even those who seem repugnant to us. Maybe especially them.
Your work has somehow helped provide me with a clarity I desperately needed. It's telling that, not long after subscribing to your Subtack, I had the conviction that I must deactivate my social media accounts - maybe permanently - and back away from the internet, more generally. As always, thank you. By the way, have you seen the documentary *The Social Dilemma*? I'd say it's required viewing, relative to your thoughts here.
I haven't seen it, but I will look for it. Thanks.
Do you think the NT is to give us only general moral aims, such as self-giving love for others, but not specific dogma on matters of marriage, divorce, sexuality, gender relations etc? I think this is one of the more difficult issues to discuss with agnostics who live in a modern western world where the meaning of things like "love" is so different from the ancient world of the apostles. On the one hand I can understand concerns about rigid, strict moralism ... but on the other end of the spectrum we end up moral relativity that makes it almost impossible to even figure out what is sinful. Just to give one example: Jesus gets very specific about divorce in that only adultery should merit a divorce. But, what if thousands of people in Christian cultures have endured excessive amounts of abuse from a spouse because they heeded Christ's words on this?
The NT is the "canon" (meaning literally the "measure") of the Tradition, but the latter is broader in scope than the NT. I believe that the moral principles of the NT are to be adhered to (including in sexual matters), but the Tradition at its best has also applied reason in its pastoral guidance. Jesus' statements regarding divorce and remarriage were set in the context of specific first-century Judaic questions of law, and he addressed the subject by invoking the original understanding of the union of the sexes. In cases of abuse and other circumstances that make a marriage unsustainable, the NT has little to say (and marriage itself has been a changing institution in practical details since the middle ages in the West). Remarriage has been permitted by almost all the churches in certain cases (even when they have adopted the legal lingo of "annulment" of a former marriage) because some marriages simply cannot continue without causing real harm, and insisting that the persons involved should remain single isn't usually the best option. So, in short, we stick with the principles as best we can in a fallen world, and trust that forgiveness and growth in self-discipline (for example, a "remarried" couple that decides to live "as brother and sister" -- I speak from experience) are possible through the grace of God.
Excellent. This resonates so well with texts in The Philokalia - opening up and clarifying insights and guidance for us in our complex, contemporary times. Thank you.
This is so good and so needed! Please make this a free post that we can share!!
DeeAnn, I've gone ahead and made it available to everyone.
Thanks so much! You are the best!
I will consider it.