Face Thy Fears

Well, hello there!

 

I’d like to welcome you–whoever you are–to my 3rd blog post!

 

The following original poem was originally written during 1/7/17 AD, and I had–as with the previous posts–originally published it on my Facebook notes page.

 

With one minor change of including a certain bracketed section at the bottom of this post instead of embedded within the abstract, the following was expressed in my original description of the poem:

 

Abstract: The idea for this poem came to me earlier today when the clouds overshadowed the place in the house where I happened to be sitting. Lately, I’ve been thinking a great deal about God: in what ways my predecessors have attempted to describe this indescribably great force, brainstorming about what metaphorical descriptions for God speak most to yours truly, and meditating upon how all these wonderfully beautiful terms that have been used throughout history simply just fall short of declaring the majesty of the God beyond ‘being’ in whom–as it has been posited before–we live, move, and have our being. Following is a short meditation on such themes, and I hope it both glorifies God and will edify all who may chance to read it.

 

Before I really go on to share the poem, I would like to share a couple retrospective notes.

Note, The First

One major reason for why I wrote the poem is because, at the time, I was thinking a great deal about opposites– or, better yet, contrasts.

Though this is by no means meant to be an exhaustive treatise on why I made that word change, perhaps I have time and space for some quick clarification.

For a couple instances of the train of thought I’m on, please consider the following two examples.

#1. One might be tempted to think that Satan [the ultimate Judeo-Christian example of evil] would be the opposite of God [the ultimate Judeo-Christian example of good], right?

• Yet, as Mr. Michael Patton of Credo House Ministries has so excellently expressed in a pithy fashion within the last point of this post, according to the Judeo-Christian accounts: Satan, initially a good creation of the good God whose loving policy it was to allow freedom of will, decided at some point after-the-fact [i.e. a posteriori] of his being created to act independently of Good Love Itself.
• Another way of getting the point across would be for me to say that, in order for it to be legitimately said that Satan is God’s evil equal, the character of Satan would need to be just as eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present as God– which, according to Judeo-Christianity, Satan is most certainly not.

#2. One might be inclined to think that evil is the polar opposite of good, ok?

• However, consider the following idea submitted by St. Augustine of Hippo Regius.
• (Now, I would like to grant that lots of wonderful folks have lots of commentary to offer concerning the following idea of St. Augustine’s [e.g. this article from Mr. Greg Koukl and this article from Mr. David Duncombe], but let’s just assume for now that St. Augustine was–at least, mostly–correct in his reasoning. So, anyway…)
• As he liked to say in a great many of his written works in a variety of ways {Chapter 11 of “The Enchiridion” [i.e. a handbook containing information deemed essential] is an especially good pithy version}, and the following is how I’d express his idea using my own words: St. Augustine basically liked to think that if all that which is good and right was like a tasty apple, then that which is evil and wrong would be like an apple that has gone rotten.
• According to this train of thought: in that it is quite tricky imagining a rotten apple without some idea of the physical traits of a good and ripe apple, so evil and wrong would be a bit like parasites that depend upon the existence of the hosts of goodness and righteousness for their ‘survival’ or ‘life support’ (if we can even call the phenomena by those awkward descriptions for the moment). To say it yet again a different way, according to this train of thought, those things which are evil and wrong would have absolutely no meaning without those things which are good and right. 
• In the final assessment: to go back to how St. Augustine might have said it (except, I’ll imagine him saying it in 21st century American English): evil is a scarcity, deprivation, or ‘privation’ of that which is good.

Now, after those parenthetical thoughts, what about contrasts?

Well, for starters: one might tend to associate virtuous notions like love, peace, joy, comfort, and justice with images of pleasant light.

Similarly, one might be inclined to associate vices like non-violent indifference (at best) or violent hate (at worst), backstabbing, misery, terror, and injustice with scenes of unpleasant darkness.

We observe that the canvas of our cosmos, and it usually seems to have far more to do with relations within and between human cultures than occurrences in non-human nature, brims to the full with such moral colors of darkness and light.

We also ask ourselves how ever this could be and how we might improve the status quo, but not even the best sages and politicians of every age were, are, or will be utterly perfect in their evaluations or plans.

Still, every human culture from any geographical location or era in time provides its “however, let’s not forget such-and-such” and its “but, let’s not lose hope because of such-and-such.”

It’s an amazing phenomenon to behold, and I can’t keep myself from overflowing with the awe-inspired thought that maybe, just maybe, these “however” and “but” sentiments from every human culture are ultimately messages–whether they be exhortations, encouragements, or both and even more–from the Multifaceted-Yet-United Sacred Mystery (my way of expressing the Trinity metaphor/doctrine for God, but you can use “The Sacred”, “The Numinous”, “The Divine”, or other such terms if they would in some way be more helpful to you).

It may sound rather odd, but I have deliberately tried not to believe in and for the best, the good, the true, the beautiful, and the holy. Yet, no matter how hard I try to be ‘realistic’ (for lack of a better term for this discussion) in an oftentimes seemingly depressing cosmos, I keep coming back to join my dear human comrades from all places in every era.

I am not here–or in this post as a whole–intending to solely offer some specific apologetic for Christ-ianity, but I am intending here to make a rather broad anthropological appeal to ‘homo-religiosus’ (e.g. consider such interpretations as this Atlantic post and this Randal Rauser article which quotes the brilliantly thorough scholar Ms. Karen Armstrong): I am inviting you to join hands with myself and a great multitude of ancient sages from every discipline, for these ancestors of ours were so daring in their ‘visions’ as to suggest that–in the space-time long run of the cosmos–the triad of evil, wrong, and indifference/hate will lose whereas the triad of good, righteousness, and concern/love will win.

Yet, just as it is often the case that sickness must precede re-covered health, or as forest fires precede tremendous growth of vegetation, so I would submit that it is often through darkness of intellectual uncertainty that we arrive at certain bright and peaceful rest.

In like fashion, inasmuch as the Judeo-Christian set of literature concerning the Old Covenant overflows with metaphors about God’s nature being concealed by clouds (e.g. consider these for starters), I would moreover submit that it is quite likely through contemplating the Sacred as the Mysterious Cloud-Rider that we can begin our awesome journey of gazing ever more deeply (in increasing ceaseless wonder) at the Metaphysical  Daddy of Bright Clarity.

Note, The Second

Some terms featured in the poem below, I suspect, are not ones that most folks happen to use on a daily basis. Considering that, I have provided links on those words to information which I think is relevant and I hope is helpful. I’ve also provided links to references I had been meaning to make at the time of its original Facebook publication.

However, let me see if I can provide a brief(ish?) explanation for some of my central reasoning concerning terms needing further citations below.

To begin with, Mrs. Dorothy Sayers has become rather famous for her phrase about how, in contrast to the claim that Christ-ian doctrines are ‘so yesterday’ or boring, all one needs is to look with an open and critical mindset to arrive at the excited perspective that the “dogma is the drama“.

Drawing upon the same essential notion, after a cool quote from Mr. Herman Bavinck (about how “Mystery is the lifeblood of dogmatics”), Mr. K. Scott Oliphint generously shared the following thought that I dig with my whole being: namely,

“Any thinking about God, any theology, that does not have the lifeblood of mystery flowing through its veins will be, by definition, dead. Far from attempting to contain God in a logical box, true and lively thoughts of God will always, happily, and majestically, bump up against his mysterious incomprehensibility. It is that very incomprehensibility, the glorious and magnificent mystery of God’s character, that should motivate the praise and worship of every Christian.”

This train of thought is what I tend to call ‘the WOW factor!’.

Without it, expression of spirituality through religion is quite likely going to be boring– but more importantly, I would venture to suggest, it would be wrong.

With it, however, religion is not only going to overflow with excitement, fun, peace, grace, and joy– but, what’s more important, it will also be oh so right!

To this purpose, I would like to–if I can–tie together in a neat bundle a summary of theological thoughts from Christ-following intellectuals and mystics throughout the ages, thoughts attributed mostly to Mr. Hegel, and the phenomenon I like to call ‘the WOW factor’: ready?

The first stage would constitute our ‘thesis’ perspective and would therefore include ‘positive/cataphatic/analogical/straight-forward vocabulary’ pertaining to God, in which we–through established and passed-on tradition–say things like “The Holy One is a Rock”. But, hang on: the Sacred isn’t equivalent to rocks, right?

After a great deal of thinking and re-contextualizing our ‘small picture’ ideas or interpretations of God within ‘the big picture’ of God-in-reality, we come naturally to our ‘anti-thesis’ stage of perspective– which would therefore include ‘negative/apophatic/mystical vocabulary’ with relation to communicating about God. {Note: By ‘negative’, I don’t mean intentional pessimism toward the concept of the Holy One. By ‘apophatic’, I don’t mean outright denial of the possibility of God-in-Reality. By ‘mystical’, I don’t mean any sort of hypothetical approaches to the idea of the Sacred that consist in far-fetching, melodramatic, indiscriminate, and basically balderdash thoughts, communications, and actions. Rather, I mean to build upon the idea that God is ‘other than’–say–rocks.} Thus, we adjust our minds and rhetoric to say that “The Holy One is not a Rock”. But wait a minute! If we all are convinced there is quite likely some great Logos/Verb/Actively-Ultimate-Super-Rational-Force that helps this Cosmos make some semblance of sense (otherwise, we would be dwelling within utterly senseless Chaos), would we not be involved in a huge mess of things if we couldn’t actually talk about this Actuality?!? Quite right!

This is where we reach the stage of much-needed healthy compromise: the ‘synthesis’ platform/perspective, where ‘positive/cataphatic/analogical/straight-forward vocabulary’ and ‘negative/apophatic/mystical vocabulary’ join hands as one force in praise of the Numinous. Here, we’d need to adjust ourselves to think, speak, and act according to the following fashion/framework: “The Holy One is and is not like a Rock.” Here, you see, God is on the one hand quite like a rock (esp. in the sense that “You can count on God to be constant, dependable, and unchanging with regard to exhibitions of luscious love, proud protecting, and generous graciousness”)! But, on the other hand, God and rocks don’t quite compare (esp. in the sense that, while we may say–and, I suspect, quite rightly so– that God is ‘in, with, and under‘ all forms of matter within created nature, we must at the same time keep in memory that God is still greater than all forms of matter: inasmuch as matter in general or in specific are not ontologically equivalent to God). In this sense, whether we like to think it is so or not, or whether it is easy for us to think about this in daily life or not: how we humans perceive and discuss God does seem quite convincingly to be–in fact and in deed–as a paradox.

Yet, from this rather humble ‘synthesis/compromise’ perspective, the awesomely neat thing is that the rationale doesn’t end with some sort of self-centered depression (about God as Paradox) where one might say “Aww man, why even try thinking or talking about God if I can’t understand or define Him?…no…Her!…no…It!…nooooooo….*crying face emojis here*” 

Instead, this rationale rather means to convey a rather positively awe-inspiring end goal that has no time limit(s)– it means to provide a God-focused joyful excitement about God as being Always Greater, to the point that there is no end to discovering, contemplating, and dialoging about this God’s splendor! To express the same point in a more simple phrase: “The Holy One is and is not like a Rock– The Holy One is beyond!“

With all that having been said, I hope you’ll enjoy…at long last…

 

The Poem

 

Seek ye the Lord of Darkness, and Light shall soon follow;

Accept thou the Lord of Pain, and Health shall be not far away;

Surrender ye in awe-struck humility to the incredibly Ineffable,

and comforts of bold Clarity ye shall soon borrow.

 

Seek ye the Lord of utter Silence, and glorious Sound shall be thine;

Accept thou the Lord of Terror, and perfect Peace shall not flee from thee;

Surrender ye in apophatic intellect to the tremendously Transcendent,

and cataphatic Immanence shall grant thee confidence divine.

 

Seek ye the Lord of Sorrow, and uplifting Joy shall be thy bosom friend;

Accept thou the Lord of Death, and abundant Life shall not leave thee;

Surrender ye in reverent respect to the sacred Mystery,

and cares existential thy Help shall also bear unto the end.

 

As surely as the caterpillar to butterfly doth morph,

as the night to day doth change,

as the valley to mountain doth transform, and

as the winter’s chill by and by lets in summer’s warmth,

 

So shall we–must we–bravely expect that God’s good shall defeat execrable evil,

that jubilant justice shall conquer inimical injustice, and

that–within us, yea, even us–luscious love shall vanquish the injurious insults of indifference.

 

My elders, my peers, my children, my kinsman one and all:

face thou thy fears, and thy fears shall in turn fear thee.

 

 

P.S. Note, dear reader, that when I say things like “Lord of Darkness” above, I don’t mean that the God I believe in is creepy–but that God is present in the darkest of times and soon shines light upon the cosmos: it is, per my hope and argument, inevitable that light should arise from a context of darkness.

 

 

To the greater glory of God & to your edification!