If, in a simplified way, if salvation is the purpose of this mortal life, then theosis is the meaning of it. In other words: theosis - i.e. becoming more divine - is what we are supposed to be doing on a daily basis.
But what this means is far from clear. To say that Love is primary, and we should become more loving is true; but somehow too abstract - and in a way too "static": it doesn't provide much of an idea of what we ought to be trying to do now - this minute, in a few hours; and over the next days, months, years.
I find that creativity is as aspect of love, an overflow of love - such that God's divine creation can be understood as a manifestation of God's love.
But what is creativity as we know it and do it in mortal life?
Well, there are serious problems with the way we think about creation.
Two of these problems are that - first - we we regard creativity as associated with specific activities - especially the arts - which means that creativity is defined externally, by human institutions.
Secondly (and linked to this); we regard this externally-defined creativity as needing a minimum threshold of ability and achievement.
Take the example of poetry. Poetry has long been socially defined as a creative activity, intrinsically - we assume that "a poet" is creative. Traditionally, the status of being " a poet" must be conferred-upon a person.
However this "poet" status requires some external and "objective" criteria to be satisfied...
Publication of your poetic work - perhaps specifically publication by a high status publisher, or attracting a paying audience to readings, or being employed as a teacher of poetry - are examples of how the claimed status of "a poet" is accredited.
These are assumed to be measures of writing what is regarded as real poetry (e.g. a shopping list or a bureaucratic memo does not count as "a poem"), while also achieving the minimum necessary poetic ability.
Thus (traditionally) "a poet" is one who has produced work of a type and standard worthy of being called poetry.
This is because writing poetry is so easy and so common that otherwise the status (and it is a status, a socially sanctioned role) of "poet" could, and probably would, be claimed by something approaching the majority of the population!
But this is to treat poetry as a social function and privilege - not as a spiritual activity.
Insofar as poetry is treated as a profession, it is not a valid mode of theosis.
However; the alternative to having external standards of definition for poetry and poets; would seem to be reducing the whole things to meaninglessness and futility. If poetry is "just" whatever-people-say it-is, and poets are whoever wants-to-claim-the-name, then the concept has no function.
The answer seems to be that poetry as a creative spiritual activity needs to be removed from the external and public sphere of definitions and evaluations.
And when this is done, poetry ceases to be regarded as an intrinsically-creative activity: such an understanding means that poetry is no more creative of-itself than any other activity a person might engage in - such as preparing food, gardening, or humming a tune.
The evaluations and definitions of spiritual creation then become a matter between the individual person and God - sidestepping society and institutions altogether.
Of course, people can and will be dishonest with themselves, will fool themselves - but then this is subject to spiritual feedback.
By pretending to be creating but not really doing it, people are only harming themselves - spiritually.
If someone desires theosis, desires to participate in divine creation; then it is up to that individual - and nobody else - really to do just that; to the best of his knowledge and ability; calibrated by the most fundamental discernments of which that person is capable.
With spirituality and "this world" we cannot have it both ways.
If poetry is being done for spiritual reasons, as an aspect of theosis; it ought to be kept separate from the social system that defines and evaluates poetry - and which allocates status on that basis.
The "spiritual poet" is engaged in activity related to participation in divine creation - and there are no external objective sources that have the authority to determine such matters over and superior to our own best evaluation of the matter.
A spiritual poet is someone who finds that doing something he himself honestly regards as being rather like what-gets-called poetry, is a good way to pursue creativity and theosis.
Such an activity will not be recognized or rewarded socially, nor will it be accorded a higher status than any other of the thousands of alternative ways in which a person might be creative.
What then is the reward?
The reward of creating is twofold: immediate and post-resurrection.
The immediate reward is that creating is satisfying, profoundly satisfying, to a Christian - because by it he joins with God and Jesus Christ in the work of divine creation.
But such rewards are temporary in this mortal life; so creating is not cumulative (or not necessarily, and seldom cumulative) during mortal life.
I mean that the benefits of theosis do not (or only seldom) accumulate incrementally during mortal life: we don't get more-and-more "divine" as mortal Men by our creativity.
That is: Creative accumulation is spiritual, not material.
What happens is that we do get a benefit from each and every creative activity, and it does build-up; but lasting benefit comes after death if/when we are resurrected.
The more creatively we have lived as mortals, the more divine shall be the form in which we are resurrected...
Just as it true for Loving - which is not separable from creating: the more loving our lives, the more divine we shall be as we commence eternal life in Heaven.
No comments:
Post a Comment