We cannot develop a habit of "following Jesus", any more than I could develop a habit of loving my wife/ kids/ siblings. Insofar as it is a habit, it isn't love.
This is because the best analogy/ metaphor for the Christian life (the best, because literally true); is that of family and love.
Family and love are primary - anything else (including habit) is secondary.
Habit is indeed an aspect of System, and there are various aspects of System when it comes to family: one habit is rituals.
(The relevant analogy here is with church rituals - gathering, prayer, sacraments etc.)
Ritual can certainly have a valuable role in sustaining family love. For example taking meals together, going for walks, family holidays, and celebrating festivals such as Christmas. Such habits can be helpful in service to family love.
But these rituals are just a potential basis for love, each particular ritual is inessential - and can indeed be counter-productive. Thus; it is vital to subordinate the ritual to the love - ritual must serve love.
So that Christmas rituals (cards, presents, the meal etc.) must Not (as happens all too often!) become so complicated, rigorous, effortful; that they lead to argument, accusations, resentment...
The ritual has become counter-productive; the attempt to develop a habit of family love has led to its erosion.
This happens with churches - and indeed with any kind of organization that uses System to pursue higher goals. For instance, when the correct conduct of ritual becomes the primary mode of evaluation of the higher goal, pursuit of that higher goal becomes impaired and may be prevented.
As when the "objective" behaviour of a church ritual dominates Christian evaluations; meanwhile Christian motivation (being subjective, hidden) is in practice ignored (or mere "lip service" paid).
To clarify the metaphor: ritual is an aspect of System - and churches develop Systems that are intended (initially) to serve and sustain the Christian life of love: the aim of following Jesus Christ to resurrected eternal Heavenly life...
Church Systems then try to develop "good habits"; but the tendency is for habits to become primary - and this usually whether their in-practice effect on love is helpful, or an obstacle - much like those overcomplicated and intrusive arrangements on Christmas Day actually lead to the opposite of what is hoped-for and intended.
The fact is that habits in particular, and System in general, are just means to an end; and that end must come first.
And unless the end of Christian life is made explicit and distinguished from the habit/ System - then it will get squeezed-out; and "Christian" churches will become (have, mostly, already-become) hostile to Christianity.
2 comments:
I've always been against birthdays because I found in myself and others a disturbing brattiness about birthdays. But my mom always prioritized remembering the birthdays of her children and grandchildren and trying to do something special. I realized recently that birthdays are actually like personal mother's days, for a mom to celebrate her child on a personal level, and as a society, it's good to instill a celebratory association with the idea of birth.
I think what you are describing here is true, that too often the events that were merely means to a good end become invalid when pursued for their own sake. But I also think it can be turned around pretty easily when people realize their mistake and repent the motives.
@Lucinda - I agree that at least some of these things can be turned around, and quite easily - assuming people are genuinely motivated.
In practice, the people who make (e.g.) rituals into something destructive, are often very easily offended and annoyed by anything perceived as a criticism.
And when it comes to institutions, vested interests and hidden agendas are often a solid stumbling block on amelioration.
For example, in my 30+ years as a university teacher, I saw a simple and moderately effective habit-training system with some space left for education; made into something that is so complex, intrusive, inclusive, coercive, and materialistic as to exclude education (all-but).
This, because the Real agenda behind the changes was managerial (thus governmental) surveillance/ control (i.e. integration of universities within the totalitarian mega-state) - and Not At All educational.
Post a Comment