We need clearly to distinguish between, on the one hand, the "psychotherapeutic" aspects of spirituality and religion; and, on the other hand, participation.
Romantic Christianity is primarily and essentially about participation, not pleasure or therapy.
(Although Romanticism without Christianity usually devolves into pleasure-seeking and/or therapy.)
Therapy focuses on emotions and feelings; while participation is a fact about reality.
Participation is the fact that we are involved-with reality; including that our "inner life" is involved with reality.
In other words; we are not separate from reality, we are not cut-off from reality, even in our innermost thinking and feeling - even though most modern people feel that they are cut-off; even though we wrongly believe that we are observers rather than participants in "the universe".
So, participation means that we Just-Are (like it or not, know it or not, want it or not) participants in divine creation.
The felt-need of Romanticism is to be aware that we are participants in reality.
Thus, Romanticism is a good impulse for Christians - it is spiritually positive - because it is the aspiration to become more spiritually-developed, more God-like in our consciousness of reality.
**
Psychotherapy is not only distinguishable from Romanticism, but also the two can be separated and dissociated; so that we can have one without the other: we can have therapy without participation, and participation without therapy.
Obviously, there can be therapy without participation - and this is the normal, mainstream and dominant form of therapy in modern Western civilization.
(It is also what historically happened to Romanticism when it rejected Christianity - we got the pleasure-seeking of Byron instead of the participation-seeking of Coleridge; and a century later, we got the therapeutic intent of Jung instead of the participation-seeking of Steiner and Barfield.)
For instance, people can be made to feel happier or less-miserable, by distraction from reality (as by the mass and social media), or by suppression of awareness (by inner-materialism and bureaucracy).
Distraction-from and suppression-of awareness of the fact of participation both diminish participation and are anti-Romantic.
And there can be participation without therapy.
This happens when recognition of our involvement with reality makes us feel more miserable here-and-now.
This might be through a recognition of evil in our situation; or by recognizing the tragic quality of a life that ends with death (tragic even when death has "lost its sting" from resurrection); and of a mortal earthly world of endemic degeneration, disease, and loss.
In sum; Romanticism is not some form of pleasure-seeking; but is instead a recognition of the benefits, indeed I would say necessity, of consciously recognizing the fact of our continuing-participation in God's created reality.
4 comments:
I've been coming back to the thought recently that 'living in the Holy Spirit' is a solution to alienation and a way of achieving participation but it wouldn't necessarily involve therapy. Therapy that would benefit 'the flesh' yet not actually be of the Spirit would be a wrong turn. Living in the Spirit but suffering in the flesh from the entropy of the world would be the right way even though the therapy seems to offer a better immediate return. Living in the Spirit and achieving the best form of participation may involve eschewing the therapeutic in order to carry one's cross. I'm wondering is there a cross over between what is meant by 'living in the Holy Spirit' and the Romantic Christian way, and direct-knowing/heart thinking?
@Like - Just to be clear. I am not criticizing therapy as such. I'm not really saying anything about the role of therapy.
I am instead distinguishing therapy from participation - because I think that some people don't understand this distinction.
Romantic Christian has also a mainly therapeutic or curative or liberating connotation that is different from its participative connotation. I find this confusing. For instance you state Tolkien and Lewis (and a lesser degree Chesterton) are said to be Romantic Christians in the participative sense, part of the development of Romantic Christianity, but they were also in a therapeutic/curative sense through their art, projects and vision for modern man. Romantic Christian therapeutic, curative culture and vision seems to be taken up by some just mainly because of its therapeutic, curative potential. So what term could distinguish the Romantic Christian therapeutic, curative culture/vision/movement from the Romantic Christian primarily participative sense? They don't seem to be the same yet they overlap somewhat?
@Luke - I don't think that there exists any kind of systematic/ objective check list for such generic discernments as you request. It would need to be discerned person by person, instance by instance.
Post a Comment