Tears and Fire: Recovering a Neglected Tradition II
[Continuing the post from September 2, 2008]
Ephrem, the fourth-century Syrian writer, understands both the type and the incarnation of this kenosis:
Just as the bush on Horeb bore
God in the flame,
So did Mary bear
Christ in her virginity [. . .] .
A virgin is pregnant with God
and a barren woman is pregnant with a virgin
the son of sterility leaps at the pregnancy of virginity. [2]
While the tradition of kenosis as a personal striving of each Christian has been kept alive in some areas of the Christian East, in the West it has surfaced primarily through Christology. In some spiritual movements, it has been seen chiefly as an idea of imitation, that is, imposed or self-imposed acts of abasement. This artificial, often merely external practice is not the tradition of tears. Its practice stems in part from a confusion between 'the world' as a set of human attitudes, and the material creation. To reject 'the world' does not mean rejection of the creation.
The tradition of tears is concerned not with imitation but with the indwelling of the kenotic Christ, an indwelling that is in part hidden in us at creation, in part manifest when we are willing to be open to God's kenotic life, making room for it to pour out through us. If you put an open glass of colored water under a faucet and turn the faucet freely on, the water in the glass will soon run nearly clear.
[2] Sebastian Brock, tr., Harp of the Spirit (London 1983) pp. 62-3.
Ephrem, the fourth-century Syrian writer, understands both the type and the incarnation of this kenosis:
Just as the bush on Horeb bore
God in the flame,
So did Mary bear
Christ in her virginity [. . .] .
A virgin is pregnant with God
and a barren woman is pregnant with a virgin
the son of sterility leaps at the pregnancy of virginity. [2]
While the tradition of kenosis as a personal striving of each Christian has been kept alive in some areas of the Christian East, in the West it has surfaced primarily through Christology. In some spiritual movements, it has been seen chiefly as an idea of imitation, that is, imposed or self-imposed acts of abasement. This artificial, often merely external practice is not the tradition of tears. Its practice stems in part from a confusion between 'the world' as a set of human attitudes, and the material creation. To reject 'the world' does not mean rejection of the creation.
The tradition of tears is concerned not with imitation but with the indwelling of the kenotic Christ, an indwelling that is in part hidden in us at creation, in part manifest when we are willing to be open to God's kenotic life, making room for it to pour out through us. If you put an open glass of colored water under a faucet and turn the faucet freely on, the water in the glass will soon run nearly clear.
[2] Sebastian Brock, tr., Harp of the Spirit (London 1983) pp. 62-3.
posted by Maggie Ross at 6:26 am
1 Comments:
confusion between 'the world' as a set of human attitudes, and the material creation. To reject 'the world' does not mean rejection of the creation. Amen.
I wish we could come up with another word for "the set of human attitudes." Mammon is good but sounds religious now and so discarded. Any suggestions from Tradition?
Post a Comment
<< Home