Not quite gone! (Y-not question the Sunday Readings)

by Ynot , Sunday, May 20, 2012, 11:26 (365 days ago) @ CathyT

Thank you Tony for what was, to me, a somewhat unusual and even a bit provocative interpretation of the Ascension. Thank you also for linking us to the article by Damian Howard SJ, who also insists that the Ascension should be given more significance than we usually assign to it. However, I must admit that your reflection left me somewhat perplexed. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but you seemed to be saying that Jesus has gone, the Spirit has come, so why do we focus so much on Jesus?

Cathy, it does seem strange that the Ascension is regarded simply as an event that we remember, without much questioning as to what it means and where it fits in the whole picture. We are prone to repeating the formulas without acknowledging that they mean little to us. I had come to this position in my own reflections when the Jesuit article arrived, making this same point. However I found the further interpretation raised too many questions about loyalty and obedience to a king, something that doesn't cut ice these days.

First of all, while it is true that John's Jesus says that it is better if he goes so that the Spirit can come, other Gospel passages tell us of Jesus' promise to be with us always. I certainly have a strong sense that Jesus is still alive and still with us. My favourite form of prayer is to sit down (or I may already be sitting, maybe even on the train or something!) then focus my mind on Jesus' presence and consciously spend some time with him, as with a close friend. It may involve (silent) words or may just be a time of quiet companionship. It's certainly very real to me!

I hope I am not seen to be criticising anyone's form of prayer. There is nothing wrong with focussing the mind on Jesus' presence to consciously spend time with him. However, I don't do that any more, and I am wondering about what is opening up ahead. It looks/feels like another stage of growth where I know myself as christened, as an agent able to act in his name – which for me seems to be a step further than being 'close to Jesus'. We'll see, I hope.

In any case, surely we still need to focus on Jesus and what we can learn about him - or at least, what the evangelists thought was important enough to tell us - about what he did, what he taught, how he lived. As I understand it, the coming of the Spirit was not intended to bring something new into the world, but rather, it had the effect of empowering the first followers of Jesus, and subsequently all of us, to live in the way that Jesus did.

John is very insistent that the spirit will make plain everything that Jesus had taught; the spirit of itself will not give new revelations. I think we are supposed to become active in our own right by the power/strength/light of the spirit. We too easily use the phrase 'to live in the way Jesus lived'. We don't do this at all, in fact, although there is always someone trying to imitate his way of living literally. What we should do is live by his principles of truth, justice and love – which is what you meant I think.

The important point I'm making here is that I don't just see Jesus as a great teacher, someone who left us a body of teaching which was recorded in the Gospels and which is a guide for us to live by. Rather, as I see it, Jesus shows us how to live through his whole being, through the person he was. Nor does this mean that he was just some sort of role model from the past: he can live within us now, if we are willing to be open to this.

“He can live within us now.” I find it is enough to live my life in all its modern complexity inspired by the spirit that Jesus 'sent', the spirit that hovered over the waters before time began, the spirit that inspires all the good endeavours, all growth, all progress. This seems to be a more direct way for me to engage with my community, without the imagined presence of Jesus of Nazareth sort of standing by like a coach or a mentor, or even like a friend. But that's just me at this time.

Having said all that, I can still agree with you, Tony (and Fr Howard) that the Ascension is perhaps a much more significant moment than we have usually assumed. But I would not see it as being such a decisive break as you do.

Well, Cathy, that's something we can go on discussing, because it does seem to me that the gospels present it as a decisive change in the mode of relationship with the divine.

Rather, it was the transition from the time when Jesus was physically present in the world, to the time when his presence could only be made known through his followers. Jesus' seemingly strange statement - that it was better for the disciples if he left them, because the Spirit could not otherwise come to them - still makes sense in this context. Jesus' physical absence meant that the disciples could be liberated from fear and dependency and could themselves become like the leader whom they so admired.

Pretty much a major break in their rhythm of life, but we have tended to bridge it backwards.

In fact, I often think that, when Jesus physically left the world, he put himself in a powerless and vulnerable position: his work in the world could only continue if and when there were those able and willing to let him work through them. It is still up to us, as you say Tony, but we are not alone.

Those able and willing to let him work among them. Or to allow his spirit to be their life principle urging them to tackle the job at hand, without looking back to that image we have of Jesus.

BTW, on this topic of "myth" which came up in this thread, it would be good if we could come up with another word other than "myth". In common parlance in our society, "myth" either means something which is widely believed to be true but in fact isn't, or else just a fanciful story, usually from an ancient culture, like the lovely story which Billy recounted. Even if you know that "myth" in the Biblical sense doesn't mean that, it's still hard to completely disassociate your mind from that more common meaning. Not sure what other word we could use though.

The trouble is that we can only share our understanding through words, and its not easy to find another word for what is among the most ancient, most deeply embedded elements in human culture – everywhere – the mythical account that embodies inexpressible truth. But let me say again: we live by myth and symbol. There are many words that get devalued – like love, rights, peace, democracy – and we don't look for new words but try to remind ourselves of the noble truth that is still there. I concede that 'myth' has been badly abused till it is used in a sense opposite to its original meaning. But I find the frenetic anxiety whenever 'myth' is used in its original and still valid meaning, as if truth were being betrayed, quite troublesome.

BTW, someone might like to get the Weather Bureau to stop this mythological nonsense about sunrise and sunset. Surely everyone knows that the transition from darkness to daylight results from the spin of the earth, and what occurred this morning at 7.18 EST is that, here in Melbourne Town, we crossed the shadow line at the enormous speed of about 1400 km/hr. Sunrise – Bunkum!

Thanks for your careful comments.
tony

'TonyL
"A post is a free gift, and it will go where it pleases."'