When we talk about our different conceptions of
the Divine, we tend to speak in positive terms. That is to say, we
talk about what we can say the Divine, Light, God or whatever you
want to call it is, what
characteristics it has.
This is understandable. This is how we usually think about things in
life, and if we try to list everything any given thing isn't
it tends to take a lot more time than describing what it is.
However, in the
case of the Light, perhaps we should talk about that more. That's why
I'm going to try doing so – talking about what I think the Spirit
is not, as I conceive it and in my experience. This is actually a
tool, a theological approach, that is as old as organised
Christianity. Apophatic theology,
or theology of denial, also known by the Latin expression via
negativa (“negative way”,
perhaps better thought of as “route of negative expression”, was
applied by some of the Church Fathers based on an intellectual
tradition that long predates Christianity. It reached its
non-Christian philosophical peak among Pagan Neo-Platonism, a school
that flourished for over a century in Roman (and later Byzantine)
Greece – until Justinian cracked down on Pagan thought as well as
Pagan religion.
It is associated
with mystical approaches in both Christian and non-Christian usage,
often relating to the idea that it is easier to know what the object
of mystery is not than it is to know what it is. In the case of the
effective founder of Neo-Platonism, Plotinus, the object in question
is considered impossible to think of while there is any other thought
in the mind. To that end, one approaches it negatively, so as to
remove all the things that are not The One
(as they termed the object of their mystery, though it is not a
God-figure) so as to approach apprehension of it. The Christian
approach of the early Church Fathers who advocated this approach is
similar, and is well represented by the writing of Tertullian,
“that which is infinite is known only to itself. This it is which gives some notion of God, while yet beyond all our conceptions – our very incapacity of fully grasping Him affords us the idea of what He really is.”
Or we might
consider the later description by St Cyril of Jerusalem,
“For we explain not what God is but candidly confess that we have not exact knowledge concerning Him. For in what concerns God to confess our ignorance is the best knowledge.”
Or even St
Augustine of Hippo, who described God as “other, completely other”.
It is today the pre-eminent approach to theology in Orthodox
Christianity, and it is far from unknown in the Western Church.
Which is all to
say, this isn't some random idea I had. I'm just saying it may be an
interesting approach to our diversity of belief – a view shared by
the “Theology Think Tank” that worked on the issue at the behest
of Britain Yearly Meeting's “Book of Discipline Revision
Preparation Group”.
I have a sneaking
suspicion that we will find some extra things in common if we try
this approach, especially if we avoid specifying that we don't think
it's what some other Friend, or group of Friends, thinks it is. So,
let's avoid things like “creator of the universe”, or anything
involving “Jesus of Nazareth”, or “spirit of Nature”. If
you're going to have a go at this, try to focus on what
characteristics you
think it doesn't have.
That isn't to say
we won't have any disagreement, and I expect many of you will take
issue with some part of what I say. That's fine – I believe in
theological pluralism, and disagreeing isn't a problem. We need to
share our different conceptions and experiences so we can all have
the fodder for our spiritual development. So, that said, here's what
I think the Light (or the Divine, or…) isn't…
For starters, it
doesn't judge. It does
not arbitrate and settle punishment on offenders. Such consequences
as they are for wrong action, whether they be practical or spiritual
(and you might like to look at my earlier post
on the idea of sin
on that score), are a natural consequence that doesn't require any
agency. This is, of course, a departure from the common understanding
of the Christian God, but it is not entirely strange to Christian
theology – and very much not strange to some non-Christian
approaches to God or God-like figures. True, there are bible passages
that describe God as a judge, but there are also bible passages that
tell us to stone adulterers, or even that simply looking at a woman
with desire (presumably with the exception of your wife) is adultery
of a sort. I know that many of my Quaker readers identify as
Christians, even as I do not, and attitudes to the bible will vary,
but it is hard to square biblical literalism with the experience of
liberal Quakerism. So, not for the first time, I will not assume that
contradiction from scripture guarantees that Christian Friends
disagree with me on this one.
Whatever the
nature of the Divine, my experience and conviction tell me that it is
not able – or perhaps not willing – to cause gross physical
impacts directly in the world we know, nor to interfere with free
will. It may guide us, if we listen, or influence us subtly even if
we do not, but it does not cause accidents, nor cause or cure
illness, nor yet decide who wins the lottery. This is, I think, the premise of a piece of my verse-form written ministry, No Hands But Ours.
Now we get on to
some that I know will be more controversial for some Friends. Perhaps
they might even be seen as “wedge issues” among liberal Friends,
though I see the opening of discussion of that difference as an
opportunity, not a threat. It is only through communication and
acknowledgement of difference that we can reap its benefits. You may
think that this wedge will be between Christian Friends and those who
do not take that identity, or between non-theists and others, but you
may be surprised how many people agree or disagree contrary to what
you might expect from those identities.
The Divine does
not have identity. It is hard to point to what it is in my experience
that convinces me of this, but it is clear to me. It does not have
personality or personhood, does not have desires, does not have will.
Its reflection in us, the working of the light, leads us, drives our
own desires sometimes, but it has none itself. It is deeply personal
in its working in and upon us, but it is, in itself, entirely
non-personal.
It is not
constant, unchanging, or eternally static. It may well be that it is
eternal in existence, or it may not be, but it has changed and
evolved even as we have. Perhaps there is some unchanging essence at
the heart of it, but the heart is not the whole.
It does not care
what we believe. What we do, perhaps, in as much as it cares about
anything – there's a little mental gymnastics here due to the
limitation of language, a little cognitive dissonance in conjunction
with the point about personality and will – perhaps even why we do
it, but what we believe, especially what we believe about
it, is not important to it at
all.
That is what I
can say now, easily – this isn't an easy thing to do, but I have
found it fruitful. I hope you have found my efforts fruitful, and I
hope even more that your own will be, too. What can you say the Light
isn't? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.