Today’s readings: Proverbs 8, 22-31; Romans 5, 1-5; John 16, 12-15.
The major claims on God made by Christianity in its early centuries provoked controversy and violence, and eventually led to the Council of Nicaea convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 to settle the issues and formulate the faith we still profess 17 centuries later.
Soon after the election of Pope Francis, Mark Etling wrote in the National Catholic Reporter that we need a more up-to-date affirmation about God. We need a new Nicaea, he said. “Our new and rapidly changing understanding of the universe and our ever-deepening awareness of the beliefs about God in other religious traditions” challenge the faith we profess, probably both in essence and formulation, he wrote.
Where the understanding of God is concerned, there are passages even in the Old Testament that seem to imply doubt as to whether God answers our prayers. Those who composed the Psalms we have in the Scriptures and which we still treasure so much, knew very well that God does not respond instantly to our cries for help. Many people find believing so hard, yet many others find it soothing and take comfort in making their trust rest ultimately on this being we recognise as God.
Modern philosophers and theologians grapple with the limitations of language and the senses in identifying what constructs religious experience, not to mention ‘neurotheology’ which probes its biology. Colum Kenny, in his book The Power of Silence, writes that nevertheless “people continue to have faith, even if that faith is blind”.
Whether that is admirable or meaningless depends on the standpoint from which one stands in judgment. Dealing with how people in prayer and reflection grasp some ultimate truth that transcends relative existence is not the simplest of tasks. Neither can it abrasively be labelled as self-delusion or wishful thinking.
Today we have unsettled theological issues different from those that tensed early Christianity when doctrine was still in formation. More than simply whether God is one or three, the issue is to what extent can humanity further ignore the transcendent and yet find peace and fulfilment. In modernity, the elimination of God featured as a condition for mankind to achieve total freedom. But is that truthful to our humane calling?
Thomas Aquinas, in advancing what have always been known as proofs for God’s existence, knew very well that they only point to the mystery, and he was aware of their limitations. It is a fact even today that to the educated mind, much of what is asserted in our preaching may seem empty and meaningless.
As Diarmuid O’Murchu writes in his book God in the Midst of Change, “We need to outgrow the time-limitations we have inherited so that our spirits – along with our minds and bodies – can soar towards more expansive horizons where we can embrace the empowering potential of deep time.”
God is greater than religion, faith is greater than dogma, says Rabbi Abraham Heschel. Religion, whichever religion we speak of, does not solve or dissipate the mystery. It only keeps pointing to the mystery. That indeed is the trademark of any authentic religion or authentic faith.
Jesus in the gospel today points to the Spirit “who will glorify me”. He refers there to grace which may somehow allow us to escape the predicament and to know what otherwise would remain dark.
In his book Life of Moses, Gregory of Nyssa from the Eastern tradition speaks of the experience of Moses. His words are very revealing on the way God’s mystery can be contemplated: “He still thirsts for that with which he constantly filled himself to capacity, and he asks to attain as if he had never partaken, beseeching God to appear to him, not according to his capacity to partake, but according to God’s true being.”
In an age we consider secularised, we are becoming ever more aware of the basic affinities that are common ground to many religions. All religions, including those we term pre-Christian or non-Christian, carry a wisdom and a mystical tradition that enrich humanity rather than make it poorer.