As
we inch toward the Ascension and Pentecost, three ingredients are thrown into
the Gospel mix: Jesus speaks of love and links it to obeying His commandments
and promises the coming of the Spirit. In a freedom-sensitive setting, meaning
that we abhor anything that restricts our personal freedom, love and
commandments are analogous to the immiscibility of oil and water. Love
liberates whilst laws limit.
Further
to this seeming mutual exclusivity between love and obedience, St Paul also
added that the "letter kills, whereas the Spirit gives life" (2Cor
3:6). Take for example, the phenomenon of SBNR which stands for, "I am
spiritual but not religious". This personal choice takes issues with
organised or institutional religion, i.e., with structures that embodies
commandments, rules and laws. Religion, instead of facilitating, is construed
as obstruction to the genuine and interior experience of the Divine.[1]
This
attitude that the "letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" has
far-reaching consequences and is rather pervasive. In the aftermath of Vatican
II, it served as a principle for the interpretation of the Council which, for
many, is known as the "spirit of Vatican II". This "spirit"
empowers a reading of the Council's documents that goes beyond the restriction
placed by the text. For some, it was an essential licence that enabled a Church
sorely in need of renewal to enter into conversation with modernity. For
others, the result has been rather devastating because the attempt to modernise
has somehow detached the Church's mooring from the living Tradition that has
come down to us from the Apostles.[2]
If
we accept the rift between letter and Spirit as true, then not only are both
texts and laws inimical to the Spirit, they would also naturally be considered
as "harsh". In what way are they looked upon as unbending? Well,
whether one likes it or not, what is characteristic of both texts and laws is
that they are marked by boundaries or limitations. Our notion of mercy,
currently unbridled, operates outside the limits of conventionality.[3]
In other words, if both texts and laws were bound by conventionality, then to
borrow a phrase from Frankie Valli's Grease: We take the pressure and we
throw away conventionality belongs to yesterday. In all things
considered, novelty is the default position. Anything old should be consigned
to the dunghill of antiquity.
So,
how can we make sense of love as obedience to commandments and the promise of
the Holy Spirit. They made sense to the Lord for otherwise He would not have spoken
of them together.
First,
conventionality is not a relic of the past. In fact, the past, present and
future are connected in an organic whole when we speak of chronological time.
The wisdom is not to hold on to the past alone. That would be nostalgia and
therefore a relic. Neither is it to live for the future alone. That would not
be living at all because one is afraid to put down roots for fear that the
shape of the future we invest in is not a continuation from the present.
Finally, focussing on the present only will subject us to the tyranny of the
immediate which may make us miss out on the ordinary. Imagine posting on social
media and, almost immediately, waiting for the "ding" of affirmation
to chime. In the process we fail to be present to what we have at the moment.
As the contour of our relationships is shaped more and more by technology, the
tendency is also to dismiss the past. We easily forget the past because we are
buffeted by the tyrannical winds of relevance, running from the fear of being
left behind by whilst chasing after the latest fad or fancy.[4]
Conventionality
is not a restriction from the past. In fact, love and commandments speak to the
totality of our being. We remember the past so that our present can be open to
the future. The letter, laws, commandments, even though they tend to hold or
mould us in a particular pattern, they are, in fact, functioning as a memory of
the past in which the wisdom of God has been present. We remember because God
has always been there for us even if we do not feel His presence.
Secondly,
be aware that both the Spirit and love, rather than obedience to commandments,
appeal more to us because of our bias for the personal and the interior.
Obedience to commandments connotes observance in the sense that one can observe
the rules and regulations without ever being converted. The phrase "follow
the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law" seems to indicate a scorned
slavishness which is antithetical to the notion of freedom so prized by
individuals. In fact, the mere observation of the laws or commandment is disdained
as hypocrisy and nothing frightens modern man more than being judged as
inauthentic.
In
order to fully function according to the Spirit and to be loving, it seems that
one needs to break free from the restrictions of commandments. Sadly, the
notion of unbridled mercy is tainted by this bias. To be merciful, it would
appear that one needs to break the laws. Perhaps, one can appreciate why the
Pharisees are an easy target for scape-goating. In our own time, in the
conflict between "conservative" and "liberal" Catholicism,
there is no prize for guessing who the Pharisees are in this equation. But,
love for it to be fruitful and true, it is bound by conventionality. It is not
as unfettered as free love was made out to be. If it were as unrestrained as we
believe it to be, then who is to decide that paedophilia should not be accepted
as a valid form of love. Love is love and it does not matter whom it is
directed to, except that instinctively we wince at such a suggestion.[5]
We
suffer the imperfection of our present world and yearn for a better one. We are
searching for ways to make it a more loving one. But, the true nature of love
is never arrived at at the expense of "commandments". It is not
rooted in spontaneity but in its directedness. Love is more than just a
description of being. It is also directed through our actions--not just any
action but moral actions. But these actions intended for the world are not solely
about the present world. Like the Babel, we may be building a future that will
never come to fruition because heaven can never be attained in a temporal
world.
Recall
the Easter Vigil. At the blessing of the Paschal Candle, when the current year
(of the Lord) is traced, these words are proclaimed: Christ, yesterday
and today, the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. All time belongs
to Him and all the ages. To Him be glory and power through every age and
forever. Amen".
Here,
we recognise that time is not just an organic whole. Time too has a direction,
but not simply one that moves towards the future. All time belongs to Him and
thus, time has as its final destination: Jesus Christ, the Lord of time. It is
within the context of moving in His direction that the Spirit is promised. He
will be our guide through time so that we can work out our salvation in the
present without neglecting our past in order that we may enter the next world
and not just a future world.[6]
Finally, if there is
a lesson to be learnt about the present world we live in and our desire to make
it a better one, C. S. Lewis in Mere
Christianity says this: “If you read history you will find
that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who
thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think
of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this".
Thus, if we are keen to change this world, it would do well for us to keep in
mind that the promised Spirit is not given for that purpose. Instead, the
Advocate’s primary task is to assist us in the journey to the next world. It is
only with eyes fixed on Jesus and
a life of eternity can we hope to be effective in this world’s transformation.
[1] The is a certain distance from traditional faith whereby
belief is placed in this undemanding Deity who exists solely to solve problems
and also to make people feel good. Only a cruel God demands anything of us.
[2] A
hermeneutics of discontinuity that views the Church as pre-Vatican and
post-Vatican.
[3] Since
a substantial number of marriages fail, should we not relax the choking hold of
the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage.
[4] Know
of any broadcast media interested in reporting yesterday’s news? It should be a
“olds” media instead of a “news” media. In fact, internet portals exist to be
at the cutting age of news as it develops.
[5] The
idea that all you need is love is naïve to say the least. “If loving you is
wrong, then I don’t want to be right” is not a 100% guarantee of personal
contentment. In fact, unrestrained promiscuity brought more dissatisfaction
because it is ruled not by love but by lust. “Fools in lust could never get
enough of love”… Black Eyed Peas.
[6] I am
quite certain that some people do not believe that there is heaven. Any
description of it is chrono-spatial in the sense that we describe it using
earthly and temporal terms. Thus, the future which is yet to materialise is the
closest we get to eternity. However well we can define heaven, the reality will
always exceed our definition.
