Getting Out of My Mind

It seems to me that one of the most important things to understand about my spiritual/theological journey is where it began and where it is heading. I do not want to be accused of systematizing and dissecting spirituality, but I think that what I have done can be regarded as an authentic attempt at deep self-reflection. Such, I believe, is the way that we can learn about ourselves and make intentional movements toward embodying the kingdom life more wholly. So, if what I have done means anything - let me know.

Basically, the method that I am using to identify my spiritual/theological tendencies is by locating myself on the Landscape Model of Christian Spirituality (this model was presented to me by Dr. Jeff Childers, professor in the Graduate School of Theology at Abilene Christian University). Within the model there are two basic distinctions which must be deciphered between in order to locate oneself. The first, which can be designated as the X-axis, locates the general theological premises of the subject. It is the distinction between the Kataphatic (the belief that God can be known to humans positively or affirmatively; positive theology) and the Apophatic (the belief that God can be known to humans only in terms of what He is not; negative theology). The second distinction, which can be designated as the Y-axis, works toward identifying the spiritual approach of the subject. The tension points are that of the Heart and Mind. Essentially, those who are Mind-oriented most commonly experience their spirituality through the modes of reason and intellect. In other words, they are propositionally-oriented. Those who are Heart-oriented will often confess that they experience their spirituality through experience and emotion. Some of the labels that are given to the Heart-oriented are mystics and emotives. Thus, we are left with four regions on the landscape model: the Apophatic Mind/Heart (1,2), and the Kataphatic Mind/Heart (3,4). I know that this explanation of Dr. Childers very detailed model is lacking, but I hope that it is sufficient for a basic idea of the method that I am using to identify my spiritual/theological groundings and bearings.

The prospect of committing myself to any one quadrant of the spiritual landscape model is slightly frightening and idealistic. Thus, I will not attempt to do such. I will, however, venture to remove my religious clothing and reveal my spiritual nakedness in order to analyze, with as much objectivity as a postmodern thinker is capable of, the outline of my own spiritual body type. Although the uncovering of my spiritual tendencies will reveal my own spiritual immaturity, a mark to my credit resides in understanding that I am not stuck in the spiritual category which I currently find myself. Rather, such an uncovering marks the beginning of a journey toward the embodiment of a more holistic spiritual life. In essence, I understand that I am inclined to the tendencies of the Kataphatic Mind (KM), but I also realize that such a categorization does not completely encapsulate my spiritual outlook. A primary grounding within the KM should not lead me to solidify my status there but must propel me to experience and embody the marks of the other quadrants in the landscape model of Christian Spirituality.

One would not have to look much further than my academic concentrations to get a grasp on my identity within the KM. Indeed, a major in Biblical Text and a minor in Philosophy would seem sufficient as evidence to conclude that my purpose is to discover the revealed God through scripture and reason. As I reflect on my academic and spiritual pilgrimage, it is obvious that my initial intentions were, indeed, to discover some objective/absolute truth about God as he reveals himself in scripture and reason (Mt 10:26; Lk 12:2). However, as I have grown in understanding I have come to realize that what I can know is nothing more than what I perceive. This would not qualify to write me off as a relativist because I simply seek to escape the objective/subjective paradigm that is born of the Enlightenment. There is an Ultimate Reality who is God, and it is God who we seek to know. Yet, it is a mistake to presume that any person or group may claim that they, exclusively, hold the truth of the Ultimate Reality. There are some who understand God more fully than others, but it is they who realize that God cannot be fully grasped. Indeed, God can be known, but it is beyond the human capacity to grasp God fully. There is a certain unattainable mystery to God of which we seek to know:

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him? (Rom 11:33-35 NIV)

As I consider my own ability to know God, I observe a definite movement in my positioning from the region of the KM toward the Apophatic Mind (AM). However, I am still very deep in the process of working through the negative theology of (not) knowing the mysterious God and would not admit myself to have passed from the KM to the AM, yet. Nonetheless, I cannot ignore my current teetering on the line between the KM and the AM. As I reflect on my own spiritual journey, it is worth noting that the Kataphatic appears to provide the most fertile ground for someone who is beginning their spiritual journey. Whether it be from the KM or the Kataphatic Heart (KH), the proposal to know the revealed God is much more appealing than the journey of the Apophatic who seeks a mysterious God. Perhaps for this reason my spiritual journey, along with those of most other Christians I know, began/remains in the Kataphatic.

Having established my position in the Kataphatic, with movement toward the Apophatic, the landscape model requires a deciphering between the regions of the Head and Heart. While my positioning between the Kataphatic and Apophatic could be described as fluid, my placement between the Head and Heart is more concrete. My tendency to experience God through the intellect, however, does not imply that I do not yearn to experience God in a more emotional and transcendent way. Perhaps my inclination toward the Head is the result of my upbringing in an intellect-directed (Jn 8:32) Church of Christ setting, or it could be contributed to my fascination with the academic and theological pursuit of God. Whichever the cause, it is with a high degree of certainty that I can locate myself within the Head hemisphere of the landscape model.

Location within the KM (with movement toward the AM) brings recognition of, both, strengths and shortcomings. An obvious strength of existing within the Kataphatic is the acknowledgement of God’s self-revelation through the incarnation, scripture, and religious experience. At the same time, however, it is this conception that God’s character and will might be fully grasped with human cognizance which pushes me ever closer to crossing into the Apophatic. I am not arguing from an ontological position where God must exist as that being which no greater can be imagined. Rather, I fear any kind of reductionist thinking regarding God on the grounds that my experience within the human situation necessitates that the Ultimate Reality (Yahweh) be beyond the understanding of degenerated beings. Hence, there must be a certain mystery to the being and character of God in fear of reducing God to the capacities of the human grasp. Such is the basis for my uneasiness of being wholly incorporated into the Kataphatic. At the same time, it seems to me that theological renewal should be the means, rather than the end, of seeking after God. In this way, the KM must lead to an appreciation for the AM which finds relevance and application for the intellectual endeavors that the KM might regard as the pinnacle of spiritual journeying. Again, I see a definite shift in myself toward encompassing more of the AM than I previously embodied.

Despite all analysis of my spiritual positioning, I have to believe that deep within me there resides the being of a mystic. My original location within the KM recognizes the tensions that, seemingly, must exist with the Apophatic Heart (AH). It is, perhaps, with the certainty that I can locate myself within the Head hemisphere that my greatest shortcoming arises. It is not that the AH, or the entire Heart hemisphere for that matter, requires an anti-intellectual approach to spirituality. Rather, those who emphasize the Heart stress the experience of God over the prospect of simply growing in knowledge about God. For the most part, such an emphasis on experience has not been part of my spiritual training. Yet, it should not be my goal to simply move from the KM to the AH to cure my spiritual shortcomings. Instead, my prerogative should be to make movements within the landscape model which result in a spirituality that embodies characteristics from each quadrant. A spirituality marked by wholeness will lead to a re-interpreting of my place in the narrative of God’s relationship with humanity. Such, I believe, is a spiritual journey that is worth embarking on.

"The antidote to an intellectual spirituality is not an anti-intellectual spirituality but a spritiuality rooted in God's story that stands on its own" (Robert E. Webber, The Divine Embrace: Recovering the Passionate Spiritual Life [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006], 92-93.)