Dissident Reflections: Radical Attachment

Continuing in my reflections of Augsburger’s book, I showed in my last post the idea that there is a three dimensional spirituality in Christianity: The self transformative, God encountering and other embracing. This meant one can be nothing less than a fully involved participant in all three, and to participate with Christ is to be an imitator of Christ in a way that reflects him to the world. God made himself relationally dependant on us (at least to some degree) and us relationally dependant on him and each other (to every degree), so there is no aspect of our lives that is unavailable to God, nor does God desire to fulfill his work in the world unilaterally (as much as we might muck it up… let’s face it he didn’t come to invite those already perfect).

Imitation Deserts Grace?

Therefore, the first aspect of the Christian life that Augsburger points to is “radical attachment” to the one we follow.  Attachment is shown through willing discipleship, which in this case would be to Jesus, but such discipleship naturally begins with child-like imitation (mimesis).  Mimetic behavior, however, has long had its theological criticisms concerning what it does to the integrity of God’s grace. Such criticisms have ranged from suggesting that imitation of Christ would insinuate that our works/efforts are doing the transformative work— to it reduces Jesus’ status to exemplar instead of completely distinctive— to it suggesting that it renders Christ’s work as incomplete and in need of Christ’s disciples to continue the reconciling process.[1]

To further illustrate, years ago one of my favorite professors brought up his issue with mimesis when we were discussing Paul’s imitating Christ (1 Cor. 11:1).  He saw imitating Christ as insufficient for how we should view Paul’s sentiment rather we would do better to think of it as God reproducing Christ in us.  Christlike formation was part of God’s grace being internalized.  While his point was well taken (as I saw no reason to disagree at the time) I think we have largely misunderstood its importance.  My professor, along with other criticizing theologians, would be right if imitation really carried the illegitimate baggage that has been imposed on it, but imitation is much more central to our humanness and the formation of identity than we want it to have.

Importance of Imitation within Grace

Augsburger further opposes such criticisms. He shows that at one’s the earliest age the primary way in which we go about forming their identity always begins in identifying a significant person in their life and imitating them.  It is from those identifications that the internalization process begins and brings about fresh patterns of images, loyalties and commitments that define the person. “Imitation then matures to voluntary participation, but the correspondence of the internalized model to the external example remains as an enduring relationship that continues to guide the added layers of the personality.”[2]  This mimetic act of continues throughout all the periods of one’s life.

Perhaps we have then missed the point of grace when it is not allowed to affect our behavior or “Who” we seek to imitate/internalize for fear that we are attempting to earn salvation or have in some sense demeaned what Christ has already done.  If our behavior has not changed than we should wonder if God’s grace is actually doing its job.  Jesus had a lot of repeated phrases, but few as frequent as “Follow me.”  To follow Jesus is no superficial journey, but is to accept and imitate and become “radically attached” to who he is, what he says, what he did, what he does and what he calls us to do.

·         This is to accept and attach ourselves to the reality that Jesus is Lord of creation and King which makes all other lords and kings… well, imposters (Jn. 1:1-5, 17-18);  

·         This is to accept, imitate and internalize Jesus’ way of life, truth and reconciliation even when he imposed radical notions like agape-love for others… even to those un-reciprocating enemies (Mt. 5:43-48; Jn. 13:24-25); 

·         It is to accept, imitate and internalize that following him means embracing self-denial (taking up your cross) because one must lose their lives to save it (Mt. 16:25; Lk. 9:23-24);

·         It is to become active participants in shouldering the weight of reconciliation and discipleship (Mt. 28:19-20). 

Imitation Becomes Radical Attachment

My summation then is that Augsburger is right and grace cannot be both evident and absent, or invisible and viable, as is implied by the criticisms discussed above.[3] Rather our very lives again will tell of it through imitation, internalization and willingly participating in it. This is how we become the disciples who continue the work that honors his name.  To radically attach one’s self to Christ is to become rooted in his eternal life and allow the Jesus of the Gospels to fully shape who we are and how we live under who he is.  Jesus’ Kingship and our discipleship can mean nothing less.  

[1] David Augsburger Dissident Discipleship (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazo Press 2006), 45.

[2] Ibid, 28-29.

[3] Ibid, 53.

Dissident Reflections: An Intro

My first post of the year... and I don’t know what to write!  Well that is not completely true, but while throwing around topics I decided to try something different for a while.  I am finally getting around to reading the book that inspired my blog, David Augsburger’s Dissident Discipleship (so we will see how close I actually come to reflecting it).  While I have not read this particular book, I am familiar with Augsburger’s other writings and lectures and consider him to be one of the most important Christian thinkers of our day.  Nevertheless, as I complete each chapter I plan on writing a brief reflection on it.  This might flop in terms of “reader’s interest,” but I am hoping it will raise some good discussions... or any discussion period... or at least food-for-thought.

            To set up the premise for the book, Augsburger challenges the dominant perceptions of spirituality.  The definition of one’s “spirituality” is often a subjective and personal as many tend to make up their own meaning for it as-well-as its parameters. Yet, the spirituality one is attracted to will inevitably shape its person. It is precisely because of this that some preliminary defining must be done.  Augsburger offers three degrees of spirituality one will arrive at, though we tend to often straddle, in some way, between them rather than sets on just one.  These three are:

Monopolar Spirituality: This is the most common as it (by definition) is the encounter with the inner spiritual self that is individually present within all human beings.  It is often summed up in realizations of self-discovery, oneness with nature and/or a new found sensitivity towards humanity.  Though this is a crucial step for sure, when it does not move past personal-spirituality the person themselves become an isolated religion made up of their personality and preference. They more or less are their own god, or the highs-of-experience (i.e. pleasure of nature or euphoria of climbing a mountain, etc…) become their god and its vagueness a wall of comfort, but spiritual fullness will lack.  Ultimately there is a loss of “confidence that anything beyond the self exists or can be trusted.”[1]  

Bipolar Spirituality: Bipolar-spirituality also embodies the inner subjective experience in which the true self is revealed, but it stands vis-à-vis the objective experience of one’s existence before God.  This spirituality is a subjective and reflective life that lives in search for, lived before and compliant with the Divine.  The inner soul is called to new life with the Divine because it knows that, while separate from God, the two are inextricably linked.  This means that bipolar spirituality questions whether the true-self can be known without coming to know God. So also, one cannot really meet God as the Entity outside of the self without the humble recognition of one’s inner-self/soul.  “This new vision of who I am before a God who knows me as I am and accepts me in spite of what I am is a brush with a truth that is greater than my personal truth and leads to a transforming moment of grace that breaks through my narcissism.”[2] This certainly reflects the spirituality within the Christian (both Catholic and Protestant) traditions.  It is God that calls and redeems persons (rather than the spirit-self, nature-spirit or human-spirit), yet it is persons that discover and are open to, and participate in, a life with God.    

Tripolar Spirituality: It might be hard to believe, but bipolar spirituality still does not go far enough because it manages to isolate itself.  Tripolar-spirituality, however, does make necessary adjustments. It can be defined as a threefold dimension of inward directedness, upward compliance and outward commitment.  Outward commitment is central to our spirituality. It is the co-human journey of relations characterized by both integrity and human-solidarity amongst friend and enemy, neighbor and persecutor. Moreover, the three spiritualities cannot be sustained by themselves, but are mutually dependent parts each authenticated by the others.  Though we may not think of relations and community as a spiritual dimension, it is how one comes to know the self, “not alone, but in the company of fellow travelers… Coming to know others not merely in collusion, but in shared commitment to the One who brings us together justly and safely in the triumphant surrender of ultimate trust.”[3]  Such a spiritual community committed to one another will come to know not only God with us and for us, but also God between us.       

     

            We could then determine that this spirituality is one of radical attachment rather than the detachment and independence many cultures says is “human-maturity”.  Within Christianity specifically, the tri-dimensional spirituality which practices a discipleship that expresses love for others and results in inner depth practices ultimately becomes the only way to truly know Christ.  As Augsburger says:

“I come to know myself truly as a spiritual being by knowing God. I come to know who I truly am by being known by God. I come to know others by seeing in them the reflected image of God, the Other. I come to know this Other when meeting God in others, sister, brother, neighbor, stranger, friend, or enemy.”[4]

With such a robust, holistic and concrete spirituality like this our entire ecumenical life should be a little more radical in all its aspects, a little more like the Gospel. This sets the stage for how Augsburger is going to show what this implies for all the streams of the Christian life.

[1] These are Parker Palmer’s words as quoted by David Augsburger. David Augsburger Dissident Discipleship (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazo Press 2006), 12.

[2] Ibid, 12-13.

[3] Ibid, 13.

[4] Ibid, 21-22.