Summer’s over, rest time is over, and it is back to being
super-productive, over-productive, and offering slightly better than average
thoughts.
First, let me fill you in on the rest of my North-SouthTrail adventure. I stopped after day 4 (with one day left). It was the
pavement. The pavement walking with the backpack was taking such a toll on my
feet that it was painful to walk and was not worth it. So in Richmond, RI I
made the phone call and left the trail. I am a bit disappointed that I did not
complete the hike but even more disappointed with the trail itself. As far as
time for reflection and listening to God while on my adventure, not much happened
because on the pavement it was difficult to reflect and listen. My feet hurt
far too much to be in a place of spiritual openness. So boo to the NST!
While on the trail I started to read Sigmund Freud’s Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis.
There are two primary reasons that I decided to delve into such a work. One is
to read Freud as a writer. His writing is clear, precise, and easy to follow.
This is not the norm for academic writing so it is good to read. Maybe I’ll
pick up on something. The other reason is to consider not so much the findings
and ideas of Freud, but the methodology and philosophy that Freud embraced and
practiced. He was someone who observed human behavior in a hyper-critical way,
asking “why,” and, “how.”
(The third, unspoken reason that I am reading Freud is
because I have serious mother/father issues which I am refusing to acknowledge
and thus I am being led, subconsciously, to read the teachings of one of the
great psychologists.)
Back to his methodology. His first lectures are about parapraxes, which are the verbal (or
written) slips of the tongue. It is when you say something but you meant to say
something else. Today we may refer to this as “Freudian slips,” which Freud
would find revolting. Freud notes that such a subject has been little examined
because these moments are widespread and shared “healthy” people in general and
thus in the eyes of many is not something that needs to be considered or analyzed.
Everybody does it and therefore it is nothing that needs to be worried about.
Yet Freud is pointing out that because it is widespread and seen to be the norm
for “everybody,” that merits examination and consideration.
This is what I find interesting – because everybody is doing
it, because it is the norm, we should look at it even more closely.
Consider this with religious speech. There are phrases that
are often used without any further thought and are seen as harmless and benign.
There are the phrases that are low-hanging-fruit referencing things like God’s
plan especially in times of difficulty. I know I have railed about the poor theology
that is implicit in such statements. Consider the even more common phrases
like:
Oh My God!
My Goodness!
Good Lord!
And the list goes on. These are interjections of excitement
and amazement that occur in the regular hustle and bustle of life and yet they
specifically invoke the divine. I am sure a lengthy study could be done to
consider the hidden meanings and societal subconscious implications found in
such phrases but I am not going to do one here. For now I will consider the
question: do people really want to bring God into the moments of excitement?
Are they so religious that the first thing that comes to mind when encountering
something amazing (or unexpected) is to remind oneself how wonderful it is that
God is a part of their life?
Or
Are people looking to God for comfort and security when
facing something in life that they are not prepared for or willing to embrace?
Do people willing invoke God’s presence when they are at their wit’s end and
are ready to scream?
Or
Have such phrases become normal parlance in our common
language and have lost deeper meaning and connections with God?
Even if it is the case that such phrases are so commonly
used that they no longer have any religious import, I would argue that this is
only on the surface. Perhaps there is a longing for some kind of deeper
connection. Perhaps there is a yearning for some kind of relationship with the
divine especially in those moments of exasperation, amazement, and wonder. It
becomes a question of theological anthropology – are humans wired to want to
have a connection with God? If so then the language betrays any secular or
non-believing claim.
Or
Is our society so ingrained with religious parlance because
of the role of the church in Western culture that we have a communal yearning
for a connection with something greater than?
Either way, I am going to try to pause and take note of
those times when I am led to exclaim the excitement that I am feeling through
the name of God or when others do the same.
Maybe we are all very, very religious people. Maybe.
(probably not)
