Tuesday, September 03, 2013

What I Meant to Say Was...

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)

No comments: