Fascinating. I grew up Catholic, went through lurches into atheism, agnosticism, to liberal Christianity with a little Buddhism thrown in, and in 2019 started going to a little Episcopal church which reminds me a fair amount of Catholic church when I was a kid including some of the sacred magic. In the last 5 years, I've become immersed in process theology (PT) and open and relational theology (ORT), and this gives me an interesting way of looking at sacred magic. In PT/ORT, God is not omnipotent but instead tries very hard to reach us through lures and persuasion. But we are almost always oblivious of God's lures, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. A big struggle (for me and people like me) is to try to open ourselves to God's lures, since God is always luring toward the good, the beautiful, the truly valuable. Prayer helps, and meditation of course. But sacred practices and rituals and activities that might involve elements of scared magic can really help too. And what could be more magic than really getting in touch with God's lures? And then acting on them, spreading love to everyone around you if you can?
Richard, these material things have the capability of being transmitters of God's power. The thing is, we ask God blessing on the water, wine, oil, bread - or in the case of the dirt, we give thanks for the grace (working of the Holy Spirit) received. We ask the Holy Spirit to "make the change" - in the case of the Eucharist - or drive out any adverse spirit or power from the person being baptized as well as the waters of baptism, or that the baptismal waters are made "the waters of the Jordan". Anointing oil in Orthodoxy is blessed by the country's senior bishop, or comes from the oil in lampadas burning in holy places (the tombs of saints, in front of icons known to have miracles associated with them, inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, as examples), for which we give thanks for consolation of the association with holiness, even if nothing "magical" happens. Same thing with relics. (I read something recently, the question "Is there an expiration date past which the Holy Spirit cannot work through people?")
In the case of the Sacraments, priests are set aside to minister and offer/lead the prayers asking the Holy Spirit to do these things, and we trust God to give them the grace (the Holy Spirit working in them) to make the prayers effectual. That doesn't mean that laypeople can't pray, or that God doesn't meet them outside these structures. In Orthodoxy, as well as in the Catholic Church, a layperson can administer baptism in case of danger of death, but that's not the usual way things happen. But this is the way things have been handed down from the most ancient expressions of Christianity.
For the most part, non-sacramental Protestants baptize, celebrate the Lord's Supper and anoint simply because those things are enjoined in the Bible, because Jesus and Paul and James said to. There is no explanation or theology as to why. The ancient forms of Christianity have handed those things down along with the explanations and theology. In other words, ecclesiology is in play here, as well as the understanding of what "salvation" means. It's not magic for the sake of something magical.
Richard, I wonder if part of the Protestant evacuation of "sacred magic" in the last few hundred years is due to modern notions of language and symbols. They point to a reality, they don't enact a reality. With baptism, for instance, it is seen as an "outward sign of an inward reality," a clear example of Taylor's buffered self within an immanent frame. I wonder if a recovery of the active capacity of symbols and language might be a way for Protestants to recover some sense of "sacred magic" without having to adopt Catholic understandings. Symbols do things without needing a "transubstantiation," and the like. Though I'm also thankful for material forms of piety inherited from the Latin tradition. I think, however, that the material is accentuated more in the Eastern tradition with better theology. FWIW
It think that is surely possible. One of the things, though, that I think has happened in recent theological trends that have affected a lot of pastors has been the "linguistic turn" and an overuse of "story" and "imagination" as theological categories. Rather than "words" I want to talk about ontology. Rather than "imagination" I want to talk about encounter. Rather than symbol I want to talk about sacrament.
Basically, I don't think the intervention can happen at the linguistic, imaginative, or symbolic level. We need a recovery of ontology and the Real.
Agreed, I think. I would simply push these pastors to see that the symbolic is ontological. This is the point phenomenologists would impress upon us. You're using their language when you talk about encounter and "the real." By suggesting that the symbolic is less than ontological or "the real," this might still be reflecting modern subject-object distinctions. They haven't yet integrated all of these categories under an ontological umbrella. Again, symbols and language don't simply point to the real, they are material forms of our participation in it. And I would add that encounter doesn't happen apart from story and imagination, apart from the realities we are "thrown into" or initiated/mediated into. These are not epistemological categories (again Ricouer, Heidegger, Marion, et al) but ontological. I guess I would say that the move here would be integrative instead of occupying one side or the other of a subject-object split, an integration of history and the numinous. This is the gain of the philosophical move away from the "turn to the subject," the symbols of bread and wine ARE sacramental because of what symbols and symbolic action do, not just what they represent. The material is shot through with meaning, numinous and beyond our objectification.
I also think that God's reality is not tied to the symbol and can and does appear apart from a particular symbol, but never to us apart from the material, whether bread and wine, a jar of dirt, a kitchen table, a human mind, a cross with nails and a crown of thorns, a crucifixion or an exodus, independent of our belief in it, transcending it, but always mediated to us.
This is probably just a confusing response to a series of posts I have enjoyed. Thanks for letting me think out loud.
This series has brought to mind the character ‘Simon Magus’ who is mentioned in Acts 8 and the spiritual & philosophical intrigues he brought to the mix. A lot has been written and speculated about his influences on the early church and his soul-searching rebuke by Peter, hits firmly at the matter. Certain aspects of ‘Simonianism’ found their way into the worship of the early church and Patristics such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus came out against them, but not entirely. There seems to have been a competitive nature with Gnostic influences that didn’t align harmoniously with the early formation of Trinitarian and Christological doctrines (Which ironically in some ways, grew out of Neo-Plutonic and Pre-Socratic language and conceptions). The problem has been that most, if not all forms of ‘Thaumaturgy’ have tended to be associated with the ‘Darker Arts’ where varieties of ‘Goetia’ result in human suffering, manipulation and destruction. On the flip side however, there have been plenty of literary and Pop-Culture antipodes that embody qualities of beneficence and magnanimity, i.e. – Gandalf, Dr. Strange, Glinda, etc.. In any theurgic worshipful practice, whether Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox or otherwise, I think it comes down to where one’s hearts is at and what are the ultimate intentions of your actions (?) If your point is to bless others and bring about the Kingdom of God through self-sacrificial love, then absolutely go for it, knock yourself out! If ones theurgic endeavors lead to the development of Christ-like mirror neurons, then more power to you!
I've really enjoyed the series! Thanks. have commonality in my spiritual and churched journey w @tim miller , not exactly but... I married into an old type Mexican family and kids are baptized in the sierra madre home church each just before they turned 2, giving them a magical and cultural claim on real catholic roots. I just got baptized at 40 on John the Baptist's service day at our new home Presbyterian church in ky. Very interested in sacred magic-- I remember the hollow feeling of an empty 'cultural' Christianity in USA of the 90s. Not my bag. Check out Eliphas Lévi!
I’ve been closely following on with this series - it’s been a good challenge to help stretch my categories!
As you brought up the Catholic tradition, my mind immediately went to how potent this idea would be (and maybe has been?) in power-fear cultures steeped in animism. I’ve been on mission to Southeast Asia where Islam was prevalent but where animism carried a powerful popular level appeal because of its efficacy in warding off evil spirits, etc. maybe the idea of sacred magic would have some traction in those spaces, especially in suggesting God’s power over and above those of local spirits / demons.
Fascinating. I grew up Catholic, went through lurches into atheism, agnosticism, to liberal Christianity with a little Buddhism thrown in, and in 2019 started going to a little Episcopal church which reminds me a fair amount of Catholic church when I was a kid including some of the sacred magic. In the last 5 years, I've become immersed in process theology (PT) and open and relational theology (ORT), and this gives me an interesting way of looking at sacred magic. In PT/ORT, God is not omnipotent but instead tries very hard to reach us through lures and persuasion. But we are almost always oblivious of God's lures, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. A big struggle (for me and people like me) is to try to open ourselves to God's lures, since God is always luring toward the good, the beautiful, the truly valuable. Prayer helps, and meditation of course. But sacred practices and rituals and activities that might involve elements of scared magic can really help too. And what could be more magic than really getting in touch with God's lures? And then acting on them, spreading love to everyone around you if you can?
Richard, these material things have the capability of being transmitters of God's power. The thing is, we ask God blessing on the water, wine, oil, bread - or in the case of the dirt, we give thanks for the grace (working of the Holy Spirit) received. We ask the Holy Spirit to "make the change" - in the case of the Eucharist - or drive out any adverse spirit or power from the person being baptized as well as the waters of baptism, or that the baptismal waters are made "the waters of the Jordan". Anointing oil in Orthodoxy is blessed by the country's senior bishop, or comes from the oil in lampadas burning in holy places (the tombs of saints, in front of icons known to have miracles associated with them, inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, as examples), for which we give thanks for consolation of the association with holiness, even if nothing "magical" happens. Same thing with relics. (I read something recently, the question "Is there an expiration date past which the Holy Spirit cannot work through people?")
In the case of the Sacraments, priests are set aside to minister and offer/lead the prayers asking the Holy Spirit to do these things, and we trust God to give them the grace (the Holy Spirit working in them) to make the prayers effectual. That doesn't mean that laypeople can't pray, or that God doesn't meet them outside these structures. In Orthodoxy, as well as in the Catholic Church, a layperson can administer baptism in case of danger of death, but that's not the usual way things happen. But this is the way things have been handed down from the most ancient expressions of Christianity.
For the most part, non-sacramental Protestants baptize, celebrate the Lord's Supper and anoint simply because those things are enjoined in the Bible, because Jesus and Paul and James said to. There is no explanation or theology as to why. The ancient forms of Christianity have handed those things down along with the explanations and theology. In other words, ecclesiology is in play here, as well as the understanding of what "salvation" means. It's not magic for the sake of something magical.
Dana
Richard, I wonder if part of the Protestant evacuation of "sacred magic" in the last few hundred years is due to modern notions of language and symbols. They point to a reality, they don't enact a reality. With baptism, for instance, it is seen as an "outward sign of an inward reality," a clear example of Taylor's buffered self within an immanent frame. I wonder if a recovery of the active capacity of symbols and language might be a way for Protestants to recover some sense of "sacred magic" without having to adopt Catholic understandings. Symbols do things without needing a "transubstantiation," and the like. Though I'm also thankful for material forms of piety inherited from the Latin tradition. I think, however, that the material is accentuated more in the Eastern tradition with better theology. FWIW
It think that is surely possible. One of the things, though, that I think has happened in recent theological trends that have affected a lot of pastors has been the "linguistic turn" and an overuse of "story" and "imagination" as theological categories. Rather than "words" I want to talk about ontology. Rather than "imagination" I want to talk about encounter. Rather than symbol I want to talk about sacrament.
Basically, I don't think the intervention can happen at the linguistic, imaginative, or symbolic level. We need a recovery of ontology and the Real.
Agreed, I think. I would simply push these pastors to see that the symbolic is ontological. This is the point phenomenologists would impress upon us. You're using their language when you talk about encounter and "the real." By suggesting that the symbolic is less than ontological or "the real," this might still be reflecting modern subject-object distinctions. They haven't yet integrated all of these categories under an ontological umbrella. Again, symbols and language don't simply point to the real, they are material forms of our participation in it. And I would add that encounter doesn't happen apart from story and imagination, apart from the realities we are "thrown into" or initiated/mediated into. These are not epistemological categories (again Ricouer, Heidegger, Marion, et al) but ontological. I guess I would say that the move here would be integrative instead of occupying one side or the other of a subject-object split, an integration of history and the numinous. This is the gain of the philosophical move away from the "turn to the subject," the symbols of bread and wine ARE sacramental because of what symbols and symbolic action do, not just what they represent. The material is shot through with meaning, numinous and beyond our objectification.
I also think that God's reality is not tied to the symbol and can and does appear apart from a particular symbol, but never to us apart from the material, whether bread and wine, a jar of dirt, a kitchen table, a human mind, a cross with nails and a crown of thorns, a crucifixion or an exodus, independent of our belief in it, transcending it, but always mediated to us.
This is probably just a confusing response to a series of posts I have enjoyed. Thanks for letting me think out loud.
This series has brought to mind the character ‘Simon Magus’ who is mentioned in Acts 8 and the spiritual & philosophical intrigues he brought to the mix. A lot has been written and speculated about his influences on the early church and his soul-searching rebuke by Peter, hits firmly at the matter. Certain aspects of ‘Simonianism’ found their way into the worship of the early church and Patristics such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus came out against them, but not entirely. There seems to have been a competitive nature with Gnostic influences that didn’t align harmoniously with the early formation of Trinitarian and Christological doctrines (Which ironically in some ways, grew out of Neo-Plutonic and Pre-Socratic language and conceptions). The problem has been that most, if not all forms of ‘Thaumaturgy’ have tended to be associated with the ‘Darker Arts’ where varieties of ‘Goetia’ result in human suffering, manipulation and destruction. On the flip side however, there have been plenty of literary and Pop-Culture antipodes that embody qualities of beneficence and magnanimity, i.e. – Gandalf, Dr. Strange, Glinda, etc.. In any theurgic worshipful practice, whether Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox or otherwise, I think it comes down to where one’s hearts is at and what are the ultimate intentions of your actions (?) If your point is to bless others and bring about the Kingdom of God through self-sacrificial love, then absolutely go for it, knock yourself out! If ones theurgic endeavors lead to the development of Christ-like mirror neurons, then more power to you!
I mention Simon Magus in the last post of this series on Thursday.
Sorry, I must of missed that. Apologies
I've really enjoyed the series! Thanks. have commonality in my spiritual and churched journey w @tim miller , not exactly but... I married into an old type Mexican family and kids are baptized in the sierra madre home church each just before they turned 2, giving them a magical and cultural claim on real catholic roots. I just got baptized at 40 on John the Baptist's service day at our new home Presbyterian church in ky. Very interested in sacred magic-- I remember the hollow feeling of an empty 'cultural' Christianity in USA of the 90s. Not my bag. Check out Eliphas Lévi!
I’ve been closely following on with this series - it’s been a good challenge to help stretch my categories!
As you brought up the Catholic tradition, my mind immediately went to how potent this idea would be (and maybe has been?) in power-fear cultures steeped in animism. I’ve been on mission to Southeast Asia where Islam was prevalent but where animism carried a powerful popular level appeal because of its efficacy in warding off evil spirits, etc. maybe the idea of sacred magic would have some traction in those spaces, especially in suggesting God’s power over and above those of local spirits / demons.
Thanks for this series!