Blog

On what the point of virtues, practices and postures is.

Click here for more info about the proposal and related events.

I have been ruminating a little on the first discussion, a couple of weeks ago, on the virtues, practices and postures proposal, and I’d like to share some of my reflections.

Plato and Aristotle theorised about the make-up of the human person, and one of the models they came up with, which seems to have stood the test of time (not that that necessarily means anything, but let’s work with it for now) suggests that we have three main faculties: cognitive, conative and affective.

These can be understood as: cognitive – the thinking part of us; affective – our thoughts and emotions; conative – our drives, our strivings and tendencies, almost totally informed by the affective. I know I can relate to this basic outline – my active life is informed by both my thought-life and my emotional-life – and it started to connect with something else I heard recently.

One of the world’s most influential theologians, Jurgen Moltmann, recently spoke at a conference at Holy Trinity, Brompton about “being church in the power of the Holy Spirit”. Among very many other important (and no doubt relevant) things, he spoke of the great need we have for a good dose of orthopathy in current church practice. Never heard of that word? No, me neither. But he described it, basically, as ‘right feeling’.

We’ve all heard of orthodoxy (many of came to Moot to escape its tyranny), which is ‘right thinking’. Many of us with church backgrounds well know the importance often placed on this, generally to the exclusion of other things. We’ve probably all heard of orthodoxy too – many of us have been learning, and indeed prioritising, things coming under the rubric of “justice” (social action, political campaigning, protest marching, buying the Big Issue, etc, etc).

Orthodoxy relates most closely to a part of my self – my cognitive faculty. Orthopraxy relates most closely to my conative faculty. So where does orthopathy fit? Church culture and teaching, it occurs to me, have often neglected to bless and teach us with regard to our whole being. On a global scale, the church can be thought of as bipolar: one half has generally been concerned with “believing the right stuff”, and the other can crudely be described as prioritising the need to “do the right stuff”. But who’s got wisdom on “feeling the right stuff’ – orthopathy? Put simply, the monks, nuns and friars.

I’m sure you’ve heard it before but I’ll say it again: Moot is a fresh expression of church. I think that our new monastic focus, and the current discussion on virtues, practices and postures, is one of the things that really makes this true. This is because the proposal deals with the affective aspect of our being. We are a community seeking wholeness, integration. Believe it or not, the foundational idea of the proposal is that the Christian tradition actually has the resources to make this possible.

I’ve often wondered how to get my emotional life healthy, how to find healing so that I have less ridiculous outbursts, less of the bad kind of anger, less anxiety; I’ve also wanted to be more consistent in my ability to love, to do the right thing, to grow up/mature. The proposal says (although maybe not in so many words) that life is a journey of conversion of the whole person – cognitive, affective and conative.

My point is that what drives us can also be transformed – we know about the need to “think the right stuff”, or “do the right stuff”, but without addressing our thoughts and emotions, without finding healing and wholeness as people, we aren’t ever really going to change. The approach to spiritual growth we are advocating is holistic, which means that it is candid about the need to find inner freedom, as well as practice justice and have good theology.

Of course, psychotherapy has had to pick up the baton in the modern period because the church forgot the wisdom of the desert fathers and mothers. I believe it’s time we began to reclaim our heritage, and release some real life and liberation into the heart of our community. It will also save us vast amounts of money on therapy.

P.S. Brian McLaren’s new tome, A New Kind of Christianity is great. I could say loads about it – because I do think you should go and buy it at The Centre Bookshop on Lombard Street – but maybe in another post. If you have it, turn to pages 38-39.

POSTED 12.06.10 BY: Aaron Kennedy | Comments (10)

10 Responses to “On what the point of virtues, practices and postures is.”

  1. On June 13th, 2010 at 1:47 pm James_Vincent said:

    Very interesting. I’ve always found it weird that people differentiate between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Surely if you think something is right, you should do it? Having grown up a bit since first thinking that, I know that it’s more of a hope than an expectation, but the basic point of it still rings true.

    What the Virtues, Postures and Practices idea raises for me is the question ‘what does living as a Christian actually mean?’ Not exactly a small or minor question, but one that has part of the answer in the question itself: we need to ask these questions and not stop when we think we have an answer.

  2. On June 13th, 2010 at 8:59 pm Nicolas said:

    This post is outstanding. Yes to a holistic approach, yes to healing of the self through addressing emotions, yes to a process that draws in the dynamics of a community (because individuals are incomplete and cannot entirely depend on the themselves). Aaron, thanks for this post, it is just amazing!

  3. On June 14th, 2010 at 12:20 am ianmobsby said:

    Great post Aaron – doing and thinking are different – James – I wish we were as integrated as you suggest – sadly this non-integration is part of the human condition. Aaron I think you are right to draw the difference out of different elements of our abilities – different parts of our brain – that require us, through practices – to seek integration of think and being, doing and thinking… cheers Ian

    James – I think Vanessa’s podcast answers your question really well – linking conversion with practices…

  4. On June 14th, 2010 at 1:14 pm artbizness said:

    Hi Aaron

    Thanks for writing this – I’m glad you did, and very timely.

    I’ve always thought that the divide between thinking and practise is a dualism – dualisms being the very thing we’re trying to avoid.

    To introduce a third thing (feelings) is very important and very wise. Is suspect that some of our practises will arise from the abrasive rub of these things against each other as we try to go forward as a group, and there may well be a more things to add to the mix as we do so.

    Good stuff.

  5. On June 14th, 2010 at 3:01 pm Grace said:

    Can I pick up on one small thing from what you’ve said – all of which I found apt and thought-provoking – you mention ‘the bad kind of anger’. I’m more inclined to agree with Christopher Jamison’s idea in finding happiness, that all anger comes out of a place seperate from the trigger of it, of discontentment and discord in our own souls. I’d like to aspire to as much consistent and deep peacefulness and equilibrium as possible. I’m no longer sure ‘righteous anger’ makes sense, because I think all anger’s borne out of a tangled unhealthy emotional life more than it is out of a pure reaction to one external valid injustice. Also because I think if we were getting closer to imagining God’s love, and every person’s validity, we would be sad for a perpetrator of something appalling, rather than angry at them, and that would give us the same energy to try and bring about change but it would be better energy. Both for us and them. What do you lot think?

  6. On June 14th, 2010 at 3:38 pm artbizness said:

    Grace -

    I’m genuinely in two minds about this. I think what Jamison has to say about anger is very right, but I’m not sure that you can just not have anger. It’s one of the major emotional groups, and trying to bury emotions is never a good thing in the long run.

    It’s one of those things: people who are (lets say) “comfortable” with their anger or angry side, do need to hear Jamison’s words loud and clear. More importantly, the difference between anger and aggression is crucial. Anger and aggression are not the same thing. There are a million different ways to express or deal with anger appropriately, and aggression is usually not one of them. Yet it’s the most common response.

    However, it’s a very British thing (actually, scratch that – it’s more of an English thing) to feel uncomfortable or frightened when someone is angry, and this is not good either. We need to understand that sometimes people need to be angry, and to respond sensibly and appropriately. And sometimes that does include removing oneself from the situation from a personal safety point of view.

    I suspect that the English tendency to repress stuff, and the preponderence towards aggression are linked – it’s better to diffuse things before they build up too much, but often people “bottle it up” until they explode and injure people both emotionally and physically. We need to encourage more nuance.

    In my experience, there are very few people who know how to express anger without doing some sort of unnecessary damage to the person on the receiving end.

    The other thing I would say from personal experience is that we should be careful to recognise that sometimes anger/aggression is a manifestation of poor mental health. I know quite a few people who become more angry when they are becoming ill. This should be a little warning flag both for friends and for the person concerned that something is up, and steps need to be taken, before they become REALLY ill.

    The only other thing that I would add is that we need to own our anger. The number of times I’ve heard someone say: “But s/he MADE me angry!” (usually by someone being aggressive). No one MAKES anyone angry. Anger is the reaction that you choose, just as aggression is the reaction that you choose. And I think it’s there, that Jamison’s words are very helpful.

    PS. I would quite agree with you about “righteous anger” The number of times I’ve heard people use that phrase to justify some reprehensible bollox or other beggars belief.

  7. On June 14th, 2010 at 5:31 pm ianmobsby said:

    Mike & Grace – really agree with you about righteous anger. In my experience it is seen as crucial if you are trying to justify a penal substitution atonement theory – which by the way – Evangelical Alliance say you have to believe if you consider yourself an Evangelical Christian. I think penal substitution is wrong – we don’t need an angry God – I am with James Alison and Steve Chalke on that one – actually – it is more accurate to say that God died for our anger out of love – not for God’s anger – that fits well with Jamison’s ideas of how anger is basically and consistently a thought that distorts.

    That being said, there are places when anger is legitimately part of the human condition. For example – when someone is going through bereavement, when someone is ill, when someone has something horrible done to them. What I understand Jamison as saying – is that our emotions need to be treated as passing things – and that we let them pass because our identity is not in them, because we are striving to live by the virtues. Anger is a problem when we get fixed in this state of emotion, or if we use it as an unhealthy and maladaptive coping strategy.

  8. On June 14th, 2010 at 9:09 pm Nicolas said:

    Reflecting on some of the past pray-as-you-go podcasts, I recall two narratives linked to anger. The first one, when Jesus gets angry at the merchants in the temple. The second one, where Jesus tells his disciples that they should avoid acting on anger because this could just get them into trouble.

    I personally think it’s not useful to categorise emotions as good / bad / right / wrong. Emotions are something very human, and to pass judgment on them is not only useless, it is potentially dangerous: unexpressed emotions and emotions that we do not address can lead to psychological distress and mental disorders. Condoning some as well, actually. Jamieson proposes to work on anger, not pass a judgment on it, and not seek to suppress it either, I think. I somewhat got a feeling from reading his book that anger was “bad”, but I’m not sure this is his point at all (I hope not, otherwise that would, as far as I’m concern, discredit him, at least on that bit).

    Anger is for me one of the most difficult emotions to deal and cope with. It requires letting go of expectations, accept circumstances as they are. I think that while we are to be angry at some of the injustice we witness (and not be apathetic!), we ought to avoid the potentially destructive consequences this can have on others but also on ourselves. I could write a whole book on how anger has destroyed so many relationships in my life, and my health also, both of which I will probably never recover. Not worth it…

    I think the key here, is to ask ourselves when confronted with anger: is this situation actually worth getting angry at? If I may: have you ever heard of English phlegm?

  9. On June 15th, 2010 at 12:27 am Ian Mobsby said:

    I think Abbot Jamison has the right approach – we are called to live out virtues – which is about conversion of our lives as followers of Christ, to move away from the thoughts that distort, by developing a contemplative faith resourced by encounter with God, we can seek to move away from the emotions and thoughts that distort…

  10. On June 15th, 2010 at 1:11 pm James_Vincent said:

    I don’t think that anger as a concept can be considered ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’. People who claim not to feel anger, or to do so very rarely, seem almost alien to me! I think it’s the application of a concept or feeling in a wrong way (as in being selfish or vengeful or something) that makes it a negative thing.

    One of the biggest images I have of Christ is the one recorded time that he gets angry in the Gospels: chucking the traders of the temple. In this case, people say ‘righteous anger’ is a good thing, but it probably wasn’t a conscious decision in Christ’s mind to be filled with ‘righteous anger’. Anger led to ideas of justice, equality and liberation, and so to say that ‘anger’ is bad is far too simplistic. I think what we do with an emotion is what gives it meaning. Or virtue.