Eugene Peterson’s Down to Earth Spirituality

An interview at CT. I read and liked his Answering God. This makes me want to read more of his stuff.

This bit is good:

Many people assume that spirituality is about becoming emotionally intimate with God.

That’s a naïve view of spirituality. What we’re talking about is the Christian life. It’s following Jesus. Spirituality is no different from what we’ve been doing for two thousand years just by going to church and receiving the sacraments, being baptized, learning to pray, and reading Scriptures rightly. It’s just ordinary stuff.

This promise of intimacy is both right and wrong. There is an intimacy with God, but it’s like any other intimacy; it’s part of the fabric of your life. In marriage you don’t feel intimate most of the time. Nor with a friend. Intimacy isn’t primarily a mystical emotion. It’s a way of life, a life of openness, honesty, a certain transparency.

Doesn’t the mystical tradition suggest otherwise?

One of my favorite stories is of Teresa of Avila. She’s sitting in the kitchen with a roasted chicken. And she’s got it with both hands, and she’s gnawing on it, just devouring this chicken. One of the nuns comes in shocked that she’s doing this, behaving this way. She said, “When I eat chicken, I eat chicken; when I pray, I pray.”

If you read the saints, they’re pretty ordinary people. There are moments of rapture and ecstasy, but once every 10 years. And even then it’s a surprise to them. They didn’t do anything. We’ve got to disabuse people of these illusions of what the Christian life is. It’s a wonderful life, but it’s not wonderful in the way a lot of people want it to be.

Yet evangelicals rightly tell people they can have a “personal relationship with God.”

That suggests a certain type of spiritual intimacy.All these words get so screwed up in our society. If intimacy means being open and honest and authentic, so I don’t have veils, or I don’t have to be defensive or in denial of who I am, that’s wonderful. But in our culture, intimacy usually has sexual connotations, with some kind of completion. So I want intimacy because I want more out of life. Very seldom does it have the sense of sacrifice or giving or being vulnerable. Those are two different ways of being intimate. And in our American vocabulary intimacy usually has to do with getting something from the other. That just screws the whole thing up.

It’s very dangerous to use the language of the culture to interpret the gospel. Our vocabulary has to be chastened and tested by revelation, by the Scriptures. We’ve got a pretty good vocabulary and syntax, and we’d better start paying attention to it because the way we grab words here and there to appeal to unbelievers is not very good.

Comments

4 responses to “Eugene Peterson’s Down to Earth Spirituality”

  1. Jennifer

    Intimacy isn’t primarily a mystical emotion. It’s a way of life, a life of openness, honesty, a certain transparency.

    Wow. I needed to hear that today. Thanks.

  2. Joshie

    I would say that’s exactly what mysticism is, actually. Openess, honesty and transparency toward God. Intimacy does have sexual implications (many of the images used by Christian mystics have been covertly or overtly sexual) but I fail to see how that somehow makes it less sacrificial or vulnerable. Remind me never to have sex with Eugene Peterson.

    I am reluctant to sign on to Peterson’s last little bit there. The only vocabulary we really have is that of our own culture, as much as we can understand about the bible and its times and cultures it forever remains an alien world to us. I doubt even the Bruce Metzgers and Phyllis Tribbles of the world can truely speak and think “in the Bible way” as an old C of G Anderson hymn goes.
    I also find it strange that Peterson would make such a statement since The Message is one of the more “dynamic” translations on the market and plays pretty lose with what’s in the Greek and Hebrew.

  3. Lee

    Well, I think it’s more complicated than “our culture and vocabulary” vs. “the Bible’s culture and vocabulary.” For starters, our culture is in large part formed by the Bible!

    But, more to the point, what I took Peterson to be saying was that we shouldn’t take our notions of self-fulfillment or whatever and then assume that’s what the Bible must be talking about. For instance, to assume that salvation means being safe and secure, having plenty of money, etc. and that’s what God intends for us (a la “prosperity gospel” types) or that what the Bible means by “peace” is, y’know UN resolutions and socialized medicine.

    Rather, we should let our expectations be formed by what the Bible promises, not by what we might like.

  4. Joshie

    If that’s what he meant then you explained it a lot better than he did! thanks!

Leave a comment