Page 43 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 14

real reality in Lewis (1946, p 70; or perhaps “hy- ship.
perreality”) not truly separate from but encom- But there is a difference when I or others ex-
passing empirical reality, reality more intensely perience God not symbolically but experienti-
real than the empirical, albeit perhaps commu- ally, in either presence or in a wholly unnatural,
nicated at times by less real symbolic language. even entirely unreasonable internal experience
Because psychology as an empirical science of peace and comfort. As a psychologist this is
typically is restricted to scholarship common not very hard to explain away as epiphenome-
to the scholastic community, in the context of non. But I have also had such experiences pro-
psychology spirituality is typically only about vided me, or as a family, immediately preceding
religious practice. However, when speaking some profound and traumatic blow. Note, this
from a transcendent Christian metaphysics we is before and in the absence of any evidence of
are looking at how the science of psychology the impending event, but to a degree commen-
fits within that transcendent understanding surate with its gravity, events that were quite
because the empirical realities themselves fit in the surprise. These have a strong kinesthetic
the larger ontological hyper-reality. But as long non sentimental component, corresponding
as we are distinguishing work that is empiri- best to the comfort spoken of in 1 Cor 3 and 4.
cal from that which is specific to those accep- While not under our control or management,
ting the specified metaphysics we are on sound even more so they function as an anchor, an
scholastic grounds, if we do not expect those Ebenezer (1 Sam 7:12), that provides a critical
who do not share our metaphysics to share our dialectic counter natural skepticism and a fun-
conclusions or some of our operations. damental benchmark guiding understanding in
But to engage in relationship with God, a being subsequent events.
who resides primarily in the heavenlies, any Habbukuk (2:4) talks about the righteous living
trust relationship I develop must be based on by faith, or faithfulness. Wilson (1989) discus-
the pure recognition of the nature of the person ses faith (amunah), characterizing the idea as
I am dealing with, God, and of my relationship steadfastness and perseverance in a task. Simi-
to Him (child; Matt 18:3). The recognition is larly DelSilva (2000) looks at the historical, epi-
Christian faith which is the recognition of God graphical context of the word “faith” translated
as in some way occupying the center of a good, by the Greek form (pistis) relating it to how a
loving, and trustworthy construct of “we,” whe- client responds to a patron (DeSilva, 2000b) in
re God is fundamentally distinct from the “me” an ongoing, long term relationship. So, “faith” in
but, crucially, not separate from “me” because Habbukuk is really an ongoing dynamic or cha-
it also entails a connection to God such that we racteristic as opposed to “faith” as a singular act.
can deeply internalize that good, loving, trust- Hence reading casually can result in the illusion
worthy and beautiful connection. It is Buber’s “I where “faith” seems to refer to how determined
and thou” (Buber, 1970) rising to some degree a I am or how hard I work at believing something,
measure of a “we.” But in my experience of “we” rather than the characteristic of faithful role
with others there is sensory impact in the form understanding and action. In this relationship,
of tears or smiles, clasping hands or hugging, or God’s character features inscrutable mystery
enacting mutually beneficial action that esta- and transcendence with designs and workings
blishes a firm residence in the middle and lower entirely beyond my comprehension (though
parts of my brain that my frontal and tempo- He occasionally gives me a teasing peak behind
ral lobes in turn can work with. This becomes the curtain) but Who specifically and inevitably
available to my brain as a postulated potential treats me with committed graceful loving kind-
symbol of bond with God as I bond with others ness, which I in turn have to persistently bear in
in our horizontal experience of “we.” So, since mind, taking the latter as “a given.”
with God I am dealing with a non-empirically So, what I continually come back to, every sin-
spiritual being that relationship will commonly gle day, is the intentional recognition of God’s
leverage off a number of other experiences or trustworthiness, goodness, beauty and love.
relationships used to symbolize this relation- And over time, this appears to be having mid-

41