By Bret Thoman, SFO
In my last teaching, I spoke of God as being poor. It may have been a little confusing. In fact, at one point one person asked if God was all powerful. I said, yes, he is both. She joked that God is bipolar! And, he is. So I got to thinking about the nature of God. Certainly, we can never entirely know God, we can only reflect on parts of his nature – those parts he has revealed to us. But we can never entirely understand God – he is the Creator, we are the created. Nonetheless, in my book, I refer to God as minor, lesser. Like water, he always goes down. It might probably be better to say that God is humble. He is all powerful, yet he stoops down. And this is true. However, like water, God always goes up, too. In fact, if we use the analogy of water. God goes down – like rain, goes to the lowest parts and refreshes the earth; but like water evaporates and ascends; just so. God raises up, too. Then as the water builds up in the sky in the form of rainclouds, it once again comes back down again, so, too does the Holy Spirit continue to descend. We can look at the mysteries of the rosary – resurrection of Jesus, ascension of Jesus, descent of the Holy Spirit, assumption of Mary, coronation of Mary -themes of God going up; yet, like the descent of the Holy Spirit and some of the sorrowful mysteries. God goes down.

When I first began organizing pilgrimages, most of the groups were from the Atlanta area, or at least the southeast. Then I began working with groups from all over the US. Soon, I began working with a few groups from outside the US, including Canada, England, Ireland, Australia, Guam, Singapore, and Malaysia. This year I have a group from Japan, as well. In the beginning, I had naively assumed most people believed like I did, or like most of the Franciscans in this area and the friars I knew in Italy. But I found out very quickly that some people and groups had very different ideas of Catholicism and Franciscan spirituality. In fact, I initially concluded that there was not one Catholic Church, but two Catholic Churches, and everything in between. Each side felt strongly that they were correct and others were wrong. They felt naturally that people who believed on the other side were misguided and in error.

Initially I defined the two churches as liberal and conservative. But I was never happy with that definition. It is a political distinction, and should not be used to describe religious beliefs. Eventually I came to accept that the two different groups in fact were not representative of two separate churches; rather they were two groups within the same Church that had different values – one side valued helping the poor and marginalized and seemed to pay little attention to church teachings on topics like sexuality and the celibate male priesthood, while others valued allegiance to the Magisterium and didn’t seem interested in themes like social justice, ecology, papal pronouncements against war, etc.. After a while I began talking to group leaders up front when they contacted me about putting together a group to figure out which side they were on in order to know what to expect.

Only just recently have I come to understand that the groups are neither liberal nor conservative, rather they have a different spirituality based on their focus on one form or another of the role of Jesus or God’s role in our lives. The words should be transcendent and/or immanent. And in fact, they are both correct understandings of God. Our focus on one or the other form of God’s revelation impacts much of our spirituality – both individual or group. So, in fact, I have concluded that one group is not wrong or right, nor more wrong or more right, they only have different focuses.

Transcendence has to do with otherness, the fact that God is not human, but is above humanity, existing before h and above the world. Transcendence can be attributed to the divine not only in its being, but also in its knowledge. Thus, God transcends the universe, but also transcends knowledge (is beyond the grasp of the human mind). The divine is seen to be outside -i.e. to “transcend” – the material world. It surpasses physical existence and in one form is also independent of it. It is typically manifested in prayer, meditation and “visions”. Transcendent is the spirituality of “up”. God is all-powerful and omnipotent.

“In the beginning, he created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen 1:1) God existed before the world, and is, thus, outside of the world. He is described in Scripture as the “Mighty one of Jacob,” the “Lord of hosts,” the “strong and mighty” one. God is almighty in heaven and earth because he is the creator of heaven and earth whose order he established, and which remains subject to him and at his disposal. He is the master of history, governing hearts and events in keeping with his will. He is omnipotent, omniscient.

“Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other…. To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. ‘Only in the Lord, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength.’” (Isaiah 45: 22-24) God calls Moses from the midst of a bush that bums without being consumed: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then, God reveals his name. He says “I am who I am (in Hebrew- Yahweh).” The name is mysterious, just as God is a mystery. This is a name that is revealed, but also a name that is hidden. His name shows us that God is infinitely above everything that we can understand or say, for he is the hidden God, a mysterious God. Faced with God’s fascinating and mysterious presence, man discovers his own insignificance. Before the burning bush, Moses takes off his sandals and veils his face in the presence of God’s holiness. Before the glory of God, Isaiah cries out, “Woe is me! I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips.” (Isa 6: 5). Later, over the centuries, Israel’s faith deepens when they realize all the riches contained in the revelation of God’s divine name. God is unique; there are no other gods besides him. He transcends the world and all of history. He made heaven and earth: “They will perish, but you will endure; they will all wear out like a garment…but you are the same and your years have no end.” (Psalm 102: 26-27)

In the New Testament, before the divine signs performed by Jesus, Peter exclaims: “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, 0 Lord.” (Luke 5: 8).

Transcendent: God reveals himself as a God who is holy, the creator, mysterious, incomprehensible, all-powerful, omnipotent, providential. He is “out there”, possibly distant.
Immanent:
Yet, at other times God has revealed himself “down here” with us. In this second form of revelation, God reaches down, even stoops down, from heaven to be with us. He is not merely a being up in heaven somewhere; he is down with us. Even in the Old Testament, God began to reveal himself so. He walked in the garden with Adam and Eve and spoke with them. After the sin of Adam and Eve, God at once sought to save humanity; he gave a covenant with Noah after the flood. Later he chose Abraham in order to gather together scattered humanity; he made Abraham the father of a multitude of nations. Then he formed his people, Israel, and revealed to them his law – the commandments.

However, the fullness of all God’s revelation was made most clearly discernible in the Incarnation. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3: 16). Christ, the Son of God, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, is made man. He is the Father’s one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. In Christ, God has said everything. So for us Christians, God has made his revelation full through the revelation of Christ.

This is immanence. Immanence has to do with closeness of relationship; with the aspects of relationship which produce unity or a point of identity. It is derived from Latin “in manere” (to remain within), while transcendence carries the idea of being outside. Immanence means being inside some relational category. It refers to the presence of God, in which the divine is seen to be manifested in or present in the material world. Immanence implies the omnipresence of a divine entity or essence.

So is Franciscan spirituality transcendent or immanent?

If you concluded that Franciscan spirituality is both transcendent or immanent, I believe you are correct.

As Christians, we believe that the only transcendent, almighty, and holy God, who cannot be approached or seen in essence or being became immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus the Christ, who is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. We believe that God’s existence is ontologically distinct and fully independent of the material universe, and yet that He interacts directly with it still today through Sacraments, the movement of the Holy Spirit, and communities.

Let’s look at Scripture: “Though he was in the form of God, Jesus did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2: 6-8). Which one is this? Very immanent. But what about this? “Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Ph 2: 9-11) What is this? Very transcendent.

What about the prologue of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.” What about this? It is transcendent.

But what about this? “And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.” Immanent.

So Jesus is both the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who existed before all creation and through which all creation was created; yet he was made incarnate and whose humanity he received corporally from the Virgin Mary and a divinely-created human soul. Thus, transcendence and immanence interpenetrate in an exceptional manner in our faith, practice and theology. The mysterious and paradoxical nature of Christ provides a bridge between the infinite Deity and finite man, since we believe that Christ is both fully human and fully divine.

Let’s look at Francis and Clare.
So what did Francis do? How did he respond to Christ? By imitating him. We already talked about how Francis tried to imitate Christ. We know that he was born into a wealthy family, he was a merchant and he sought to go “up” the ladder by becoming a knight. After his conversion, he realized that he wanted to imitate Christ by going “down” the ladder and becoming poor. Further, he sought to be a servant to the poorest of the poor by serving lepers. This is how the immanent spirituality of Christ influenced his life. To show how Francis sought to imitate Jesus, I have substituted the words of the previous Scripture: “Though he was born the son of a wealthy merchant, Francis did not deem his wealthy status something to be kept to himself. Rather, he emptied himself-and gave away his money, taking on the life of a beggar, dressing like a pauper and found poor m appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of serving the poorest of the poor, even lepers”

Clare, having been born of a noble family, decided to enter religious life. She, too, like Francis, imitating Christ, sought to be a servant. Initially she entered a well-endowed Benedictine monastery, however not as a noblewoman with privileges and servants, as was her birthright. Like Francis, like Christ, she renounced her birthrights – did not cling to them – rather, she took the form of a slave, a servant, and served the Benedictine women. However, she soon left the Benedictine monastery and formed her own community founded on poverty and service to each other as well as the poor who came to the community.

Using the same scripture above, I have changed the words a little, “Though she was of noble family. Clare did not regard her noble status something to be kept to herself. Rather she renounced her status, taking the form of a servant to noble nuns; further, she humbled herself by becoming embracing poverty and serving her sisters and the poor of Assisi ”

Francis and Clare, each in their own right, were lifted up by their service. Their end objective was not to a life of servitude; it was to be lifted up. They sought to gain heaven and did as we believe them to be saints. Through their imitation of Christ, their commitment to simplicity and poverty and their service to the poor, they sought to ‘transcend’ this life and enter into everlasting life. So Franciscan spirituality is not transcendent or immanent; it is actually both [as it should be with all who follow the Lord, Jesus Christ].

Question: What do you think are the dangers of focusing too much on one or the other?

An over-emphasis on transcendence can lead to ignoring needs of people/communities; can seem cold, harsh, judgmental; theology may seem irrelevant to the cultural context in which it seeks to speak; may result in deism; could lead to war – complete belief in righteousness and causes with a weak view of the human person; i.e. crusades, justify nuclear warfare or religious terrorism. -What about religious terrorists? They’re more transcendent. Even Osama Bin Laden prayed and believed in God; but the God in which he believed was so highly transcendent, he could justify killing innocent people through terroristic acts because in his mind, he was acting for a better cause – that of liberating Muslim holy lands – Palestine, Saudi Arabia – from infidels. He considered himself a holy warrior fighting a holy war. And he believed God was on his side, that he was a martyr. -What about issues like the new Georgia/Alabama immigration laws? An over-emphasis on immanence tends to downplay or even ignore sin/redemption; may lead to panentheism – God is in everything or worse, pantheism – God is everything, nature worship, cosmology. Their theology may be held captive to a specific culture; tends to dislike, even hate, religious authority; tends to downplay or ignore sin and the idea of hell or even claim that sin and hell do not exist. Thus they consider redemption as irrelevant. -What does the secular world generally tend to? Immanent: movies like King’s Speech, media is highly favorable towards Dalai Lama, yet highly critical of Pope Benedict. Why? Dalai Lama is not an authoritarian religious figure. Pope Benedict is. Heresies: In fact, the main heresies of the first centuries tended to emphasize too much of one of the other.
The Arians argued that Christ was more man than God – he was more human than divine. Other groups (like Docetists) argued that Christ was divine and that his humanity was an illusion. These controversies led to the Councils, in particular that of [the Council of] Nicene in which our creed was spelled out what we believe about Christ; i.e. that we believe: “in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

Thus, a Christian world view must balance concern for the immanent world with anticipation of the transcendent world to come.

Immanent
Concern for the poor
Ecology, concern for the environment
Focus on community
Politically: democratic -power of the people
Focus on conscience
Jesus came to show an example of living and to build community
God is love

Transcendent
Concern for worship
Morality: focus on behavior
Focus on sin
Politically: focus on leadership
Focus on authority
Jesus came for Atonement
Doctrine
God is Truth and Law

Conclusion:
Last question: what is the ultimate good in all this? Why bring all this up? It is in order to focus on a better good – that of recognizing in the “other” the presence of the divine and good, even when we don’t agree with that person, or vehemently disagree, or even when we recognize that person is in error. We don’t judge or hate them, because we know where they are coming from. We recognize their worldview, their understanding of God, which is correct. It helps us understand and allows us to help guide them towards the truer, deeper understanding of God and his nature, even natures. Also, let’s not forget to recognize that even if a person or group of people are way off base – say someone who believes that nuclear war can be good on the one side, or on the other someone who believes that abortion or homosexual relationships/activity is positive; nonetheless even though both sides are seriously misguided in these cases and beliefs, they perhaps both can love and serve God in their own way – one through prayer, the other through service to the poor and marginalized. On the other hand, we are called to challenge and lead people to God – in the first case to challenge someone who could believe that nuclear annihilation and destruction of the innocent is seriously misguided; on the other hand the destruction of the unborn child can never be justified and that homosexuality is a misguided lust of the flesh that is not of God.

What do you think?
Editor’s Note: What do you think – Do Spiritual forces or temporal forces guide your way? Or do both guide your way?

Note: to be charitable – take away incentive by entitlements – news and entertainment- who you associate with – the Constitution under God
Have your forgotten why you are here on earth or have you never thought why you are here.