On the Solemnity of the Epiphany, I heard a sermon—a rather well-delivered one at that—about the Magi as religious “seekers.” The same note, I’ll wager, was struck from pulpits and ambos across the country, perhaps across the world.
But isn’t there something a bit askew here?
Isn’t the point of Matthew’s tale of the “wise men from the East” (Matthew 2:1) that they were finders, not just seekers? Moreover, isn’t the further point that what was found was “he who has been born king of the Jews,” to whom they, gentiles from afar, wished to offer gifts? Don’t we lose the evangelical thrust of this charming story of seers, stars and caravans, “gold and frankincense and myrrh” (Matthew 2:11), when we focus on the seeking, not the finding, which was the first moment of messianic encounter with the gentile world (meaning most-of-us)?
I don’t want to overstate the indictment. All believers are “seekers,” in that we obey the prophet’s injunction to “seek the Lord while he may be found” (Isaiah 55:6). Still, the point is not about the seeking, but about the finding. More than two millennia after they trekked across the Levant following a star, the Magi are of interest—indeed, compelling interest—because of who awaited them at the end of their search: a Jewish child who would become the redeemer, not only of his own people, but of all people. If the Magi had wandered about Central Asia and the Middle East for decade after decade, they would be of little interest, save perhaps as chroniclers of ancient cultures. No, the point is that the Magi were religious finders, not just religious seekers. And what they found was the fulfillment of their search.
There’s another problem with our contemporary emphasis on religious “seeking”: It tends to miss the fundamental dynamic of biblical religion and to confuse faith in the God of the Bible with “spirituality.” Go through the “spirituality” section of an online bookstore or browse the “spirituality” stacks of an old-fashioned bookshop, and you’ll find a lot about the human quest for God. That is not what biblical religion is about, however. Biblical religion is about God’s coming into history in search of us, and our learning to take the same path into the future that God is taking.
Abraham, whom the Roman Canon calls “our father in faith,” was not some generic spiritual seeker. Abraham, or Abram (as he then was), was a unique individual to whom God spoke disturbing and challenging words: Abram was to go on a journey to another land, led by God, who was now entering history in a new and saving way. In that promised land, God would make of Abram, who would be re-named Abraham, a “great nation and … a blessing” (Genesis 12:2). Abram-become-Abraham was to follow God’s path through history. God has the salvific initiative; God comes in search of us. We are not seekers without a compass. Nor are we just finders; we are those who have been found.
The same dynamic pervades the Gospels. There, Jesus does not appear as a homely sage who attracts disciples because he does better cures than the local medical people and tells interesting moral stories. No, Jesus says, bluntly, “Follow me” (Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17). In John’s account, two disciples of the Baptist ask Jesus, “Where are you staying?” To which Jesus replies, “Come and see” (John 1:38-39). The initiative in salvation history is always a divine initiative. God leads; we follow. God comes into history in search of us; we learn, often slowly and with difficulty, to follow the divine lead.
In the terms in which it presents itself today, the notion of the Christian life as a matter of spiritual “seeking” usually has more to do with our culture of self-absorption than with biblical religion. In the Bible, God’s revelation is discerned in history, not outside of it, inside our heads. Seeking, in the sense of deepening our friendship with Jesus, is good; but let’s first understand that we have been found.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
I get castigated for using "foolishness" in this way. If we are truly trying to communicate, I'm usually told, "we have to meet people where they are." But meeting them where they are implies that one can just as well stay there, thus validating the very skepticism that must ultimately be overcome. The episcopal ghost's former colleague had it right when he began the reunion by essentially telling the ghost, "you know, pal, you're just full of #*@~."
"The fool says in his heart, there is no God." Even though we may not be exactly that sort of fool (and I have, especially, the Protestant mainline in mind here), it seems like we agree to at least act like a fool when we attack self-absorption with the weapon of self-absorption.
God of course, is infinitely complex. And those who who assert firmly they have "found" him clearly, have merely fallen victim to the sin of Pride and Vanity.
The Bible and the Catechism agree: even the church on earth is "imperfect," and will remain imperfect. Until the end of time. Or Judgement Day. When at last God more fully reveals himself to us.
It's not the long walk home that will change this heart,
But the welcome I receive with the restart.
Brilliant! We are all here to find god in our lives, some people just need to "log in".
Jesus said, and still says today, "I am the Truth." It is hardly "smug, pharasaic/bourgeoise self-satisfaction" to say that we have found him. It is the ultimate act of humility.
Our brothers in the faith of Abraham, the Muslims, very accurately reflect this truth in the language of their mystical theology. The word "wujud" ("existence") is from the same root (w-j-d) as the verb "wajada" ("to find"). In other words, existence literally means "finding" and, by extension, to have been found. I always thought this was a beautiful reflection of the truth that all being is truly "inter-being". Perhaps this "finding-being found" existential dynamic is a way to approach a fruitful Christian-Muslim theological dialogue, as I think it could be a way for Muslims to better understand the Christian theology surrounding the Trinity. What does Trinitarian theology express other than the "relational" foundation (pun intended) of all Being?
I'm sticking to my position.
Those of us who make our living in part, in Theology, know that discovering God, or allowing Jesus to come into our lives, is a lifelong and immensely complex process. To imagine that being saved, being Christian, is simple, is partially wrong.
And so? What appears to be humility - asserting we have ALREADY adequately found Jesus, or have been adequately found/transformed by Jesus - though it seems good at first, in the end is just Vanity, disguised. God is infinitely complex. And when we imagine we have totally "found" him - or have been assuredly found or saved by him - we are far, far too proud or complacent.
Finding GOD, being found by him, is a life-long process. One that is never complete. No one fully knows God, both the Catechism and the Bible agree, until God fully reveals himself in the Last Judgement (CCC 671-8, 769, 825).
What if, as a theologian, I asserted that God is already sufficiently known - and therefore, there is no reason to do theology, or "seeking," any more? If that was true, then logically, there should be no such thing as Theology. Or Catechetical education. Or preaching either.
Or First Things either, for that matter.
What you call "a smug, pharisaic/bourgoise self-satisfaction" is also called in the Scriptures, in the Fathers, and in the latest Catechism: joy, hope, confidence (in God's providential love), charity, and ... of course, faith. Sts. Augustine and Maximus the Confessor, among the Fathers, are the best at explaining this divine paradox that we can "find" and already "enjoy" God in this life - though we must constantly pray for final perseverance to arrive at His perfect beatitude.
Again, my concern with you statements is that you don't evidence having read the article! The "caveat" to each of your condemnations is to be found in the article.
You are asserting absolute truths in the very process of denying them: that we do not possess absolute truth now, and that we will possess more adequate truth at "the end of time" or the "Last Judgement." Also, that God is "infinitely complex." These are assertions of truth, and as such claim to be absolute. Or does your approach to epistemology include the possibility that these assertions are incorrect? Do you hold that there are no irrefutably correct assertions? Well, that itself is an assertion that there is at least one irrefutable assertion.
