Gereformeerd en spiritueel in Afrika

By die Wêreldbond van Gereformeerde Kerke se byeenkoms in die Noorde verlede naweek is daar ‘n klomp mense bymekaar wat almal die gereformeerde identiteit as gemeenskaplike faktor het. Dit val my op dat vele van die afgevaardigdes uit die hele Afrika jongerige mense is, waarvan ‘n hele paar swart vroue-predikante is. Ons nagmaalsviering Sondag word deur ‘n swart vrou bedien, met ander mense uit Afrika-gebiede wat die elemente uitdeel.

Dit is ‘n rustige, maar deurleefde liturgie waarin die formulier in sy lang vorm deurgelees word, liedere in verskeie tale (ook Afrikaans) gesing word en waarin liturgiese gebede voorgelees word. In die rustigheid daarvan kom daar in my gemoed ‘n vreemde stilte – weke se rowwe tye, besef ek op ‘n oomblik, wat uit my sisteem wegwyk en plek maak vir verborge vrede wat die sakrament met die heenwyse na Groter Teenwoordigheid bring.

Die gesprekke in die besprekingstye is ontspanne, maar ernstig. Vele opmerkings word in hierdie Hervormings-naweek oor die gereformeerde erfenis gemaak. Dit boei my dat oor die hele Afrika ‘n beduidende klomp gemeentes uit die Gereformeerde tradisie ontstaan het, dat hulle invloedryk is en dat hulle in vele gevalle so vry geraak het dat hulle vroue in die amp kan bevestig en kan afvaardig om die kerk by sulke vergaderings by te woon.

Ek is beïndruk deur die preek van die Sekretaris-Generaal van die WBGK waarin hy praat oor die korrupsie selfs onder predikante: terwyl groepe geestelikes bymekaar kom en die staat profeties aanspreek, berispe hy kwaai, gaan sommige van hulle daarna na die staatslui omdat hulle van staatsfondse afhanklik is, en verseker dan vir die staatslui dat hulle eintlik nie regtig met die groep saamgestem het nie. Op die manier verseker hulle dat hul tog nog op die gunste en gawes van die staat sal kan reken.

Maar, meer nog, dit val my in ons gesprekke op hoe goed hierdie Christene hul Bybel ken. Meer as een val in die geselsery dikwels weg met lang aanhalings (in Engels!) uit Bybeltekste. Dit is deurleefde Bybelkennis, besef ek. ‘n Mens kan sien wanneer iemand ‘n gedeelte sommer net spontaan onthou en oorvertel, asof dit die normaalste ding ter wêreld is.

Daar heers ‘n gees van eenvoud in alles wat gepraat word en in al die tye wat ons bymekaar is. Daar is geen prag of praal, vele rituele en liturgiese blink klere nie. Die enigste klerikale drag is die, interessant genoeg, nek-boordjie wat sommige van die predikante uit die res van Afrika aantrek vir die erediens op Sondag.

Calvinisties, hierdie eenvoud, terwyl ek dink aan my oupa wat altyd vertel het dat die Here nooit ‘n show van dinge gemaak het nie!

In ons seminaar oor spiritualiteit kom daar vroeg reeds  besorgde vrae na vore oor die gawes van die Gees wat veral in sommige kerke uit ‘n charismatiese of pentekostalistiese tradisie na vore kom. Dit is vir my duidelik uit die besprekings hoe diep die Gereformeerde tradisie bly voortleef ook in ons Afrika-konteks en hoe dit die gemeente-gees in uithoeke van die kontinent deurdring het.

Mense wat gewoond is aan die Gereformeerde erediens vind die spreek in tale byvoorbeeld as iets ongewoons, wat meer die aandag aftrek as wat dit hulle gemeente opbou. Hulle kan dit moeilik verwerk in hul spiritualiteit van eenvoud en ingekeerdheid – soos wat dit in die liturgie en erediens na vore kom. Die pastor wat met die probleem worstel, wil van ons weet hoe hy sulke nie-gereformeerde grepe op sy gemeente moet hanteer. Hy is kennelik besorg daaroor. Hy wil met wysheid die opbou van die gemeente najaag.

Na die drie-dae lange byeenkoms kies ek koers huis toe, gevul met baie gedagtes. Die besprekings tydens ons spiritualiteit-sessie het vir my veel stof tot nadenke gegee. Ook uit die ander gesprekke is daar vele indrukke wat by my agterbly en in my broei. Ek bedink dit, geniet die onthou en die uitpluis van wat dit alles nog sou kon beteken.

Maar dit is iets anders wat ek as die diepste en mees transformerende ervaring in hierdie drie dae vashou. Hierdie ander dinge het te doen met die duursaamheid en die skoonheid van geloof. Iemand, ‘n vrou uit die bevoorregte gemeenskap staan byvoorbeeld op en vertel hoe nodig dit is dat in die kerke nagedink word oor die begeleiding van mense wat pyn het by die herinneringe dat hulle deel was van die apartheidsjare sonder dat hulle meer gedoen het om hulle daarteen te verset. Hulle dra iewers skuld daaroor in hulle rond en dit kwel hulle. Dit is nie net die slagoffers van apartheid wat gely het onder diskriminasie en verwerping wat genesing moet kry nie. Maar ook hulle wat gediskrimineer het, bevoorreg is, is eintlik slagoffers omdat hulle pyn het wanneer hulle na hul eie rol in daardie jare kyk.

Sy sê dit sonder enige opsweping, sonder om te verwyt – sy self is ‘n bevoorregte en sy soek self na genesing. Dit is ‘n ding in haar eie innerlike.

Ek verwonder my oor hierdie skone soeke na verdieping, na heel-wording, na geïntegreerdheid van iemand wat gelowig op reis is met God. Dit is eintlik betowerend dat iemand nie die verlede van onreg sommer net agterlaat nie, maar met pyn, ook namens ‘n hele gemeenskap, soek om by God te bly teen die konteks van eie feilbaarheid en om van God ook ‘n helende hand uitgestrek te kry.

Die duursaamheid en die skoonheid van geloof laat sy spore waar mense in ‘n noue verhouding met God leef. Wanneer God ‘n mens eers een keer aangeraak het, kan ‘n mens nie by die eerste en beste kans onverskillig raak nie. Daardie aanraking het ‘n mens se lewe onherroeplik na die liefde toe omgekeer. En wanneer ‘n mens die pad van die Gees loop, word daar steeds weer geskuur en geskaaf aan die liefdeloosheid waardeur ‘n mens by tye die pad byster raak. Skoongeskuur en gelykgeskaaf tot skoonheid, met pyn, ja, maar ook tot die al hoe meer gelyk raak aan die beeld van God.

Rondom my in daardie vergadering van gereformeerde gelowiges sit mense wat nie ‘n maklike pad loop nie. Die uitdagings in die kerk is enorm – stem almal saam. Vanaf materiële sorge tot geestelike afval. Dit bly ‘n pad wat deur die stormtye loop. Maar dit is ‘n pad, besef ek, wat hulle met toewyding loop. Steeds weer hoor ek iemand praat van hoe nodig ‘n mens God het, hoe belangrik dit is om steeds weer in die teenwoordigheid van die Here te bly in hierdie kronkelende reis. Dit is ‘n herhaalde refrein in die praat van mense wat weet hoe wankelrig die bene tydens die geestelike reis kan word en hoe nodig is dat die vuur steeds weer van Bo af moet kom.

Soli Deo Gloria, het die kerkvader destyds al beklemtoon. En, kenmerkend van sy manier van dink was dat die kerk steeds weer die ruimte was waar ‘n mens jou geloof ook moet anker – in die gemeenskap van gelowiges. Krag en moed put ‘n mens uit die gemeenskap van die gelowiges. Maar ook nog was daar sy Calvinistiese fokus op skuldbelydenis. Steeds weer moet ‘n mens aan die genade vashou, veral in die bewussyn van eie fale. Waar dit gebeur, kom die vryheid. En wie vry is, geniet, soos hy geskryf het, God in vreugde. In Afrika, wêrelde ver van Geneve, in die 21e eeu, word op Hervormingsnaweek hierdie spiritualiteit opnuut weer met innerlike vervulling ervaar en gevier.

Die sterkes kan nie sonder die swakkes nie.

Bonhoeffer skryf:


Die swakkes het die sterkes nodig. Maar die sterkes kan ook nie sonder die swakkes nie. Daarom is die uitskakeling van die swakkes die dood van 'n samelewing.

Die mens se soeke na eenwording met God (5. Slot)

In hierdie laaste blog oor mistiek as die eenwording met God, wil ek weer kyk na hoe Barth daaroor praat. Nadat Barth beklemtoon het dat dit Christus is wat die gelowige met Hom verenig (sien vorige blog), gaan hy in ‘n laaste deel in op die belangrike, insiggewende gedagte dat die gelowige ook soek om eenwording met God. Die onderstreepte gedeeltes het veral my aandag getrek. 

Dit is boeiend om te sien hoe Barth worstel met die een belangrike boodskap van die Nuwe Testament dat daar ‘n unieke, noue, lewegewende verhouding tussen God en mens is wat juis ook daaruit bestaan dat die mens gedurig en steeds op soek moet wees na eenwording met God. 

Hier is die lekker, lang gedeelte:

In the reality and power of the union of Christ with the Christian, however, their fellowship has also the meaning and character of a union of the Christian with Christ. Their fellowship would not be complete if their relationship were actualised only from above downwards and not also from below upwards, if it were not reciprocal. A justifiable concern for the unconditional predominance of he freedom, grace and decision of Jesus Christ which establish the relationship should hot mislead us into suppressing or minimising the fact that His action has its correspondence in an action of the Christian. According to the guidance of the New Testament the declaration concerning the communication of Christ with the Christian necessarily includes a complementary declaration concerning the communication of the Christian with Christ.

That Christ links Himself with the Christian settles the fact that the latter, too, does not go alone. To do justice to Christ as his Counterpart he is not directed to believe in Him and to obey and confess Him on his own initiative or resources. He is certainly summoned to believe, obey and confess. And both as a whole and in detail this will always be the venture of a free decision and leap. It will always be a venture in which no man can wait for or rely on others, as though they could represent him or make the leap for him. Even in the community and therefore with other Christians, he can believe, obey and confess only in his own person and on his own responsibility. But does this mean on his own initiative and resources? No, for the act of the Christian is not to be described as a leap into the dark or a kind of adventure. We have only to consider what kind of a free decision or leap is involved to see that, if there is any action which is well-grounded and therefore assured in respect of its goal, it is the faith, obedience and confession of the Christian. The Christian undertakes these things as through the Spirit he is called to do so by the risen One in whom he believes and whom he obeys and confesses. And in the knowledge given him with his calling, he is not merely required but empowered to do it. In Jesus Christ he knows and apprehends himself as a member of the world reconciled to God in Him, as a man who is justified and sanctified in Him in spite of his sin, as a legitimate partner of the covenant fullilled in Him. Believing in Jesus Christ and obeying and confessing him, he simply does the natural thing proper to him as the man he is in Christ and therefore in truth. He simply realises his true ­ the only truly human ­ possibility. He simply exercises the freedom given him as the man he is in Christ and therefore in truth. The decision or leap of his faith, obedience and confession consists in the fact that he takes himself seriously as the man he is and recognises himself to be in Jesus Christ instead of immediately forgetting his true self (who and what he is in Christ), like the man who looks at himself in a mirror and then goes on his way (Jas.1:23f.). It consists in the fact that he begins to act on this basis, i.e., on the basis of Jesus Christ and as the man he is in Him. He believes, obeys and confesses as, now that Christ has united Himself with him, he unites himself with Christ, giving himself to the One who first gave Himself to him, and thus choosing Him as the starting-point and therefore the goal of His thinking, speech, volition and action, quite simply and non-paradoxically because this is what He is, because there is no other starting-point or goal apart from Him, because in truth he is not outside Him but within Him.

Here again, however, we must consider the opposite side and therefore add that as the Christian unites himself with Christ it is also settled that he cannot part from Christ. In his relationship with Him He alone is the One who gives, commands and leads, and the criterion of the genuineness of all the faith, obedience and confession of Christians will always necessarily consist in their allowing Him alone to be what He alone is, neither openly nor secretly trying to subject Him to their own dominion, in the exercise of which their faith would at once become unbelief, their obedience, disobedience and their confession denial. This does not mean, however, that they can refrain from immediately and directly recognising their own cause in His cause, i.e., in the occurrence of His prophetic work in the world. For as they recognise Him, they can and should recognise themselves in Him, what they themselves are in truth. Except by the self-deception of Jas.1:23f., how could they break their solidarity with Him? As those they are and know themselves to be in Him, as members of the world reconciled to God in Him as justified and sanctified sinners, they cannot possibly leave Him in the lurch instead of following Him. In the freedom given them as those they are, they have only one option, namely, to believe in Him, to obey Him and to confess Him, and in so doing, in making this movement, to unite themselves with Him as He in His turning to them, in calling them and making Himself known to them, unites Himself with them. Called, illumined and awakened by His prophetic Word, for this Word they can only be in truth the men they are. What other can they do, then, as those to whom Christ has given Himself, than to give themselves to Him, to exist as His, and therefore continually to seek and find their life in Him, in whom it is their truest life?

The New Testament gives us every reason to draw very distinctly this line from below upwards. For rather strangely, but quite unmistakeably, it is not merely no less but much more noticeable in the New Testament than the opposite line which is original and must thus be regarded as decisive in our description of the whole relationship. It certainly receives more frequent mention. While the authors of the New Testament presuppose the being of Christ in the Christian, with no fear of injuring the supremacy of the divine initiative they do in fact look more in the opposite direction, namely, to the being of the Christian in Christ. The whole emphasis of the speech concerning the vine in Jn. 15:1f. is obviously laid on the fact that, as the branches can bear fruit only as they abide in the vine, so the disciples, if they are to be what they are fruitfully, must abide in the One who speaks to them. This is brought home in many different ways, and it is impressively repeated in the First Epistle of John (3:6,9; 4:16). For "Apart from Me ye can do nothing" (Jn. 15:5). That they are called to abide in Him presupposes that the free and responsible participation of Christians in their status is envisaged in the description of the fellowship between Christ and them. It presupposes that they are already in Him, and obviously because first and supremely He is in them and has made their being a being in Him. "I in you" (Jn.14:20), comes first, but secondly and on this basis it must also be said: "Ye in me." That Christians are in Christ, that their Christian existence is everywhere realised in the fact that it unites with His in which it has its origin, substance and norm, is the insight which in the New Testament dominates especially the thinking and language of Paul, though it also finds expression in the First Epistles of Peter and John. The statement usually has an indicative character. But we have to remember that even indicatively it speaks of the history in which the union of the Christian with Christ takes place, so that we need not be surprised that it may become the imperative so characteristic of the Johannine passages. Christians are now quite briefly described as "those in Christ Jesus, or usually even more simply as "in Christ" or "in the Lord" (Rom. 8:1; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:13; I Pet. 5:14). And they are described in this way because they are in Him (este, I Cor. 1:30, 9:1, 2; esmen, I Jn. 2:5). And they are in Him because Christ has adopted them into unity with His being (Rom. 15:7), which means that in virtue of their baptism they have put Him on like a covering garment (Gal. 3:27), and must continually do so (Rom. 13:14). This historical being in Christ is decisively determined, of course, by the fact that first and supremely God was "in Christ" reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). It is thus determined by their election made and revealed in Christ (Eph. 1:4, 9; 3:11), by their redemption accomplished and manifested in Him (Col. 1:14), by the grace of God addressed to them and recognisable in Him (I Cor. 1:14), by His love (Rom. 8:39), by His peace (Phil. 4:7), by the eternal life of which they are assured in Him (Rom. 6:23). As they are in Christ, they acquire and have a direct share in what God first and supremely is in Him, what was done by God for the world and therefore for them in Him, and what is assigned and given to them by God in Him. But their being as thus determined by God is a concretely active being. In the one reality "in Christ", God and man do not confront each other abstractly as such. On the contrary, there is a direct and concrete confrontation of the divine and corresponding human action, the former kindling the latter and the latter kindled by it. Conscious of being a "man in Christ" (2 Cor. 12:2), Paul is very definitely activated as an apostle. He can be absolutely certain of his convictions "in him," as in respect of the distinction of meats in Rom. 14:14. He can have "in him" the joy with which he confidently makes his request of Philemon 1:8). He can be sure "in him" of speaking the truth both from God and before Him (Rom. 9:1, 2 Cor. 2:17). "In him," too, he can be quietly confident in respect of His communities (2 Thess. 3:4, Gal. 5:10) and thank God that He always causes him to triumph in Christ and to spread abroad the savour of His knowledge (2 Cor. 2:14). Nor does Paul ascribe here to himself anything that he does not also basically ascribe both indicatively and imperatively to all Christians and to the whole community. "In him" he makes his boast in respect of them (I Cor. 15:31). Has not he Paul as an apostle begotten them again in Christ Jesus through the Gospel (I Cor. 4:15)? Called "in Christ," are not all Christians "in him" saints (Col. 1:2) and believers (Col. 1:4, Eph. 1:15), hoping "in him" (I Cor. 15:19) and "in him" called to obedience in their own particular situation (Eph. 6:1f.)? "We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord who is the Spirit," without whom it would be impossible (2 Cor. 3:18f.). Hence Paul can see in one or another his fellow-labourer (Rom. 16:3) or fellow-servant (Col. 4:7) " in Christ," and in Epaphras his fellow-prisoner "in him " (Philem. 23). They are all light "in the Lord" (Eph. 5:8). They can and should all glory "in the Lord" (I Cor. 1:31, 2 Cor. 10:17; Phil. 1:26). They can and should all rejoice "in the Lord" (Phil. 3:1, 4:4, 10). The apostle greets them "in him" in his letters (I Cor. 16:19, Phil. 4:21). And "in him" he also admonishes them, here too presupposing that they are "in him," that as Christians they are within and not without, so that they have only to be told to continue to walk "in him" (Col. 2:6, I Pet. 3:16) and to be reminded of the mind which is self-evident "in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 2:5) and of that which is "fit in the Lord" (Col. 3:18). To what can those who are in Him be meaningfully admonished, invited and summoned but ­ in a rather different expression ­ to stand as who and what they are (I Thess. 3:8; Phil. 4:1)? In relation to the historical character of this being of theirs, however, it is indeed meaningful to admonish, invite and summon them to do this. How could they be what they are in Christ if they did not continually become it?

This is not by any means a full list of the New Testament references to "being in Christ". To give such a list it would be necessary not only to mention and co-ordinate many others, but also to introduce a series which we have left aside, namely, the passages which, without any basic alteration of meaning, substitute "through Christ" or "in the name of Christ" for "in Christ". But we have certainly adduced sufficient to show what powerful witness there is in the New Testament to the union of the Christian with Christ which is our present concern.

It is perhaps relevant to our purpose to add a brief linguistic enquiry into what has been said both materially and in the biblical discussions concerning the two aspects of this union, i.e., that of Christ with the Christian and that of the Christian with Christ. What is meant by the word "in" when we say that Christ is in the Christian and the Christian in Him? Is this a mode of expression which demands demythologisation because of its evident localising? We may confidently reply that the word certainly has in all seriousness a local signification. If, in the fellowship between Christ and the Christian and the Christian and Christ, it must be maintained ­ for this is the limit beyond which there can be nothing more to demythologise ­ that we have an encounter in time between two personal partners who do not lose but keep their identity and particularity in this encounter, then the "in" must indeed indicate on both sides that the spatial distance between Christ and the Christian disappears, that Christ is spatially present where Christians are, and that Christians are spatially present where Christ is, and not merely alongside but in exactly the same spot. Hence we say that Christ is in Christians and they in Him. Yet while this is true, it has surely become obvious both in our material presentation and in our survey of the biblical evidence that in this context the word "in" transcends even though it also includes its local signification.

The first statement, namely, that Christ is in the Christian, has the further meaning that Christ speaks, acts and rules ­ and this is the grace of His calling of this man ­ as the Lord of his thinking, speech and action. He takes possession of his free human heart. He rules and controls in the obedience of his free reason (2 Cor. 10:5). As a divine person it is very possible for Him to do this in the unrestricted sovereignty proper to Himself and yet in such a way that there can be no question whatever of any competition between His person and that of the Christian, whether in the attempt of the latter to control His person, or conversely in its suppression or extinction by His person. It is very possible for Him to do it in such a way that the human person of the Christian is validated and honoured in full and genuine freedom, in the freedom of the obedient children of God. That Christ is in the Christian means, then, that as the Mediator between God and man He does not exist merely for Himself and to that extent concentrically, but that in His prophetic work, in the calling of His disciples and Christians, with no self-surrender but in supreme expression of Himself, He also exists eccentrically, i.e., in and with the realisation of the existence of these men, as the ruling principle of the history lived by them in their own freedom.

The second statement, namely, that the Christian is in Christ, has not only the local but also the higher meaning that his own thinking, speech and action has its ruling and determinative principle ­ and herein it is the work of his gratitude corresponding to grace ­ in the speech, action and rule of Christ. His free human heart and reason and acts are orientated on Him, i.e., on agreement with His being and action. In the power of the Word of God which calls him, and therefore in the power of the Holy Spirit, this orientation is his only possibility, already in process of realisation. Again, there is no rivalry between the human person and the divine. There is thus no danger that the former will be overwhelmed by the latter. There is no danger that it will necessarily be destroyed by it and perish. Rather, the human person, experiencing the power of the divine, and unreservedly subject to it, will necessarily recognise and honour it again and again in its sovereignty, finding itself established as a human person and set in truly human and the freest possible movement in orientation on it. That the Christian is in Christ means mutatis mutandis for him, too, that as one who is called by the one Mediator between God and man in the exercise of His prophetic office he cannot exist for himself and to that extent concentrically, but that, without detriment to his humanity, awakened rather to genuine humanity, he also exists eccentrically, in and with the realisation of his own existence, being received and adopted as an integral element in the life and history of Christ.

This, then, is the Christian's unio cum Christo. We recall that in this high view and doctrine we are not presenting a climax of Christian experience and development in face of which the anxious question might well be raised whether we have reached the point, or will ever do so, where in respect of our own Christianity we can sincerely say: "Christ in me, and I in Christ." On the contrary, we are presenting the last and most exact formulation of what makes us Christians whatever our development or experience. We have seen that Paul particularly in the New Testament does not think of restricting his insight in this regard to himself and a few other Christians of higher rank, but that as he speaks of himself he also speaks of the generality of Christians, not excluding the very doubtful Christians of Galatia and Corinth and not excluding the doubtful nature of their Christianity. If, as we have attempted in concentric circles, we think through what it means that the goal of vocation, and therefore of Christianity as divine sonship, is always attachment to Christ, coordination and fellowship with Him, discipleship, appropriation to Him with the corresponding expropriation, life of and by the Holy Spirit, then we are infallibly led at last to the point which we have now reached and described, namely, that a man becomes and is a Christian as he unites himself with Christ and Christ with him. And we remember that from the purely material standpoint this is the starting-point for everything else which is to be thought and said concerning what makes the Christian a Christian.

From: Church Dogmatics; Vol. IV, Part 3.2, "The Doctrine of Reconciliation." Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 1988. pgs 538-549.

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/unionbarth.html

 

Wanneer Christus mense met Hom verenig (4).

Hoe lyk die gemeenskap wat die mens met God het? Dit is 'n boeiende vraag. Dit gaan oor die mistiek, want die mistiek handel oor die eenwording met God. Ek het in die vorige drie blogs so bietjie hieroor nagedink. In hierdie blog wil ek kyk na hoe Barth, die groot vyand van die mistiek, skryf oor die manier waarop Christus gelowiges met Hom verenig. 

Barth maak, soos ‘n mens van hom kan verwag, veel daarvan dat Christus mense roep en hulle daardeur met homself verenig. Hy wil daardeur beklemtoon dat die eenheid met Christus nie ‘n menslike oorsprong het nie. Die inisiatief daarvoor kom van buite die mens.

Ek hou van wat Barth hieroor skryf. Soos ek die mistici lees, is dit vir hulle ook belangrik dat ‘n mens in die ervaring van die dieper dinge nie put uit die dor put van jou eie innerlike nie. Wat ryk is, wat goed is en wat transformerend is, kom juis tot ‘n mens van buite jouself. Die rykdom is te vind in ‘n mens se verhouding met wat buite jouself te vind is.

Wat my wel baie interesseer is hoe spesiaal die opmerkings is wat Barth maak oor die manier waarop Christus homself aan gelowiges gee. Dit is merkwaardige leesstof waarin die absolute toevertrou van die goddelike aan die mens besonder intens geskilder word. Dit is die moeite werd om dit in besonderhede te lees en ek haal dit graag uitvoerig aan. Die dele wat my opval, vanuit ‘n spiritualiteitshoek, het ek onderstreep.

Barth skryf hieroor in sy Kerklike Dogmatiek 4.3.2:

If we are to understand the nature of this union, then, in relation to the emphasised independence, uniqueness and activity of Jesus Christ on the one side and the Christian on the other, we do well to begin, not below with the Christian, but above with Jesus Christ as the Subject who initiates and acts decisively in this union. We do well to begin with the union of Christ with the Christian and His self-giving to the Christian, and not vice versa. It is here that the union and self-giving of the Christian have their roots.

That Jesus Christ in calling man to be a Christian unites Himself with him means first from His own standpoint that He is unique as the One who in His life and death was humiliated and exalted in the place and for the sake of all, as the One in whom the reconciliation of the world to God and the justification and sanctification of all were accomplished. In all this He has no assistant nor fellow-worker to accompany Him, let alone any corredemptor or corredemptrix. He is absolutely isolated from all others. Without them, He intervenes for them. But as this One, when it is a matter of the revelation of this work as inaugurated in His resurrection from the dead and continued in the work of His Holy Spirit, when it is a matter of His work in its prophetic dimension, He cannot and will not remain alone, nor can He be solitary in the reconciled world on His way to His future, conclusive and universal revelation. He cannot and will not be the Master without disciples, the Leader without followers, the Head without members, the King without fellows in His people, Himself without His own, Christ without Christians. The fact that the One who is disclosed in His resurrection from the dead and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is really the omnipotent God who stooped down in unmerited love to man, the Lord who became a servant, has in the time which moves to its end in His final revelation a counterpart in the fact that as the Proclaimer of the act of God accomplished in Him, in His prophetic office and work, He does not go alone but wills to be what He is and do what He does in company with others whom He calls for the purpose, namely, with the despicable folk called Christians. He attests to the world the reconciliation to God effected in Him, the covenant of God with man fulfilled in Him, as He associates with Christians, making common cause and conjoining Himself with them. He does not merely do this ideally or partially, but really and totally. He does not merely comfort, encourage, admonish or protect them remotely or from afar. But as He calls them to Himself in the divine power of His Spirit, He refreshes them by offering and giving Himself to them and making them His own. That He wills and does this is ­ in analogy to the mystery and miracle of Christmas ­ the true ratio of Christian existence as this is celebrated, adored and proclaimed within the community of Christians in the common administration of the Lord's Supper, instituted to represent the perfect fellowship between Him and them which He has established ­ an implication which we cannot do more than indicate in the present context.

We now turn to what must be thought and said concerning this union of His with Christians from their standpoint. There is, of course, no one, apostle, saint or the Virgin, who can contribute in the very slightest to what is accomplished for all by the one Jesus Christ in His life and death. In relation to His high-priestly and kingly work even a Paul can only know what has been done for us by God in Him (I Cor. 2:12). But those to whom He reveals and makes known this life and death of His as the act of God for their salvation and His own glory do not confront this act of revelation, this work of atonement in its prophetic dimension, as hearers and spectators who are left to themselves and ordained for pure passivity. What kind of vocation, illumination and awakening would it be, what kind of knowledge, if they were merely left gaping at the One who discloses Himself to them? No, as surely as He does not will to tread alone His way as the Proclaimer of the kingdom, so surely they for their part must be with Him, companions of the living One who are made alive by Him, witnesses in His discipleship to that which He wills to reveal to the world as having been effected in Him, namely, to the reconciliation accomplished and the covenant fulfilled in Him. This is what He makes them as He calls them to Himself, as He does this really and totally, as He does not leave them to themselves, as He does not remain outside them, as He gives Himself to them, as in the divine power of His Spirit He unites Himself with them. That they may become and be those with whom He unites Himself by His Word; that they may be those who are born again from above by His presence and action in their own lives; that they may be continually nourished by Him ­ this is, from their standpoint, the ratio of Christian existence. Here again we are naturally reminded of the mystery and miracle of Christmas, and must make provisional reference to the Lord's Supper.

"I in you" (Jn. 14:20; 15:4). "I in them" (Jn. 17:23,26). "I in him" (Jn. 6:56; 15:5). According to Jn. 15:1f. He is the vine which produces, bears and nourishes the branches, or according to the even stronger expression in Jn. 6:33 He is the "bread of God which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." He gives them His flesh and blood, imparting and communicating Himself to them, giving Himself to nourish them, in order that as He lives they also may and will live to all eternity (Jn. 6:53). The same teaching is found in Paul. "Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you? " (2 Cor. 13:5; cf. Rom. 8:10; Col. 1:27). He is the One who has apprehended the apostle (Phil. 3:12), putting His power in him (2 Cor.12:9), setting His truth in him (2 Cor. 11:10), speaking in him (2 Cor. 13:3), and always magnifying and glorifying Himself in his person (Phil. 1:20). And in relation to other Christians He is the One who dwells "in your hearts by faith" (Eph. 3:17), or who seeks to be formed in them (Gal. 4:19). Whether they are Greeks, Jews, Barbarians, Scythians, slaves or freemen, Christ is in them all (Col. 3:11). "Christ in you" is the great mystery of God among the nations (Col. 1:27). In the strongest possible expression (Gal. 2:20), Christ lives in the apostle in such a way that he has to say of himself that he no longer lives, i.e., in himself and apart from the fact that Christ lives in him, but that he now lives in faith in Him who gave Himself for him, this being his own most proper life to which, as one who still lives in the flesh, he can do justice only as he believes in Him. In Col. 3:4, however, "Christ our life" is also said in relation to Christians generally, and again in relation to all those who by the Spirit have been given to know what is given them by God there is made the immeasurable claim: "We have the mind of Christ " (I Cor. 2:12,16), i.e., in virtue of His life in us we have His reason.

It has always involved an unwise and, on a proper consideration, an attenuating exposition of these verses to speak of an extension of the incarnation in relation to the Christian's unio cum Christo and then in relation to the Lord's Supper. We are concerned rather with the extended action in His prophetic work of the one Son of God who became flesh once and for all and does not therefore need any further incarnation. We are concerned with the fact that He as the one Word of God takes up His abode in the called, that His life becomes their life as He gives Himself to them. This is the mystery and miracle of His union with them. Similarly, we do well to refrain from describing the Christian in relation to his fellows (Luther, De libertate, 1520, W.A., 66, 26), or, as Roman Catholics do, the priest in the mass in relation to other believers, as an alter Christus. In his perfect fellowship the one Christ as the only original Son of God, beside whom there can be no other, is always the One who gives, commands and precedes, and the other, the homo christianus, whom He makes His brother and therefore a child of God, is always the one who receives, obeys and follows. The former is the Word of God in person; the latter, like John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel, is His witness. In this distinction, of course, neither remains alone. Both become a totality. For it is not too great or small a thing for Christ to give Himself to the Christian, to cause His own life to be that of the Christian, to make Himself his with all that this necessarily implies. This is the high reality of His vocation to the extent that this takes place and is to be understood as His union with the Christian.

Mooi. Maar daar is nog ‘n laaste gedagte oor die gemeenskap, die eenheid van die gelowige met God, wat ek wil deel.

Die mistieke eenheid tussen God en mens (3).

Ons is in vele opsigte armer gelaat in ons godsdienstige lewe deurdat ons ervaring van die teenwoordigheid van God deur sekere vooroordele en wanvoorstellings oor spiritualiteit en die mistiek negatief beïnvloed is.

In onlangse jare is daar ‘n groeiende belangstelling in spiritualiteit juis omdat dit ons godsdiens verryk. Deur spiritualiteit her-ontdek ons wat ons ontsê is deur mense nie altyd billik was in hul beoordeling van belangrike erfgoed in die lewe van die kerk nie.

Beide die spiritualiteit en mistiek gaan oor die ervaring van die nabye teenwoordigheid van God in die lewensreis van mense. Spiritualiteit en mistiek dink nie aan godsdiens as net ‘n intellektuele saak nie, asof godsdiens daarom gaan om sekere waarhede onder mense se aandag te bring nie. Dit wil ook nie godsdiens afwater tot allerhande insigte oor historiese gebeurtenisse in Bybelse tye nie. Steeds weer is die dieper behoefte om te vra na die sin en waarde van alles wat God in die geskiedenis en in die tyd aan mense onthul het en watter verskil dit aan mense se lewens gemaak het.Wat is, vra spiritualiteit, die eintlike punt van alles wat ons op godsdienstige gebied vir mekaar sê?

Spiritualiteit en mistiek stel ook nie meer belang in godsdiens wat ingestel is op ‘n mens se eie selfsugtige, tydelike behoeftes nie en wat meeding om oppervlakkige, verganklike dinge nie. Dit herken ‘n voorspoedsteologie vir die leuen wat dit is. 

Hulle fokus eerder op die “ewige” dinge – op wat vir altyd bly en wat ‘n mens se lewe onherroeplik nuut maak. Hulle kyk na die lewensbelangrike verskil wat God aan mense se lewens maak wanneer hulle bewus raak van die goddelike aanraking in hulle lewe. 

In spiritualiteit word vertel hoe mense bewus raak dat hulle lewens heel word, hoedat daar ‘n proses van volwassewording aan die gang kom en hoe hulle lewe sinvol raak. Hulle ervaar die vervulling van hul diepste behoeftes deurdat hulle die dieper dinge ontdek. In die mees intieme kante van hul lewens ontdek hulle ‘n volheid waarsonder hulle nie meer kan bestaan nie. Hulle besef en ervaar dat die lewe groter as hulle self is.

‘n Verborge, mistieke proses is in hul lewe aan die gang gesit. In kerklike taal praat mense van die teenwoordigheid van God wat alles omgekeer het en hul lewens in ‘n totaal nuwe rigting neem.

Die geestelike mens leef nou in ‘n intieme, noue verhouding met God en uit hierdie onmiddellike ervaring van die goddelike word die lewe die moeite werd. Dit is so spesiaal dat hulle dikwels nie kan verklaar wat aan die gang is nie. Hulle “weet” dit, “ervaar” dit – soveel so dat dit selfs ‘n ekstatiese karakter kry: hulle word van hul ou, ingekeerde en klein bestaan vrygemaak en in ‘n nuwe ruimte van lig ingetrek in ‘n proses “wat alle verstand te bowe gaan”. 

Nie almal vertrou hierdie spesiale ervaring nie en dink dat dit – ook in sy mees sublieme vorme – arrogante inbeelding is of baie naby daaraan kom. Die buitengewone ervaring van ‘n mistieke eenheid met God, die unio mystica, is deur sommige teoloë, aangevuur deur bekende skrywers soos Karl Barth, verdag gemaak asof dit beteken dat die mens deur eie inspanning in God opgeneem word en dus vergoddelik word, asof dit ingeprente, onstabiele ekstatiese emosies is. Omdat sommige denkers in die verlede sulke uitsprake sou gemaak het, is die mistiek as geheel onder verdenking.

Dit is nou opmerklik dat dieselfde teoloë op ‘n ander stadium rekenskap moet gee hoe hulle dan nou self die verhouding tussen God en mens sien. En hulle doen dit dan, ironies, in taal wat dikwels self mistieke kwaliteit het.

Hulle besef goed dat die verhouding van God met die mens nie sommer maar net ‘n normale kwessie is waarin een die ander ken nie of waarin die een op een of ander manier met die ander een te doen kry nie.

Die verhouding tussen God en mens is, ten minste in Bybelse konteks, veel meer – onvoorstelbaar meer.

Barth, soos ek gister geblog het, byvoorbeeld, skryf uitgebreid, maar byna sukkelend, oor die verhouding van gelowiges met Christus en probeer baie hard om dit weg te hou van ‘n verwronge mistieke opvatting. Dit kan hy met alle reg doen. Maar wanneer hy self oor die verhouding skryf, gebruik hy self mistieke taal in die goeie sin van die woord. Hy skryf uitdruklik dat die verhouding ‘n “intieme, intense gemeenskap” is.  Die gemeenskap van die gelowige met Christus is vir hom ook ‘n “unieke” en ook ‘n “noue” verhouding.

Vir hom beteken dit egter nie dat die mens ‘n verhouding met God het in die sin dat die mens dan tot die hoogste vorme van bewussyn kan styg nie. Hy wil byvoorbeeld nie die verhouding met God sien as die resultaat van die konsentrasie, verdieping of intensifiëring van die menslike selfbewussyn nie. Barth se rede hiervoor is dat die gemeenskap met God nie die gevolg is van die mens se besondere vermoëns nie.

Die verhouding en gemeenskap met God, beklemtoon hy, kom alleen van die kant van God tot stand. God roep die mens tot ‘n verhouding en die mens gehoorsaam hierdie roeping. Die gemeenskap met God is geheel en al ‘n genade-gawe aan die mens. Trouens, hierdie gemeenskap vra altyd dat die mens God moet aanbid en dus ook die nodige afstand moet teenoor God moet hou.

Nadat Barth dit alles geskryf het, gaan hy egter voort om te verduidelik dat die verbintenis met God nie maar beteken dat die mens tydelik lossies aan God gebind word nie. Al word die mens nie vergoddelik nie, word die mens op ‘n heel uitsonderlike manier deelgenoot van ‘n intieme band met God. Dit is ‘n eenwording waarin die gelowige opgeneem word in ‘n onlosmaaklike, egte en ware eenheid met God in Christus.

Dit is ‘n besondere omvattende, verreikende toevertrou aan mekaar: Christus gee hom totaal en al, sonder enige reserwe aan die mens. En, in antwoord, vertrou die mens hom of haar geheel en al aan Christus toe.

Reeds hierin sien ‘n mens raak hoedat die diepste geheim van gemeenskap met Christus te doen het met self-prysgawe, met die wegbreek uit jou eie klein, ingekeerde wêreld waarin alles om jou en jou eie selfsugtige behoefte draai. Dit is die groot omvorming wat ‘n mens intrek in die goddelike ruimte van die liefdevolle leef-vir-ander.

Ek hou van die beskrywing dat die gemeenskap met Christus ‘n wedersydse toevertrou is. Soos daar aan jou gegee is, so gee ‘n mens ook. Soos ‘n mens die onpeilbaarheid van die Christus-gawe in besit neem en jou eie maak, so gee ‘n mens op jou beurt en in antwoord jouself weg aan God. Soos God se hart brand vir die liefde van die mens, so word die mens se hart aan die brand gesteek vir die liefde wat groter as alles, veral as sy of haar eie bestaan, is.

Kyk nou die volgende paragraaf waarin Barth verder hieroor skryf (Kerklike Dogmatiek 4.3.2) en let veral op die (deur my) onderstreepte dele:

For it takes place and consists in a self-giving which for all the disparity is total on both sides. In this self-giving Christ and the Christian become and are a single totality, a fluid and differentiated but genuine and solid unity, in which He is with His people, the Lamb on the throne with the one who recognises in Him his Lord and King, the Head with the members of His body, the Prophet, Teacher and Master with His disciples, the eternal Son of God with the child of man who by Him and in Him, but only thus, only as His adopted brother, may be called and be the child of God. Like His own unity of true deity and humanity, this unity is hic et nunc concealed. It may be known in faith but not in sight, not by direct vision. The revelation of its glory has still to come. But even hic et nunc there can be and is no question of creating it or giving it force, but only of making definitively and universally visible its possibility, nature and reality as something incomparably great and totally new. This, and this alone, is what the whole of creation, with all men and Christians too, is waiting and groaning for. The purpose for which Christians are already called here and now in their life-histories within universal history is that in the self-giving of Jesus Christ to them, and theirs to Him, they should enter into their union with Him, their unio cum Christo.

Barth skryf hier oor die onuitsegbare en hy worstel met woorde om daaraan reg te laat geskied. Hy kan nie genoeg die unieke, onvergelyklike eenheid tussen God en mens in woorde uitdruk nie.

Die kernpunt, die moeilikste oomblik in Barth se worsteling met woorde oor die intiemste moontlike band waarin die mens kan deel, is vir my te vind in sy verwysing na Christus wat self die eenheid van ware godheid en menslikheid is. Dit is vir Barth iets verborge (concealed). Eintlik bedoel hy dat dit iets mistieks is.

Juis hieroor moet ‘n mens nie te blind wees nie: in Christus het ‘n mens juis die eenheid tussen God en mens op die mees mistieke wyse moontlik uitgespel. Dit is inderdaad mistiek: dat God mens geword het om die goddelike liefde volmaak te deel! En dat die Mens God geword het in heerlikheid – die doxa omdat die liefde so volmaak gedien is. En dat daarmee die model van navolging gereed gemaak is – sodat die liefde van toe af volmaak geleef kan word.

Hoe ingrypend ervaar ‘n mens dit wanneer ‘n mens, konform aan Christus, jou geestelike reis loop! Hoe kan ‘n mens ooit peil wat dit beteken dat God in die volmaakte eenheid met die Mens getree het? Inderdaad, as ‘n mens dit begin bedink, kreun ‘n mens saam met die hele skepping om die uiteindelike voltooiing hiervan.

Maar nog verder: Vir my is die punt nie eintlik regtig dat die mens nie vergoddelik moet word nie of dat die mens in sy/haar verhouding met God sy identiteit nooit prysgee nie. Min mistici wil op die vlak dink. En vele mistici ondersteun so ‘n uitwissing van identiteit in elk geval nie.

Die punt is eerder dat God juis uit genade, in vryheid, die mens opsoek in ‘n allernouste en allerintiemste verhouding. God, die Onvergelyklike, Transendente, Totaal Andere is ook, as God, die een wie se identiteit daarin bestaan om die mens verlangend sy eie te maak. Hieroor wil ek weer vir Barth aanhaal – want wat hy skryf is juis die sake waaroor diep nagedink word in die mistiek – en sonder al die afwykings waarvan hy die mistiek verdink en verwyt. (Volg later).

Die verdere punt is ook dat mistieke skrywers dikwels in hul reis oor God praat op so ‘n manier dat dit inspireer en dat dit die verhouding met God verder kan verdiep. Immers, watter ryk moontlikhede gaan vir die mens oop wanneer ‘n mens besef dat God nie alleen wil wees nie, dat God se identiteit daarin na vore kom dat God ‘n allerintiemste verhouding met die mens wil wees?  En om te dink op watter geduldige manier God gedurig hierdie verlange in die skepping, die herskepping, die uitstorting van die Gees uitgedruk het! As ‘n mens Handelinge mooi lees, ontdek jy hoedat die Gees lank nie net op Pinksterdag uitgestort is nie. Ook daarna was daar Pinksterdae waarop alle mense, ook nie-Jode, die Gees ontvang het (bv. Hd. 10:44). Keer op keer, steeds weer, reik die goddelike hart uit na hulle wat God graag by God wil hê. Maar later meer van Barth.

Die oorlog teen die mistiek (2).

Dit interesseer my altyd weer hoe bepaalde vooroordele wat deur sekere publikasies en bekende figure gepropageer word, onkrities kan voortleef – soms vir dekade’s lank. ‘n Voorbeeld hiervan is die manier waarop die mistiek beoordeel word en die oppervlakkige manier waarop daaroor gepraat word.

Tussen hakies: dit is juis een van die kenmerke van Spiritualiteit dat dit die integriteit van die ander ten alle koste wil beskerm. En, weet 'n mens, vooroordele teen ander is nie altyd 'n teken van respek vir hul integriteit nie. Des te meer wanneer hierdie vooroordele onreg pleeg teenoor ander en hul standpunte verdraai. 

Karl Barth, het ons gister bedink, was saam met sommige van sy kollega’s en as invloedryke, veel-gelese denkers van die twintigste eeu, verder verantwoordelik vir die slegte reputasie wat die begrip “mistiek” veral sedert die Verligting in die moderne tyd gekry het. 

Barth se oorlog teen die mistiek is gerig teen wat algemeen beskryf word as “wesensmistiek”. Dit is die mistiek, word gesê, waarin die mens in God opgaan, die grense tussen God en mens opgehef word en die mens vergoddelik word.

Die implikasie van die opmerkings van Barth, en saam met hom, van baie ander skrywers, is dat die mistiek daarop ingestel is om die onderskeid tussen God en mens op te hef. Die mistiek as die eenwording met God beteken dan dat die mens se identiteit verdwyn en dat die identiteit van die mens opgaan in of dat die mens deel kry aan die wese van God. Dit is dan wat “wesensmistiek” sou beteken.

Barth het herhaaldelik – tot vervelens toe, eintlik – verduidelik dat hy hom oor hierdie rede totaal verset teen die wesensmistiek. Kyk maar wat skryf hy in sy Kerklike Dogmatiek hieroor. Dit is belangrik om sy siening te volg omdat hy, as “ortodokse” teoloog wye invloed gehad het, ook op teoloë in ons land.

Barth is skerp genoeg om te besef dat die verhouding tussen God en mens eintlik ‘n mistieke karakter het. Daarom skryf hy oor die probleem van die mistiek wanneer hy praat oor die gemeenskap wat Christene met Christus het. Die gemeenskap van God met die mens het te doen met die gelowige as disippel wat aan Christus “behoort” en in wie die Heilige Gees kragtig aan die werk is.

Barth skryf hieroor in sterk taal. Hy merk byvoorbeeld op dat die gelaaide woord van “gemeenskap” inderdaad vertel van die intieme en intense verhouding tussen Christus en gelowiges (sy formulering).

Maar tog, verklaar hy dadelik, is daar geen kwessie dat hierdie gemeenskap ooit beteken dat ‘n gelowige die identiteit van Christus aanneem nie. Barth skryf: “… there can be no question of an identification of the follower with his preceding leader (d.i. Christus), the possession with its owner, or the life of the one awakened by the Holy Spirit with the One who gives him this Spirit.”

Dit is duidelik dus: hoewel daar ‘n intieme, nou, intense verhouding met Christus bestaan, is die mens altyd weer mens en kan ‘n mens Christus-gelykvormigheid nie in terme van ‘n verlies aan menslike identiteit verstaan nie. Vir Barth beteken enige vorm van identifisering van God en mens dat God eintlik vermenslik word. God, die oneindige, die totaal andere, word dan opgevang en meegedeel in die eindige, die immanente. Ons kan nie God domestiseer nie, vasvang in ons menslike kategorieë, gelykstel met menslike ervaring, opwinding, ekstase, verinnerliking nie.

'n Mens kan Barth hiering volg, hom goedkeurend beaam en graag met hom saamstem. 

Wat Barth dus kwaad gemaak het, was dat hy gedink het dat Schleiermacher as “liberale” teoloog die Reformasie verloën het, meer nog: dat hy die Christendom wesenlik aangetas het deur te maak asof hy oor God praat terwyl hy eintlik maar op ‘n verhewe manier oor die mens gepraat het. Schleiermacher, het Barth telkens beweer, het die Woord van God met die woord van die mens vervang. Hy sou ‘n antropologie, die studie van die mens aanbied in plaas van ‘n boodskap oor Christus. Die “Woord van God” het dus, volgens Barth, eenvoudig uit Schleiermacher se denke verdwyn.

Hierdie kort bespreking wys op die een oorheersende beswaar van Barth teen die mistiek en die intense manier waarop hy dit met sy groot vyand, Schleiermacher, verbind het.

Die vraag is net: is dit wat mistiek beteken? Gaan mistiek oor die vergoddeliking van die mens en die vermensliking van God? Is dit wat Schleiermacher wil doen? Is die mistiek werklik so oppervlakkig om op 'n naiewe manier die grense tussen God en mens uit te wis?

Maar dan : wat doen ‘n mens wanneer verskeie navorsers uitwys hoe Barth Schleiermacher sleg gelees het, uit verband aangehaal het en sy belangrike Reformatoriese fokus op Woordverkondiging misgekyk het (Lees hieroor die publikasie van Dawn Devries oor Jesus Christ in the preaching of Calvin and Schleiermacher.)  Hoe rym dit dan  Schleiermacher, die Gereformeerde predikant, die verkondiging van die Woord so uitgebreid voorgestaan het terwyl hy wou nadink oor die belangrike aspek van geloofservaring?

Het Schleiermacher nie probeer nadink oor wesenlike aspekte van die geloofslewe waaroor Barth meer moes geskryf het nie? Ek sou graag op 'n ander keer meer oor Schleiermacher wou nadink. Maar, sonder om veel te karring oor Barth se verstaan van Schleiermacher, kan ‘n mens net Barth self lees om agter te kom dat hy sy byltjie met Schleiermacher nie altyd baie skerp geslyp het nie.  Barth se oorlog teen die mistiek neem naamlik in sy eie werke later ‘n wending wanneer hy self dieper nadink oor geloofservaring. Later meer hieroor.

Die stryd teen die mistiek

Een van die skerpste kritici van die mistiek in modern tye was Karl Barth, een van die bekendste teoloë van die twintigste eeu. Bladsy na bladsy van sy reuse-werk, die Kerklike Dogmatiek, bevat skerp kritiek op die mistiek. Kommentatore wys daarop dat Barth so skerp skryf dat dit lyk asof hy oorlog teen die mistiek verklaar het. Hulle dink, trouens, dat Barth se hele teologie ‘n reaksie teen die mistiek was.

Barth se groot vyand was Schleiermacher, die ewe bekende teoloog van die ervaring wat in die negentiende eeu groot klem gelê het op die mens se ervaring van totale afhanklikheid van God en veral aandag gegee het aan religieuse gevoel. Hierdie vyandskap van Barth teenoor Schleiermacher en sy focus op godsdienstige ervaring was deel van Barth se groot verset teen enige vorm van natuurlike teologie.

Barth het hom verset teen enige poging om God se genadige toewending na die mens te kort te doen. God is heeltemal anders as die mens en die mens leef totaal vanuit die genade van God. God maak die mens regverdig en die mens leef uit die geregtigheid van God wat in Christus geskenk word. In sy beroemde kommentaar op Romeine beklemtoon Barth dit oor en oor. Dit is vermetel van die mens om te dink dat hy of sy op enige manier by God kan uitkom of dat die mens deur eie vrome gevoelens aansprake voor God kan maak.

Barth wil niks te doen hê nie met enige vorm van menslike geregtigheid waardeur die mens op een of ander manier ‘n greep op God wil uitoefen. Die inherente neiging van die mens om deur vroomheid sy saak by God te wil bevorder, is diep sondig en gedryf deur eie waan. Nooit kan die mens hom of haar op enige manier aanmatig om sy of haar eie pad na God oop te breek nie.

‘n Mens kan nie deur religieuse ervaring by God uitkom nie. Dit is net deur God se genade, deur die Woord dat die mens die egte lewe ontdek.

Barth was nie alleen nie.  Ander bekende persone aan die begin van die twintigste eeu het net so sterk soos hy teen die mistiek te velde getrek. Onder hulle was sulke bekendes soos Gogarten en Brunner.

Barth en sy kollega’s uit die dialektiese teologie het ‘n baie groot aandeel gehad om die mistiek ‘n hoogs negatiewe reputasie te gee. Hulle het ‘n merkwaardige invloed uitgeoefen op die modern teologie se houding teenoor die mistiek.

Die vraag is nou: wat het Barth onder mistiek verstaan? Dit word veral interessant wanneer ‘n mens daaroor dink dat Barth in sy later jare tog anders oor die mistiek begin dink het.

‘n Mens kan bly wees in slegte tye. Wanneer goeie tye geestelike waaksaamheid bedreig (2).

In die vorige blog het dit gegaan om ons idee dat die lewe goed is wanneer dit met ons voorspoedig gaan. Omdat ons so ingestel is op voorspoed en voorspoed ons vreugde gee, gebeur dit dat ‘n mens in goeie tye minder geestelik word.

Spurgeon herinner in sy skrywe aan die mens se neiging om toe te laat dat die goeie dinge in die lewe ‘n mens geestelik benadeel deurdat ‘n mens doodgewoon die dieper dinge verwaarloos en opgaan in die oomblikke van sukses en blydskap.

Sommige mense is nie naïef nie. Hulle weet voorspoed moet ‘n mens nie nalatig in ‘n mens se geestelike lewe maak nie. Daarom word dikwels gedink dat die lewe die moeite werd is wanneer ‘n mens bly kan sê dat dit met jou geestelik goed gaan.

Spurgeon wys nou op ‘n ander kant van die saak: ‘n mens kan veral in die goeie, geestelike piek-tye geneig wees om ‘n mens se geestelike waaksaamheid te verslap. ‘n Mens het immers ook die neiging om te dink dat wanneer alles met jou geestelik en godsdienstig goed gaan, die lewe goed en in orde is. ‘n Mens “rus” in die “vrede van die Here.”

Dit is in sulke geestelike voorspoedstye dat ‘n mens geestelik lui kan word in die sin dat ‘n mens die geestelike reis se skerp kante vergeet en miskyk. Selfs in godsdienstig goeie tye moet mens op jou hoede bly vir dinge wat ‘n mens geestelik kan benadeel. Trouens, miskien is die goeie tye die gevaarlike tye.

Hieroor skryf Spurgeon in sy tipiese vertelstyl met verwysing na Bunyan se Pilgrim’s Progress. Hier is Spurgeon besig met gedagtes oor geestelike voorspoed – nie net wanneer dit oor die algemeen met iemand goed gaan nie. ‘n Mens sou kon sê dat dit gaan oor die tye dat ‘n mens geborgenheid in geestelike ervaringe vind. Dit is dan dat ‘n mens twee keer moet dink, skryf Spurgeon:

Another dangerous time is when all goes pleasantly in spiritual matters. Christian went not to sleep when lions were in the way, or when he was wading through the river, or when fighting with Apollyon, but when he had climbed half way up the Hill Difficulty, and came to a delightful arbour, he sat down, and forthwith fell asleep, to his great sorrow and loss. The enchanted ground is a place of balmy breezes, laden with fragrant odours and soft influences, all tending to lull pilgrims to sleep.

Remember Bunyan's description: "Then they came to an arbour, warm, and promising much refreshing to the weary pilgrims; for it was finely wrought above head, beautified with greens, and furnished with benches and settles. It had also in it a soft couch, where the weary might lean." "The arbour was called the Slothful's Friend, and was made on purpose to allure, if it might be, some of the pilgrims to take up their rest there when weary."

Depend upon it, it is in easy places that men shut their eyes and wander into the dreamy land of forgetfulness. Old Erskine wisely remarked, "I like a roaring devil better than a sleeping devil." There is no temptation half so dangerous as not being tempted. The distressed soul does not sleep; it is after we enter into peaceful confidence and full assurance that we are in danger of slumbering. The disciples fell asleep after they had seen Jesus transfigured on the mountain top. Take heed, joyous Christian, good frames are near neighbours to temptations: be as happy as you will, only be watchful.

Die gedeelte is, weer eens, nie ‘n kritiek teen lewensvreugde nie asof ‘n mens nie met blydskap die goeie tye in jou lewe kan vier nie. Spurgeon skryf immers hier duidelik: wees so bly as wat jy wil wees. ‘n Mens hoef nie in die goeie tye suur-gesig rond te krap op soek na waar die versoekings skuil nie. Spurgeon vra aandag vir iets anders: hy wil mense aanspoor om te besef dat uiterlike en selfs innerlike vreugde nie noodwendig die antwoord is op die mens se behoeftes nie.

Spurgeon probeer nie ‘n resep gee nie. Wat hy hier doen is om die bewussyn wakker te maak en aan te moedig tot onderskeiding. Die goeie goeie tye word nie argeloos geleef en eenvoudig as ‘n vanselfsprekendheid aanvaar nie. Ook in die goeie tye moet ‘n mens dieper kan dink, verder kan kyk as die blote blydskap wat met voorspoed in ‘n mens se lewe kom. Spurgeon se tweede punt vul hierdie eerste een aan: wanneer dit met ‘n mens goed gaan is jy bewus daarvan dat jy bevoorreg is. Dit is selfs meer waar =wanneer dit met ‘n mens geestelik goed gaan. Oomblikke van innerlike vervulling, die kontemplatiewe tye saam met God, weet ‘n mens, bly nie vir ewig nie. Die geestelike reis loop ook deur die valleie – en hulle kan diep en donker wees.

Dit is presies waarom Markus 13 geskryf is. Hierdie hoofstuk gaan immers oor mense in die geloofsgemeenskap wat nie die tekens van die tye kan onderskei nie.

Dit is juis omdat die goeie tye so spesiaal is dat ‘n mens die olie vir die lamp aanvul vir die onvermydelike donker tye op die geestelike reis. Die grootste gevaar, egter, sal die mistici skryf, is wanneer ‘n mens gefokus is op die goeie gevoelens wat ‘n mens het, ook in tye van geestelike opwinding. Want wat tel is nie bloot die oomblikke van verrukking nie, of die tye van verkwikking nie, maar dat ‘n mens deel sal kan bly van die Liefde, dieper en sterker as alles wat ‘n mens ervaar of bedink, veral in die tye van donkerte.

In die goeie tye pas dit ‘n mens dus om te bly vra na die Een wat die goeie Gewer is. Weg van ‘n mens se eie momentele ervarings, bly ‘n mens soekend, vraend, uitreik na God. Wanneer ‘n mens van die melaatsheid genees is van die stinkende, verrotte tye/oomblikke in jou bestaan is die genade om nie in die roetine van die goeie lewe terug te val nie, maar om terug te gaan en naby te wees aan die Een wat sy hand op jou gelê het.

Dit is waarom alles gaan wanneer ‘n mens die goeie tye beleef – om te bly vra: hoe het dit so goed geword? Van wie kom dit? En hierdie antwoord kan ‘n mens selfs lei na die diepste vorm van vreugde: wat tel is nie uiterlike voorspoed nie of godsdienstige piek-tye nie. Wat ‘n mens eg bly is, is dat ‘n mens in voor- en teenspoed aan die Here van die lewe behoort. Dit is dan dat ‘n mens bly kan wees vir die slegte tye – gevul met die blye wete dat selfs of juis die slegte tye ‘n mens nader aan die Here gebring het.

Voorspoed kan sleg wees. Wanneer goeie tye ‘n mens geestelik lui maak (1)

In sommige plekke word Spiritualiteit nou verbind met die soeke na geluk. “Happinez” is die naam van ‘n tydskrif in Nederland wat op spiritualiteit ingestel is.

Maar hoe goed is vreugde en geluk? Is ‘n voorspoedige lewe noodwendig ‘n goeie lewe?

‘n Gelukkige mens is nie noodwendig ‘n spirituele mens nie. Trouens, geluk kan soms soos ‘n swaard oor die geestelike weg hang, reg om die gelukkige mens skade aan te doen.

Bible Gateway stuur vanoggend die volgende Spurgeon-aanhaling op sy poslys uit: Die teks van Spurgeon kom uit Lukas 22:46 waar Jesus die dissipels roep tot waaksaamheid sodat hulle nie in versoeking  beland  nie.

Spurgeon skryf oor die gedeelte:

When is the Christian most liable to sleep? Is it not when his temporal circumstances are prosperous? Have you not found it so? When you had daily troubles to take to the throne of grace, were you not more wakeful than you are now? Easy roads make sleepy travellers.

In die gedeelte wil Spurgeon beklemtoon dat uiterlike voorspoed ‘n mens se geestelike ingesteldheid kan aantas. Wanneer voorspoed ‘n mens oorval, het ‘n mens die innerlike neiging om geestelike sake te verwaarloos. Spurgeon wys daarop hoe teenspoed, aan die ander kant, ‘n mens weer terugdryf na geestelike sake. Hiermee neem Spurgeon ‘n motief op wat deur die eeue vele mense besig gehou het. Die ou predikers was maar kwaai  hieroor: hulle het altyd, so bietjie vingerswaaiend, gewaarsku daarteen dat mense die kerk net ken as dit met hulle sleg gaan en hulle in ‘n krisis is.

Ek probeer die goeie bedoeling met hierdie vermaning begryp. Sekerlik is ons wyse voorouers nie altyd knyplippies oor godsdiens nie. Daarvoor ken ons hulle te goed. Hulle het in vele opsigte lewensvreugde gehad, humor vertroetel, sukses bewonder en lewensdrif uitgestraal. Daar is geen twyfel oor hul lewensvreugde en hul waardering vir die goeie dinge wat ‘n mens se lewe kan vul nie: Die goeie tye is daarom geniet te word.

Maar dit is ook die tye dat ‘n mens toelaat dat jy jou maklik kan laat verloor in die gewone lewensgang en al sy goeie dinge. Dit word dan tye dat die fokus op ‘n mens se voorspoed en geluk self val. 

Prediker het sy bedenkinge hieroor op sy manier verwoord: dink aan jou Skepper in die dae van jou jonkheid. Oftewel, wanneer alles goed gaan, jy sterk is en voorspoed het, moenie die geestelike dinge vergeet nie.

Dit is selfs buite die diepste godsdienstige lewe ‘n algemene wysheid dat ‘n mens nie te oppervlakkig, te materialisties oor die lewe moet dink nie. Die goeie tye is daar om geniet te word, maar dit is ook die tyd dat ‘n mens bly weet dat ook die goeie dinge nie vir altyd daar is nie. Die lewe het altyd sy goeie en slegte kante. Daarom moet ‘n mens selfs in die goeie tye jou geestelike mondering nie verwaarloos nie. Goeie tye moet ‘n mens nie geestelik lui maak, deurdat dit ‘n mens laat dink dat die lewe gaan om goeie dinge te beleef nie. Ook in die goeie tye moet ‘n mens maar bly nadink oor die dieper, verborge dinge.

Die punt is: wat vir ons na geluk lyk, kan dikwels egte geluk in die pad staan. Dit gebeur wanneer 'n mens jou geestelik perspektief kwytraak oor uiterlike voorspoedstye. 

Maar daar is nog 'n tweede kant wat aandag vra. Môre meer daaroor.