"All My Dear Falsehoods" (Rachel Srubas)

The following poem is taken from the book Oblation, Meditations on St Benedict's Rule (Paraclete Press) by Rachel Srubas. I have used some of Rachel's stuff before here and highly recommend this book of poetry. Published in 2007 it is available on Amazon for as little as $1.27. Don't let that fool you regarding its quality! Rachel is both a Benedictine Oblate and a Presbyterian clergywoman. The poem is a reflection on the passage from St Benedict's Rule that reminds the monk:  The second step of humility is not to love having our own way nor to delight in our own desires. (RB, Chapter 7)

I am the road that will guide you to God.
I unravel lies that seduced you.
I am the life you still try to elude.
When you abandon me, 
I wait for you. When you return,
I embrace you.

Some days I prefer
to ignore your assurances,
pave my own path, lose my own way,
cross quicksand if I have to ---
anything but
relinquish my will.

Remember the blistering, narcissistic desert,
the devil who taunted you there?
You know it well --- the desire, the drive
to conceive and control, predict and prevail.
You, too, have wrestled the egoistic impulse,
the credit-hoarding greed of spirit
that flares within and keeps me,
on some days, from offering praise,
stops me from seeking your face
or following your excellent way.

I'm left to my own echoing solitude,
murmuring my own name.

Jesus, teach me to pray. Lend me your hand.
Talk to me of forgiveness until
all my dear falsehoods fall away.
Mend the cracked compass of my mind,
and guide me to my true desire.

Followup questions on story, fundamentalism vs atheism, etc

[[Dear Sister, thank you for your posts on story. I have heard Genesis called mythical before, but I was unclear why scholars thought that was a good thing and not a harmful one. I especially never heard before that taking such stories literally could actually be the most harmful thing we can do. It was interesting to hear you put creationists and atheists in the same box here. So here are my questions. Do all stories in the Bible work in the same way? Are you saying that creationists and atheists misread the Bible in the same way? Are these two really more related than not? What is it they are both missing with regard to the stories in the Bible?]]

Some stories in the Bible are more historical (and that is true in the later chapters of Genesis as well), but yes, they challenge us in SOME of the same ways I outlined in the earlier posts. Especially they challenge us to identify in one way and another with the characters and problems involved and make decisions on where we will stand as a result in our own world; they can stand temporarily as a space where we can explore ourselves, etc, but generally they do not ask for the same kind of suspension of disbelief I described before. However, two kinds of Scriptural stories especially work in the way I outlined: myths, and parables (especially Jesus' parables which are completely unique to him in the history of literature).

Both are especially good at providing a space where we can enter in and leave our own world behind (so to speak) for the time being, but only so we can return with our own hearts and minds changed in some way and engage that world differently as a result. One of the ways you will see that Jesus' parables differ from myth per se is that they draw us in, disorient us, and then, demand that we make a choice which reorients us, either to the world as we ordinarily understand it, or toward the Kingdom of God. They are more active or directed in this dynamic than myth per se; further, because they are less fantastic than myth they demand not so much a suspension of disbelief as a renunciation of belief. I will not repeat more of what I have written in the past about parables, but I would suggest if you have not read them, you check out the pieces on Thematic Aperception Tests and Parables, or, the Parable of the Good Samaritan for a more detailed explanation of the way Jesus' parables in particular work. They are tagged, so you can find them in the list of labels at the right hand side of the blog.

Yes, I am saying that creationists and some atheists (there are different kinds) do tend to read the myths of Genesis' primordial history in the same way. Both take these stories literally, and make them ridiculous in the process. The creationists read the stories as explanations not only of a sovereign creator God, but as descriptions of the way he creates. They rule out evolution (micro and macro), ongoing creation, a world which is moving towards perfection or fulfillment rather than (merely) falling away from it, etc. As a result they make faith look like an anti-intellectual act of people afraid of truth instead of a deeply intelligent act worthy of humanity and the profound mysteriousness of the cosmos. They do something similar with God, who is invariably treated as A BEING rather than as the ground and source of all being and meaning. Atheists do the same, but they do so in order to justify a lack or even refusal of faith, the transcendent, and the like. They do so in order to denigrate believers and belief, but also to castigate the parodies of God naive believers so often put forward --- itself a much more legitimate enterprise than is sometimes recognized. So yes, despite apparent differences, these two groups of people often have more in common than they have differences.

What both of these groups of people miss is the fact that stories are sophisticated even sacramental vehicles for encountering truth, and this is especially true of myth or the mythical elements in stories. Both groups treat literal truth as contrary to profound truth which needs to be conveyed with myth and the bending and shaping of the literal. Both forget how story functions in our lives. They treat these things as childish, something to be outgrown, rather than understanding how entering into stories allows for growth in transcendence. (Watch a child being read to and imagine the explosions of transcendence going on in her mind and heart as she places herself in the story and internalizes what she hears!)

They do this in different ways: the creationist, for instance, absolutizes elements in the narrative as literal or historical in the modern sense and loses contact with the depth dimension of the story. Thus when faced with scientific data regarding evolution, the age of the world, etc, they must deny these things; when told by other believers the stories of creation function as myth, their faith is threatened unnecessarily and they cannot see the deeper truths embodied as only story can do. The atheists on the other hand opt for the data of science as far superior to what can be conveyed in story and if told the account is mythical, dismiss it as nonsense or fiction on ALL levels. Both underestimate truth (its scope and mystery) and the God who grounds and is the source of all truth, but they do this especially by forgetting how story functions, and how human beings are by nature story-telling beings not because they are unsophisticated or primitive, but precisely because they are sophisticated and capable of transcendence and communion.

Another question on Benedict's Ladder of Humility

[[I understand what you said about Benedict's ladder of humility and not treating it like a series of steps we must take in order to achieve humility, but as I read the Rule, Benedict does seem to attribute some benefit to using these steps as things to do rather just as signs of growth already achieved. Do you think this is so, or am I misreading what he actually says? Doesn't Benedict believe and teach that outward discipline leads to inward dispositions over time?]]

Thanks for the question, and for the chance to clarify or nuance what I have already said in regard to Benedict's ladder of humility. First, I think we must reject the idea that taking on these steps CAUSES the growth in humility, and accept rather that they are PRIMARILY SIGNS of progress in growth already achieved, manifestations of inward changes. This is what I meant when I said that these steps are descriptive rather than prescriptive. In this I agree completely with Michael Casey's comments related to those cited earlier: [[ To picture monastic life as a process of exaltation clearly emphasizes that it is God who is the active agent; the monk is the one lifted up. This offsets the idea that the "ladder of humility" is a spiritual Mt Everest that the dilligent monk must climb by personal efforts.. . .As we have insisted in the last chapter, the behavioral forms of humility are not proposed as a program of exercises to reach the summit. Saint Benedict offers them as the normal manifestations of growth. Humility is not a state achieved by direct application of effort. It follows the action of God, and is the usual indication that grace is at work.]] (Living in the Truth, Saint Benendict's teaching on humility." Michael Casey, OCS)

But does undertaking these steps if we have not arrived at them "naturally" result in any benefit? And if so, what benefit is that? If someone wants to grow in humility, can they do so by taking on these steps one at a time and practicing them, or is the situation more complex than this? In particular, which of these steps are behaviors one CAN practice and which point specifically to inner attitudes one must acquire as foundational to any behaviors?

First, it should be noted that the Rule of Benedict clearly says that humility is the BASIS for climbing or ascending the ladder of humility: RB7:7 "Without doubt, this descent and ascent is to be understood as meaning we descend by exaltation and ascend by humility." In other words, growth in humility is the cause, not the effect of these "steps" or rungs. Secondly, the fact is that Benedict's ladder of humility begins with internal or interior dispositions of the heart, and only later (and gradually) moves to external behavior. So, while it is certainly not true that external behaviors have no place, it remains true that growth in humility begins in interior dispositions which lead to exteriorization, not vice versa.

Still, your question has not been answered completely. Does doing certain external behaviors lead to interior dispositions? Doesn't Benedict believe that this can be so? And the simple answer is yes, to some limited extent. For instance, thinking badly of oneself CAN lead one to count on the grace and forgiveness of God. It can, as it did for Luther, for instance, open one to the good news of the Gospel about the unconditional forgiveness of God. The problem is, however, that one cannot adopt this belief or simply say to oneself without genuine conviction that one is the worst of sinners and really be open to the truth of the Gospel. One must REALLY believe this in order to hunger to hear the REST of the truth, the real bottom line. So it is not something one can practice "from the outside in" so to speak.

Perhaps a better example is the fifth rung of the ladder, because it deals with something that is more clearly an external behavior: [[a monk does not conceal his abbot any evil thoughts entering his heart, or any evils secretly committed by him. instead he confesses them humbly.]] Over time, this practice can clearly reveal one's own heart to one. But to work properly, a certain degree of true humility is presupposed (as the instruction clearly states). One might also, therefore, come face to face with the changes that need to occur in one's heart and life, and therefore be opened to the grace of God which will actually work these changes. But it remains grace which is presupposed right along; that is, it is the action of God which brings about the humility, and the grace of God which even makes the doing of the "steps" rightly possible.

When one honestly holds nothing back from one's legitimate superior, one practices the honesty which is the heart of humility, but one requires grace to do this. One exercises humility and can grow in it, especially if the confession is received with gentleness, and acceptance --- even (and even especially) if the response also challenges one to grow beyond this point. My sense though, even here, is that humility comes first and can be strengthened or developed with exercise. The mere (and probably apparent rather than true) doing of this external behavior (if it is not the expression of humility) could as easily result in growing pride or resentment, distrust, and subtler forms of dishonesty one might not be consciously aware of. In any case, humility is the presupposition for the act; the act does not necessarily lead to humility.

A Question about humility, and a possible contradiction of St Benedict's Rule

Since a couple of my posts have dealt with humility, and especially the idea of humility of being grounded in the truth of who we are, that is the truth of how God sees us, they have raised questions for readers. One of them is especially good because it uses a paragraph from St Benedict's Rule which seems to contradict what I wrote just yesterday. "How is it [I], a Benedictine, can disagree with St Benedict in this matter?" The pertinent passage is par 51: "The seventh step of humility is that he (the monk) should not only pronounce with his tongue that he is inferior to and more common than all, but also believe it in the intimate sensibility of the heart."

Let me begin by saying we are often tempted to misread these texts in the same way we misread dictionaries, that is, as prescriptive rather than descriptive. And yet, dictionaries are really compilations of common usage which are therefore DESCRIPTIVE, not prescriptive. What I mean is that language changes and grows and a dictionary captures a sense, or takes a snapshot of what common meanings words have at that point in time, not what sense these must have for all time! While it is helpful to teach grammar school children (et al) these common meanings in a somewhat prescriptive way (for instance, for the time being you will need to use them in these senses if you are to be understood), the bottom line is we are DESCRIBING the meanings common NOW so these children can communicate with others who share language as it exists. As they mature as persons and linguists, their language will develop and change and include neologisms and new usages as well as common usage. They will expand the meanings of the words, and perhaps transform them entirely in time.

In a sense, the Rule of Benedict's ladder of humility is the same: it is meant to describe the outward signs of various stages of growth in humility a monk might evidence as she goes through her life; it is NOT prescriptive of steps which MUST be taken or behaviors which must be adopted in order to achieve humility. Especially, it is not to be taken as prescriptive of steps and behaviors one apes or practices hoping to make them habitual or "perpetual". As Michael Casey makes clear in his book, A Guide to Living the Truth, Saint Benedict's teaching on Humility: "Humility is not an action or a series of actions, nor a habit formed by the repetition of actions. It is, rather, a receptivity or passivity; a matter of being acted upon by God."

So, at some point in one's growth in humility, one will probably not only come to see that one is NOT better than one's fellows, but that since one cannot see the sins or read the hearts of others, one will also likely come to believe that she is truly WORSE than any other person. It represents a stage in true development of humility and (presuming the attitude is not pathologically rooted) reflects at least a couple of important pieces of growth: first the awareness of one's own sinfulness (brokenness and alienation) and also a sense of one's essential poverty; second, a refusal to judge others; and third, a growing harmony between inner attitudes and outer behaviors. It STILL, in my opinion, bears the taint of the "fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" (or recognizes the monk will do so at this stage) because it juxtaposes or judges oneself alongside others (and vice versa), but it is an improvement over earlier stages of growth, and will be followed by what Benedict identifies as five more steps or stages as well.

We are a people addicted to "How to" books, and I think oftentimes we turn old classics in spirituality into such books. The temptation to turn Benedict's "ladder of humility" (or those by other lesser spiritual leaders --- for these were VERY popular at various times) into something we need merely climb rung by rung to a destination where we will then dwell forever is naive. It gets the picture backwards, puts the cart before the horse, so to speak. We should view it more like a spiritual topographic map, a map of a journey we are taking punctuated by certain landmarks or symptoms of stages in the process. The person who has never experienced TRULY seeing herself as "inferior to and more common than all" MAY need to attend to other and earlier stages of the journey of growing receptivity we call humility (although today one who feels this way may equally need psychiatric help as well as good spiritual direction!), but whether this is the case or not, it would be a serious mistake to adopt this as a way of behaving expecting it to lead to true humility. The point is the map is the RECORD of a journey already in progress, NOT the outline of a path we are to follow slavishly or mechanically. If we are on track certain landmarks or signs will stand out from stage to stage of our journey. if we are not, no running from one landmark or sign to the next will get us there. The journey takes place on a different level entirely.

One side note: in pre Vatican II religious formation it was often the case that ladders such as this one WERE taken in a prescriptive sense, and superiors tried very hard to mold or "form" young religious accordingly. Of course uniformity was a prized commodity in those days, and it was a good deal more demanding on formation personnel to patiently watch each novice or junior for signs of authentic growth than it was to impose and measure external conformity. (Fortunately the very best managed to bridge the gap between the two approaches and achieve a balance.) Humility is like the parable of the seed however: the farmer can only provide the basic elements and care necessary and trust that God will provide for growth in spite of external conditions, etc. He can no more force a seed to grow into a particular plant than he can force the sun to rise or the moon to set. The same is true of ladders of humility, etc. They cannot be used in the way described in this paragraph. If they are, the result will likely include damage to the tenderest growth.

I hope my comments do not seem to be simply an end run around what Benedict "plainly says". In fact, I can point to several Benedictine scholars who accept this view of Benedict's "Ladder of humility." I have not read one who says precisely what I do about the "taint" which remains of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but it seems to me their sense is the same: in pointing to growth in spiritual life we must contend with the taint of sin and of other ways of viewing reality which remain and accompany our growth. They are, this side of death, always with us.

Meanwhile, thanks for the question! I do appreciate getting them occasionally!