We live at a period of time in which two types of spirituality are vying for the hearts and minds of many. The “I’m spiritual but not religious” slogan and cliché is but a symptom of such worldviews at odds. The differences between these outlooks have a 500-year-old history and such perspectives continue to play themselves out in a social way and manner. There is the Classical tradition as embodied in a catholic and Chaucerian heritage. There is the Protestant tradition as embodied in a modern, anarchist and Bunyanist heritage.
The classical, catholic heritage of The Canterbury Tales
The classical, catholic and Chaucerian heritage of The Canterbury Tales portrays a vision of a complex community of good, bad, mediocre and questionable people and temperaments that are on pilgrimage together to Canterbury. Such a community is idealistic and realistic, tolerant of imperfection, critical of those who distort the highest ideals, yet loyal to the community. The fact that Chaucer had the ability to describe what Matthew Arnold called “God’s plenty” in all their complex aspirations and disarray makes The Canterbury Tales a work of layered genius. The fact that Chaucer was classical and catholic in his breadth and depth meant that when disappointments, betrayals and distortions occurred, forgiveness (again and again) and faithfulness to the higher goals of unity and destination kept the pilgrims together on their way to Canterbury. Thus, the journey to Canterbury is a metaphor of unity and oneness of goal—with imperfection—as a means towards such a destination. The classical vision was very much played out in the thinking of 16th century reformers such as Thomas More and Erasmus. Such men were loyal yet critical to the notion of communal unity and the commonwealth while recognizing that the path taken in community was fraught with imperfection. Such is the classical and catholic notion of spirituality as incarnated in the thinking, lives and writings of Chaucer, More and Erasmus.
The Modern, Protestant Notion of Pilgrim’s Progress
The more modern and protestant notion of spirituality that we find in Luther, Calvin and, at a more extreme and anarchist level, in Bunyan/Milton is expressed in multiple fragments and schisms. Ideals are held so high that when such ideals are not realized, groups break off from one another (again and again) in the name of some higher purity, spirituality or being guided by the Divine Spirit—such is the genetic code and DNA of Protestantism. The reductio ad absurdum of Protestantism can be found in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress that, in the Chaucerian sense, is both an immature understanding of what it means to be a pilgrim (in community) and certainly not progress.
The lone pilgrim in Pilgrim’s Progress leaves one and all behind in his quest for God—we find the same perspective at work in Milton (in a more sophisticated sense). Those who see themselves as spiritual but not religious or reacting to perceptions of imperfect institutions are neither radical nor prophetic—they are merely uncritical children of Bunyan and Milton. In short, such a position is simply a form or reactionary anarchism and very trendy. The fact that many modern and postmodern Bunyan and Milton types see imperfections in church and society does not take a great deal of minimal thinking—such has always been the obvious case.
Gnostic Puritanism
Chaucer described such the situation well and wisely. What is done when such insights come to the fore determines whether a deeper and more demanding communal response will emerge or a retreat into ever smaller enclaves and reactionary groups will dominate the day. The bourgeois Gnosticism (to use Voegelin’s term) of many self-congratulating radicals (so well dissected by Hooker in the 16th century in his critique of Puritanism) is as alive then as now.
The gnostic sees him/herself as having the true and higher insights, others as betrayers and compromisers of the noble vision and, as such, separation from such imperfect communities must ensue. Such an ideological stance is just a modern form of Pharisaism (thank God I am not as those imperfect Chaucer types). This merging of Gnosticism (idealism and purity) with Pharisaism is the opposite of the charitable, humble and thoughtful Publican who simply says, “Lord Have Mercy” and quietly serves an imperfect and historic community on the trail to Canterbury.
Pilgrims in Community
The position of Chaucer asks of those on pilgrimage to be tolerant, forgive and work with those who might irritate, vex and trouble the brittle idealist. Maturity and Divine Love are called for to remain in complex communities for the long journey. The simpler and more immature position is to desert such communities, retreat from the communal fray into ever smaller tribes who see themselves as radical, prophetic or on the ‘cutting edge.’
Such flattery, needless to say, breeds a sort of ever shrinking notion of what it means to engage in an imperfect church and world in a thoughtful manner over decades. Chaucer/More/Erasmus or Bunyan/Milton? The choice made embodies two types of spirituality—the former has depth, is grounded and rooted in imperfect communities on pilgrimage together. The latter perpetuates the protestant tendency towards fragmentation and isolation—the former know what it means to be a publican, the latter a judgmental Pharisee.
Amor Vincit Omnia
Ron Dart
Comments