I have read many times my friend, Alan Jones’ book, Soul Making. Jones is the retired Dean of the Episcopal Cathedral in San Francisco. Before that position, he taught spirituality at an Episcopal seminary. He was quite helpful to me in the early days when I was trying to combine my studies in Christian history with the emerging spirituality discipline in the educational world.
I am sure it is true of all good books. Regardless how many times we might read the book, we keep finding new things that we did not notice on an earlier read. Maybe that is an argument for keeping a few of the favorites in our library. Soul Making came into my life when I was ready for both what Jones was doing and how he was doing it. At some level, I knew much of the stuff, since I already had done a Ph.D. At another level, spirituality is always about more than simply ideas, doctrines, and the like. It always has to do with experience.
In the last chapter of his book, Jones focuses on the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a complex attempt to talk about who God is and how God is present in our world. It is a linguistic wrestling with ideas and intuitions that are metaphorical and paradoxical. When I am trying to teach students how to think about it and, possibly, gain some sense of understanding, I usually say that finally it is either profound or nonsense. I grant at one level, it is a word game. At another level, the Trinity is a profound articulation of a Divinity that cannot be expressed but can be experienced.
Jones uses the idea of the Trinity to talk about how persons are made. When you begin to think about it, it may be just as difficult finally to describe what (or who) a person is. Soul making, as he understands it, is how persons come to be made. You and I are both human, but we are not the same persons. Jones makes the interesting distinction between an individual and a person. We are both---individuals and persons. It is easy to talk about individuals. Individuals are like numbers; they just are. They are not unique nor distinctive. There is no depth to the idea of individual.
Persons, on the other hand, are all of that. Persons are unique. They are potentially deep, interesting and mysterious. Sometimes we are even mysterious to ourselves. We know ourselves in part, but in part we have no clue who we are or who we are becoming. We have some control in the process and no control over the rest. We have choices, but not absolute choice. Jones uses his idea of soul making by referencing three main questions.
The first question asks, “What does it mean to be a person?” When I ask students this one, you can see their eyes get bigger. It seems like such an easy one to answer…until you start to answer it! Suddenly other questions erupt in my mind. Am I possibly less than fully a person? I am sure we are not born fully into our personhood. There is no way I would claim my two-year old grandson is a fully developed person. Is he a person now? Yes and, maybe, not quite.
Jones’ second question comes from a different angle. He queries, “How are we to relate to one another?” This question really separates my idea of being a person from simply being an individual. Persons are special and we related to them as persons---not just as an individuals. Persons have gender, age, maybe religious affiliations, and so forth. I don’t relate to persons in the same way. I nuance it in important ways. This second question also implicates the entire discussion of community. Persons make a community in a way I don’t think individuals can form community.
The last question from Jones asks, “Do we have a future?” This one fascinates me. I suggest all of us are living in tension between the present and what comes as future. I wonder if it is appropriate to say individuals may get another day piled on another day. But it is not really a future. Persons have futures because they have hopes. They might even dream. Persons have a choice---to some degree---what kind of future they might get. For Quakers and myself, the future is not predestined.
Finally, Alan Jones tells us the soul (the making of a person) is made and remade. I am very attracted to the idea that I “am” a soul, rather than “have” a soul. I understand our religious cultures have tended not to talk this way, so it took me a while to get comfortable with this. And I am attracted to the idea of soul making. Perhaps that is the most important aspect of becoming a person---that is, becoming a soul.
It is only when we become souls (persons), does it make any sense to talk about soul music, soul food, relating soulfully, etc. We are more than robots. Artificial intelligence is capable of building some amazing robots. But are they persons? Will they become a person?
Only if they are capable of soul making. And God may have a say in that!
I am sure it is true of all good books. Regardless how many times we might read the book, we keep finding new things that we did not notice on an earlier read. Maybe that is an argument for keeping a few of the favorites in our library. Soul Making came into my life when I was ready for both what Jones was doing and how he was doing it. At some level, I knew much of the stuff, since I already had done a Ph.D. At another level, spirituality is always about more than simply ideas, doctrines, and the like. It always has to do with experience.
In the last chapter of his book, Jones focuses on the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a complex attempt to talk about who God is and how God is present in our world. It is a linguistic wrestling with ideas and intuitions that are metaphorical and paradoxical. When I am trying to teach students how to think about it and, possibly, gain some sense of understanding, I usually say that finally it is either profound or nonsense. I grant at one level, it is a word game. At another level, the Trinity is a profound articulation of a Divinity that cannot be expressed but can be experienced.
Jones uses the idea of the Trinity to talk about how persons are made. When you begin to think about it, it may be just as difficult finally to describe what (or who) a person is. Soul making, as he understands it, is how persons come to be made. You and I are both human, but we are not the same persons. Jones makes the interesting distinction between an individual and a person. We are both---individuals and persons. It is easy to talk about individuals. Individuals are like numbers; they just are. They are not unique nor distinctive. There is no depth to the idea of individual.
Persons, on the other hand, are all of that. Persons are unique. They are potentially deep, interesting and mysterious. Sometimes we are even mysterious to ourselves. We know ourselves in part, but in part we have no clue who we are or who we are becoming. We have some control in the process and no control over the rest. We have choices, but not absolute choice. Jones uses his idea of soul making by referencing three main questions.
The first question asks, “What does it mean to be a person?” When I ask students this one, you can see their eyes get bigger. It seems like such an easy one to answer…until you start to answer it! Suddenly other questions erupt in my mind. Am I possibly less than fully a person? I am sure we are not born fully into our personhood. There is no way I would claim my two-year old grandson is a fully developed person. Is he a person now? Yes and, maybe, not quite.
Jones’ second question comes from a different angle. He queries, “How are we to relate to one another?” This question really separates my idea of being a person from simply being an individual. Persons are special and we related to them as persons---not just as an individuals. Persons have gender, age, maybe religious affiliations, and so forth. I don’t relate to persons in the same way. I nuance it in important ways. This second question also implicates the entire discussion of community. Persons make a community in a way I don’t think individuals can form community.
The last question from Jones asks, “Do we have a future?” This one fascinates me. I suggest all of us are living in tension between the present and what comes as future. I wonder if it is appropriate to say individuals may get another day piled on another day. But it is not really a future. Persons have futures because they have hopes. They might even dream. Persons have a choice---to some degree---what kind of future they might get. For Quakers and myself, the future is not predestined.
Finally, Alan Jones tells us the soul (the making of a person) is made and remade. I am very attracted to the idea that I “am” a soul, rather than “have” a soul. I understand our religious cultures have tended not to talk this way, so it took me a while to get comfortable with this. And I am attracted to the idea of soul making. Perhaps that is the most important aspect of becoming a person---that is, becoming a soul.
It is only when we become souls (persons), does it make any sense to talk about soul music, soul food, relating soulfully, etc. We are more than robots. Artificial intelligence is capable of building some amazing robots. But are they persons? Will they become a person?
Only if they are capable of soul making. And God may have a say in that!
Comments
Post a Comment