A small stack of unevenly-cut cardstock sits next to the mirror on my dresser where I prepare for the day. I glance down and notice the scrawls for the first time this morning. With a quick movement, I slip them into my pocket, finger the worn edges, and make a mental note to pull them out later, anticipating a probable hour of need.
My soul is a forgetful creature. You would think that out-and-out revelation would have more staying power, those brief but holy flashes when I see life clear and pure. This is good. That is true. This is the way, walk in it. Monumental moments, and yet even half a day later, the glimpse has been forgotten in the swirl and eddy of a million synapses since. We manage to pack a delicious, nourishing lunch most days so we don't end up standing in front of the vending machine with a forlorn dollar bill contemplating candy bars. But when it comes to our heart-hunger, somehow we are not always as purposeful.
My soul is a forgetful creature. You would think that out-and-out revelation would have more staying power, those brief but holy flashes when I see life clear and pure. This is good. That is true. This is the way, walk in it. Monumental moments, and yet even half a day later, the glimpse has been forgotten in the swirl and eddy of a million synapses since. We manage to pack a delicious, nourishing lunch most days so we don't end up standing in front of the vending machine with a forlorn dollar bill contemplating candy bars. But when it comes to our heart-hunger, somehow we are not always as purposeful.

![]() |
Hannah Arendt |
From what I can gather, Arendt claimed that a human being must have a inner dialogue between self and self in order to remain a morally-conscious person. People who have forfeited that conversation are no longer self-reflective, which she believed made humans actually unable to make ethical decisions. Her primary example of this was Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi S.S. guard who was tried for his war crimes in the 1960s. His banal repetition of the "reasons" for his actions during his trial made it clear to her that he in fact had no reason, or reasoning, of his own. In other words, we are capable of great evil when we give over active, personal thinking to a passive inhalation of received ideas. Thinking is what makes us human.
![]() |
Adolf Eichmann |

But what happens next? How do we enter again, flip open the typewriter or computer, and remain mindful? Certain branches of all religious traditions have encouraged their followers to live apart: the contemplatives, the mystics, the separatists. These have their place in church history, to my way of thinking. But for most of us, avoidance of "the world" can also become an excuse to sidestep hard questions. The abnegation of engagement is particularly prevalent in my generation in regards to religion and politics (sinners of whom I am chief). Because the public square has become so sharply polemical, we think it justifiable - if not a matter of survival - to mostly disengage.
I ache for a better way, one that entertains cultural questions while eschewing cultural brainwashing. Can we learn a kind of graceful rhythm by which we retreat and return with refreshed vision, able to see this blessed, dear God-created world for what it is and ought to be? How does one tend that essential, inner conversation while still remaining connected to the outside? In short, how do you rightly love the world?
1 comment:
Deep thoughts, very challenging indeed!
Post a Comment