
"It would be a faith that wanders in the darkness, in a "new night of understanding" - to use the language of the mystics - before a God who has not the attributes of "Providence." This God does not protect me but delivers me up to the dangers of a life worthy of being called human. Is not this God the Crucified, the dying God, the God whose weakness alone may help me? The new night of understanding is a night for desire as much as for our fear, a night for our longing for a protective father. Beyond this night, and only beyond it, will be recovered the true meaning of the God of consolation, the God of the Resurrection, the Pantocrator of Byzantine and Romanesque imagery." Paul Ricoeur.
So today is Pentecost, and in my church they go a little nuts. It's all about red---new liturgical colours--but it is also about streamers and festival processions and special hymns and anthems and a whole lot of hoopla. Now before I become my usual Mr. Cranky-pants in all of this--it's not that stuff that really bugs me--it's the general focus of Pentecostal thinking that bugs me most. It tends to wards the celebratory obviously--after all it's about the birth of the church-the gift of the Holy Spirit etc and all that good stuff. But somehow I feel that there isn't enough darkness in Pentecost--I think it is best understood in the dark--this is how I read Peter's use of the prophet Joel in Acts 2. We tend to focus a lot on the dreams and visions section, and people from everywhere being gifted with spirit--but he closes out his little speech, given in defence of the ecstasy, by invoking words about the sun going dark and the moon becoming blood--the spirit comes when there is little light left? Is that too much of a reach? I don't think so. That's why I like this quote from Ricoeur, this idea of a 'new night of understanding'---night being the operative word I think.
I also think there is something to be explored in terms of just what exactly this transition to the Spirit means in terms of the God of Providence--the God perhaps of metaphysics and theism--Zizek speaks of the Holy Spirit as the egalitarian community bound together in love--the idea essentially that 'god' is only found in the actions of the community--there is no God unless the community acts?
There is another Zizekian moment in Pentecost for me this year. At Zucotti Park in the early days of the Occupy movement, Zizek addressed the assembled with these words,
"the success of a revolution should not be measured by the sublime awe of its ecstatic moments but by the changes the Big Event leaves at the level of the everyday, the day after the Insurrection."
He was speaking of the Occupy protest of course, but I think there is resonance with my internal resistance to over-celebrating Pentecost, that the day, the celebration can become the issue and it's what happens after that counts. So much effort goes into the 'special service' but sometimes I worry that is the sum total of what we get-but its the day/s after that count. In the days after Pentecost, the ecstatic moment turned into an egalitarian collective (we've heard that before), now I am not saying that 'we' should do literally the same--but the proof of Pentecost is in the pudding--in the aftermath, in that dangerous world we are delivered up to, where we have the opportunity to live 'lives worthy of being called human.'