I was intrigued by Reno’s discussion of spirituality. The whole idea of spirituality in our present life is both ambiguous and at times convoluted. It seems to me that we have fallen into a pattern of “to each their own” with no real regard for what the goal of spiritual life is—to draw us into communion with God, ourselves, one another. Maybe that is not the goal. Maybe the goal really is about our individual journey to find meaning, with or without the church. What exactly is spirituality and what does it have to do with the Christian faith? What is the answer, the x, of the spiritual life equation?
Reno says that spirituality (Christian spirituality, that is), “denotes the many and various efforts to find life in the concreta Chrisitiana, the aggregate of first-order language and practice that constitutes the visible forms of Christian life” (p.131). Reno says that people want “life” and are seeking any way possible to find it (p.130).
Reno discusses William Temple’s theory that the spirituality factor is the x that fills in the gap between the early tradition of the church and our contemporary world. Temple says that the connection between the two happens through religious experience in life, which in turn actualizes one’s “personality” (p.133). Temple holds that within the religious experience is the x that illumines the path toward wholeness in faith. He moves away from “first-order language and practice” (p.133) in order to gain appreciation for the "power of life”(p.134) that is present in the apostolic tradition. For Reno the value of Temple’s theory is that it does not deny the importance of first-order language and tradition.
We see the converse in Reno’s discussion of John Shelby Spong’s equation. Reno writes, “ Spong uses the x to show the irrelevance and even debilitating immorality and irrationality of the first-order language and practice of the church” (p.134). Reno agrees at some level with Spong—the church has become lifeless. While Spong advocates doing away with that which is lifeless, in favor of “a simple religion of the x” (p.135), Reno advocates that the x is found in that which is lifeless—in the ruins of the church.
He calls upon the help of Origen from the ancient church to illumine his theory. Reno writes, “Origen anticipates the internal obscurities and lifelessness of the concreta Christiana. Thus he helps us find life in the very lifelessness of Christian language and practice” (p.141). How does he do this?
“For Origen there is no x outside of apostolic Christianity to which one can appeal in order to renew or rejuvenate apostolic Christianity” (p.141). He looks within the faith to find the answers, the path toward completeness. Though Scripture may seem impotent, without life and meaning, there is value deeper below the surface that warrants our digging through the trenches and ruins of the church.
This is a better fit for Reno. He asserts, “the impotence we perceive is part of the potency of new life that is promised, for it forces us to submit ourselves to a lifetime of obedient searching in the very concreta Christiana we might so quickly abandon as inauspicious and lifeless. The weakness forces us to look again rather than to look elsewhere” (p.144).
Is Reno too idealistic? Is what he proposes really possible with the postmodern sensitivity to x? Reno gives us some great questions:
Why undertake all the heavy lifting to find spiritual significance in first-order Christian language and practice? Should we not allow for some well-considered triage in order to cut away the lifeless parts of the Christian tradition? (p.135)