If I don't desire what I choose, I am religious
If I desire what I don't choose, I am spiritual
If I desire what I choose, I am visceral, I am me, I am alive... I desire
(props to James K.A. Smith and Augustine)
Desire or Love is the ultimate force for discipleship not discipline. Discipline is an aspect of how to shape desire but discipline alone does not really form us - desire/love does. We are "loving/desiring" beings first (thanks to Jamie Smith for this idea) and then God seeks to shape our desires into his image of desiring. To use mechanistic language - desire is the energy that actually fuels our transformation and discipline is the machinery engineered around the energy source. In the same way that we can build vehicles, engines and motors of all kinds because of oil and electricity - we shape habits and disciplines around desire - but without desire there is no need or ability to shape disciplines or habits. The problem with religion is that it has shaped and codified practices, disciplines and habits that are disconnected from desire or actually precede desire and are therefore draining and destructive rather than formative for spiritual transformation. We then push our habits and disciplines on generations of unsuspecting and trusting children of faith and new converts, wearing them out and eventually contributing to their mistrust of spiritual authority and the Church in general. Ultimately desire should shape habits - but that desire has to be discerned beyond human experience and discerned from Scripture as well as human experience. Scripture relays how to "desire" in a God like manner and how to also re-shape our desires after his thoughts, habits and practices yet at the same time, we need to begin that shaping of practices with desires that already exist - desires that do reflect the Kingdom of God and are shared from humanity's conscience - given to them by God whether they are followers of God or not. Discipline and Desire go hand in hand but there is a precedence given to desire for reasons related to historic Christianity as well as human and theological anthropology.
Both Augustine and Martin Luther wrote a lot about desire in the early years of their faith when desire surmounted to sexual passions - which ends up being a context that isn't safe to talk about desire in general. Augustine eventually taught that sexual desire was a sin in itself but had other great teachings that gave desire a better understanding for formation. Many of our greatest historic Christian thinkers did some of their best and worst thinking from their struggle with sexual lust and passion and the desire to control that passion. Too often that struggle to control oneself has affected the process of discerning the process of discipleship rather than approach discipleship from a wider range of "desires." Either way - our historic understanding of theology is marked by a male dominated sexual passion narrative that they were trying to reconcile with their faith. Much theology ends up taking on a very erotic undertone without us even seeing it and we can thank some (not all) of the great thinkers of historic Christianity who just couldn't get their mind "out of the gutter" but wanted to. The point being, we should not do theological thinking for the rest of humanity from one stage of life or maturation or allow one stage of life to rule to the rest of our thinking in faith development and formation. The disciplines we develop to control certain aspects of our life during certain eras of our life span may be unnecessary at other times and even destructive to our continued growth and transformation.
(The topic of desire as formation is discussed in length in James K.A. Smith's book - Desiring the Kingdom)
If I desire what I don't choose, I am spiritual
If I desire what I choose, I am visceral, I am me, I am alive... I desire
(props to James K.A. Smith and Augustine)
Desire or Love is the ultimate force for discipleship not discipline. Discipline is an aspect of how to shape desire but discipline alone does not really form us - desire/love does. We are "loving/desiring" beings first (thanks to Jamie Smith for this idea) and then God seeks to shape our desires into his image of desiring. To use mechanistic language - desire is the energy that actually fuels our transformation and discipline is the machinery engineered around the energy source. In the same way that we can build vehicles, engines and motors of all kinds because of oil and electricity - we shape habits and disciplines around desire - but without desire there is no need or ability to shape disciplines or habits. The problem with religion is that it has shaped and codified practices, disciplines and habits that are disconnected from desire or actually precede desire and are therefore draining and destructive rather than formative for spiritual transformation. We then push our habits and disciplines on generations of unsuspecting and trusting children of faith and new converts, wearing them out and eventually contributing to their mistrust of spiritual authority and the Church in general. Ultimately desire should shape habits - but that desire has to be discerned beyond human experience and discerned from Scripture as well as human experience. Scripture relays how to "desire" in a God like manner and how to also re-shape our desires after his thoughts, habits and practices yet at the same time, we need to begin that shaping of practices with desires that already exist - desires that do reflect the Kingdom of God and are shared from humanity's conscience - given to them by God whether they are followers of God or not. Discipline and Desire go hand in hand but there is a precedence given to desire for reasons related to historic Christianity as well as human and theological anthropology.
Both Augustine and Martin Luther wrote a lot about desire in the early years of their faith when desire surmounted to sexual passions - which ends up being a context that isn't safe to talk about desire in general. Augustine eventually taught that sexual desire was a sin in itself but had other great teachings that gave desire a better understanding for formation. Many of our greatest historic Christian thinkers did some of their best and worst thinking from their struggle with sexual lust and passion and the desire to control that passion. Too often that struggle to control oneself has affected the process of discerning the process of discipleship rather than approach discipleship from a wider range of "desires." Either way - our historic understanding of theology is marked by a male dominated sexual passion narrative that they were trying to reconcile with their faith. Much theology ends up taking on a very erotic undertone without us even seeing it and we can thank some (not all) of the great thinkers of historic Christianity who just couldn't get their mind "out of the gutter" but wanted to. The point being, we should not do theological thinking for the rest of humanity from one stage of life or maturation or allow one stage of life to rule to the rest of our thinking in faith development and formation. The disciplines we develop to control certain aspects of our life during certain eras of our life span may be unnecessary at other times and even destructive to our continued growth and transformation.
(The topic of desire as formation is discussed in length in James K.A. Smith's book - Desiring the Kingdom)
