MENGAPA SIBUK?

Kini kesibukan sudah menjadi karakteristik kehidupan metropolis. Berjalan dengan cepat, berbicara dengan cepat dan makan dengan cepat merupakan upaya untuk menghemat waktu. Berada di dalam gerbong MRT yang padat, terjebak kemacetan dan terjebak kesibukan sudah menjadi bagian dari kehidupan sehari-hari. Tidak heran apabila seseorang ditanya apa kabarnya dia menjawab “Saya sibuk sekali”. Dan respondernya menjawab, “wah baik sekali.” Kesibukan sudah menjadi simbol dan status keberhasilan. Mungkin sangat jarang atau bahkan hampir tidak pernah seseorang berespon, “waduh, kasihan sekali kamu sampai sibuk sekali”. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa manusia kagum pada orang yang sibuk.

Marta merupakan gambaran orang yang penuh inisiatif, perfeksionis, gesit dan giat. Sedangkan Maria merupakan gambaran seorang pemikir, perancang, visioner dan penuh inspirasi. Baik Marta dan Maria merupakan karakter yang penting dan sangat dibutuhkan baik di organisasi, perusahaan maupun gereja. Kita selalu membutuhkan pemikir, perencana strategi dan pengembang. Dan kita juga membutuhkan ekskusioner atau pelaksana. Sebenarnya perpaduan Maria (being) dan Marta (doing) merupakan kombinasi yang penting di dalam kehidupan spiritualitas seseorang dan being harus menjadi fondasi doing.

Marta menerima (NIV: open her house) Yesus di rumahnya dan melayani Yesus sesuai dengan keramahtamahan Timur Tengah. Apa yang Marta lakukan sesuai dengan aturan umum, dia melakukan apa yang dilakukan setiap orang di dalam budayanya. Dia menjalani apa yang disebut dengan “kebiasaan”. Umumnya, orang bertanya, “Biasanya seperti bagaimana?” “Biasanya atau kebiasaan” dijadikan parameter untuk mengukur apakah sesuatu pantas untuk dilakukan. Menurut Michael Foley pengulangan dan kebiasaan membunuh persepsi dan mengurangi pengalaman (Foley 2010, 130). Kebiasaan dan pengulangan akan membunuh inspirasi. Sebenarnya dengan menginternalisir kebenaran seseorang akan keluar dari jalur “kebiasaan” oleh karena kebenaran tidak bisa dikurung dengan ”kebiasaan”.

Mungkin Marta adalah seorang yang perfeksionis dan seorang yang bekerja dengan cepat. Anggap saja dia menyediakan yogurt, roti bundar dan daging sapi panggang. Yang jelas, Marta melayani Yesus hingga “sibuk sekali” (ayat 40). Persoalannya adalah “sibuk” seringkali tidak sebatas menyelesaikan tugas yang banyak. Sibuk selalu disertai dengan beban jiwa, beban pikiran, perasaan lelah, kesal, marah dan bingung. Penting bagi kita untuk bertanya, “Mengapa saya sibuk?” Apakah kesibukan saya bisa menjadi berarti? Apakah saya bisa sibuk tanpa merasa sibuk?

Marta melayani Yesus dengan mengerjakan banyak hal. Dia marah karena Maria tidak menolong dia. Amarah tersebut terpendam dan mungkin semakin berat di saat dia memotong roti, menuang yogurt dan di saat menyajikan makanan. Karena tidak dapat menahan luapan “zat kimia” di dalam dirinya maka meledaklah “tenaga nuklir” di dalam hatinya. Ia berteriak,  “Tuhan, tidakkah engkau peduli bahwa saudaraku membiarkan aku melayani seorang diri?” Amarahnya tidak hanya tertuju pada Maria tetapi juga terhadap TUHAN. Tidak jarang kita menemukan orang Kristen yang marah pada TUHAN karena terlalu sibuk menjadi panitia penyambut, panitia natal maupun melayani di berbagai bidang pelayanan. Marta kemudian memberikan perintah kepada Yesus, tamu yang ia jamu di rumahnya, “Suruhlah dia membantu aku!”. Di satu sisi, Marta sangat ramah pada tamunya tetapi di sisi lain Marta bersikap kasar (baca: tidak sopan) pada tamunya. Sedemikian besar luapan emosi di dalam diri Marta. Persoalan Marta merupakan gambaran “jiwa yang sibuk”, “jiwa yang tidak tenang” atau “jiwa yang bertahan dan bersembunyi di balik banyaknya aktivitas”.  Persoalan Marta juga merupakan gambaran gereja yang “sangat sibuk sekali”. Gereja yang menyusahkan diri dengan banyaknya aktivitas. Gereja yang tidak mampu menentukan prioritas. Gereja yang mengaburkan core business dan prioritas.

Kesibukan telah menjadi karakterikstik manusia teknologi oleh karena manusia semakin efektif.  Foley mengkritik manusia modern mengatakan bahwa manusia tidak merasa hidup secara penuh apabila tidak mengerjakan 3 hal dalam waktu yang bersamaan (Foley 2010, 95). Analisa Foley sangat tepat sebab dalam kehidupan yang terkoneksi (hyperlink) manusia diharuskan untuk “ber-multi-tasking”. Apabila kita mampu memprioritaskan maka kita dapat berada di dalam kondisi “sibuk tanpa hati yang sibuk” atau lebih tepatnya “mengerjakan banyak hal tanpa menjadi sibuk”. 

Yesus menegur Marta, “Marta, Marta”. “Marta… Marta..” merupakan ekspresi yang mengasihani.  Yesus menunjukkan bahwa Marta “kuatir dan menyusahkan diri dengan banyak perkara”.  Jadi kondisi jiwa Martalah yang sebenarnya menjadi persoalan di sini. Bukan keramahtamahannya juga bukan pelayanannya melainkan “kekuatiran” dan tindakan “menyusahkan diri”.  Pepatah bahasa Inggris mengatakan, “Don’t just sit there, do something! Adakalanya pepatah ini perlu dibalik menjadi, “Don’t just do something, sit there!”

Maria merupakan gambaran, “Don’t just do something, sit there!” Maria “memilih bagian yang terbaik”. Maria tidak menyusahkan dirinya. Ia memahami prinsip “first things first”. Dia bisa “memprioritaskan”.  Tidak ada yang bisa merampas apa yang Maria prioritaskan. Jiwanya memperoleh ketenangan. Sedangkan Marta telah dirampas oleh kekuatiran dan penyusahan diri. Memilih yang terbaik bukan tidak disertai konsekuensi yang buruk. Maria dicap sebagai, “pemalas, dingin dan tidak peduli”. Pada saat memberikan minyak narwastu yang mahal kepada Yesus, Maria dicap sebagai “narsis, mencari perhatian, boros dan tidak peduli pada orang miskin”. Di saat memprioritaskan, seseorang bisa disalahpahami. Yesus sendiri ditegur oleh Petrus saat Ia menarik diri ketika orang-orang sakit berbondong-bondong mendatangi Dia untuk memohon kesembuhan. Tetapi Yesus pergi begitu saja. Bukankah perbuatan Yesus akan menimbulkan amarah pada orang-orang yang sudah datang mencari-Nya?  Yesus akan dicap sebagai guru yang tidak memiliki kasih, tidak peduli pada yang lemah dan tidak bertanggungjawab. Karena selalu ada orang yang bukan Maria juga bukan Marta. Siapakah mereka? Mereka adalah para spectator (penonton) dan komentator. Mereka adalah para ahli di dalam mengemukakan pendapat tetapi menolak untuk melayani sebagai perancang maupun pelaksana.

Mungkin kita perlu memikirkan bagaimana memadukan keramahtamahan dengan pekerjaan kita. Mengerjakan dengan hospitalitas akan menambah sukacita. Memprioritaskan dan memilih  yang terbaik semestinya menjadi landasan kita di dalam bekerja. Kiranya kita bisa bekerja tanpa merasa sibuk. Kiranya kita memandang pekerjaan kita sebagai karya dan bukan beban. Pilihlah yang terbaik!

"Diamlah dan ketahuilah, bahwa Akulah Allah!

Aku ditinggikan di antara bangsa-bangsa, ditinggikan di bumi!" (Mazmur 46:11)

Referensi

Foley, Michael. 2010. The Age of Absurdity: Why Modern Life Makes It Hard to be Happy. UK: CBS Company.

Batam, 22 Juli 2013

Johan Newton Crystal

LOGIC OF THE SPIRIT

James Loder presents his Logic of the Spirit by intermarrying psychology and theology in order to redefine “the meaning and purpose of human development” (p. ix). Loder’s writing is an exploration on the spiritual dimension of human development by looking at the very purpose of life – the meaning of life. Loder attempts to answer the perennial questions of human beings – “What is a life time?” and “Why do I live it?” Quoting Camus’s surly and ironic question, “Does life deserve to be lived?” Loder believes this is “an outcry of the human spirit” meant to call someone or someplace beyond the self. Also quoting Miguel de Unamuno, the great philosopher who says, “what distinguishes human beings from other creatures is that human beings have a unique practice of burying their dead” (p. 4). Loder is trying to demonstrate the uniqueness of human beings should make us aware or lead us to the study of the human spirit.

Loder offers two approaches to look at the human spirit. First approach is what he calls “from below” meaning from the standpoint of science and experience and the second approach “from above”, viewing from the standpoint of God through His self-revelation in Jesus Christ as well as His relation to His creation.

In his first view, Loder delineates that the human spirit is expressed or manifested in arts, music, literature, sculpture, painting, drama, dance and the like explains “the expansiveness, transcendence, inclusiveness and inspiration” visible in human existence. Loder attempts to provide two vignettes to explain his first approach (from below). These two vignettes are Wolfhart Pannenberg’s “exocentricity” (the human spirit) and Wilder Penfield “strange loops in the brain” (the transcendence of the “I”). Loder parallels the universe with human nature which he calls “the two infinities” – “the big infinity” and “the little infinity” (p.7). In his parallelization, Loder presents four points of relevant connectivity, first “the emergence of order in the universe and of congruent orders of mind in human development”, second, “the analogical connection between entropy and death” third, “transformation and new order” and last, “relationality as ontologically prior to rationality” (p.7-8). All these point toward the Creator-God.

Let us turn to Loder’s second view, the view from above. Loder explains that the Author God enters His own Creation by revealing Himself in Jesus Christ as well as continuing to work in the Creator Spirit in order to bring ultimate harmony between the created and contigent order with the divine order. As human spirit is separated from its ultimate ground in the Spirit of God therefore human spirit is constantly in the state of “bewilderment, blundering briliance” crying for wisdom to an “unknown God” (p.10). Only the Creator-Spirit is capable of freeing the human spirit from “self-inflation, self-doubt, self-absorption and self-destruction” (p.10).

These two views are complimentary and it is asymmetry as well. Loder proposes, the view from above should serve as the priority or basis for the bipolar relationship of these two views. The Creator Spirit is working to “transform the negation, the nothingness, the frightening abyss that pervades and haunts human development as a whole” (p.14). The dark side, the fatalism, the nihilism, the emptiness and meaninglessness of human spirit needs total transformation solely provided by the Creator Spirit.

Distinguishing from traditional approach of human development that tend to “focus on defining and mapping stages”, Loder offers to “focus on the dynamics of development within and beyond the context of stages” (p.18). Loder prefers to concentrate on “how” the environment and persons interact resulting the personality of a human person (p.20). Loder thinks that psychological approach is too preoccupied with adaptation which may prevent a better understanding on the more profound issues of human existence (pp.26-27). And hence, he suggests incorporating theological anthropological perspective into the study of human development.

Loder sets out by laying out a succinct summary of four fundamental theological arguments by Wolfhart Pannenberg, Karl Barth, T. F. Torrance and George Hendry. Loder’s argument bases on many aspects of Pannenberg’s theology without rejecting Barth’s contribution. He grounds his argument on “what God means by human and what God means by God” (p.30). What distinguishes Loder’s approach to Pannenberg’s approach is that Pannenberg takes the approach of methods supplies material whilst Loder’s prefers the material supplies method.

Loder vividly states his theological stance as follows:

1. He takes the method and material from below and above at the same time
2. Science may inform theology as subscience and theology serves as the basis to understand and even to transform the understanding of science.
3. The expansive self-transcending power of human spirit drives toward the transformation of every obstacle in human development.
4. Differentiation of the Creator Spirit with human spirit.
5. The analogia spiritus – the analogy between the human spirit (creativity) and the Holy Spirit (transformation).
6. The new creation in Christ (I not I but Christ or I not I but God).

Loder’s methology is based on three crucial points:

1. Human science serves as subscience to the science of theology meaning its rejection of theology must undergo transformation.
2. The bipolar unity of science and theology must be based on the person of Christ who is both fully divine and fully human as the living reality.
3. The essential character of this bipolar relational unity is what Karl Barth describes as “Indissoluble differentiation”, “inseparable unity” and “indestructible order”.

Loder uses his counseling experience for a girl named Hellen to demonstrates the interaction between human spirit and Creator spirit. Using neurological terms, Loder defines the two into two systems. The first system is the ergotropic system (ET) which “combines the left hemisphere, which is analytical, linguistic, and linear, with the sympathetic nervous system and the central nervous system”. The second system is trophotropic (TT), a combination of “the right hemisphere which is holistic, analogical, and spatial with the parasympathetic and central nervous systems” (p.57).

This practice of spirituality will consequently deepen the sense of a dialectical identity in which the Divine Presence becomes the fundamental basis for one’s identity. “I-not I-but Christ becomes the way one thinks of oneself” (p.60).

THE GROWTH OF LOVE

Inspired by Dr. Frank Lake, Bruce Reed, James Loder, Paul Tournier and R.S. Lee, Keith White explores and engages on Child Theology. White’s understanding on parenting goes beyond nuclear family, for the development of a child substantially happens and interweaves among family, religion and education. In other words, the whole environment in which a child grows are impacting the child’s life. Keith emphasizes that “individuals grow within community” (p.12).

Using the terms “village” and “villagers” metaphorically, Keith urges us to play our roles “in creating the environment in which love can thrive” (p.12). Children need a child-friendly society or a social canopy in which the children can grow in love. We all have the responsibility to construct and nurture such an environment. Peter Berger has “the Sacred Canopy”, we probably may want to have “love-canopy”.

Keith explains his purpose of choosing the five motifs or themes – security, boundaries, significance, community and creativity “to enable an interplay and, in some cases, integration between different perspectives and traditions (p.30). These five words are memorable and relevant to daily life. These five words enable interdisciplinary interaction between theology and child development theory. It is important because it helps to hold the tension between “the individual and the collective, the now and the not yet, the planned and the unplanned, the conscious and the unconscious, the functional and the spontaneous, the latent and the manifest and the forces of life and death”. It helps to interwoven the two modes of existence (p.31-32). These five words are also “open, fluid and expansive” as life is very dynamic. These five themes except for security cannot be understood as human needs for it is more than human needs explained by Dr. White. (p.36).

The five words are not intended to be another version of Erickson’s stages of growth or Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. However, White emphasizes that he purposely chooses to start with security for he believes it is the most fundamental need of human beings as “life begins with the fundamental longing for security” (p.33). Dr. White’s friend, Dr. Jo-Joy Wright demonstrates that the five themes are in fact a progression although it may not comprise a systematic of growth (p.33).

In order to create and experience security, boundaries have to step in. Keith White delineates that “patterns, structures and predictability” are very vital in child development. In the process, a child will find his or her significance. Jo-Joy Wright points out what Grotberg describes as “I am; I can; I have” (p.34).

White highlights that his thesis is drawn from biblical insights as well as psycho-social theory and his practical experience. Inspired by Karl Barth reflected in James Loder’s The Logic in Spirit, White explores the fundamental questions of life such as death, nothingness, suffering and the meaning of life in light of theology in which God revealed Himself through Jesus Christ (p.42). White highlights his thesis succinctly,

“these biblical insights are set within the understanding of human nature and development that sees our ultimate security and significance in God’s love, mercy and forgiveness and grace; his boundaries as those within which we best thrive; the new community modeled and established in and through the life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ as the one in which we can be truly human; and his creation as the primary realm in which we little creators find greatest joy and fulfillment, when our secondary creations resonate with his” (p.45).

These five themes or what White also calls as “the five fingers” are used to play the melody calls “love”. White says, “Love is given and received, often unconsciously and unexpectedly; it emerges through relationship, knowing, trusting, belonging, community, creativity and so on” (p.46). This explains why White gives the title to his book as well as why he chooses the five themes.

White suggests using the term covenant to understand love with marriage as its best example to demonstrate this idea of love within covenantal relationship. Theologically speaking, divine love is reflected in the symbol of marriage (p.201). A children’s environment has to consist of not only children but also adults, both males and females. In other words, this village of love must consist of the whole community. Activities which are done together in this village of love using theological practices such as celebrations, pilgrimages, camps, retreats, baptisms, holy communions etc become children’s learning experience.

White prefers not to include spirituality in the five themes because he believes spirituality is not conducive to be put into words in a book. Instead he prefers “silence, music, colour and poetry” as better vehicles to convey spirituality. Children learn spirituality from what they see and experience in their environment or village (using White’s term). Particularly, they learn from how their parents such as the way their parents internalize prayers and Bible reading (p.206).

Both spirituality of children and love is essentially rooted in its relatedness or connectedness. Children live in the “little family” (nuclear family) and the “bigger family” (local fellowship of Christians). Within this village, children learn about love. This loving village is what White hopes to describe. It is a “place or a setting in which a child experiences healthy patterns of life, each day, each week, each month, each year and through the stages of life” (p.207). Very often, a child is often regarded as disturbance of religious life and expected to be quarantined from the worship community. White urges us to take children as part of the family and community and thus, they should not be segregated from the “bigger family”.     

As the children of God who is love we are commanded to love one another. Our culture has to be characterized by love. Creating, nurturing and living in this village of love demonstrates our Village Chief (God) is Love.

Batam, 18 Juli 2013

Johan Newton Crystal