"The Sky where we live Is no place to lose your wings. So love, love, Love" ~Hafiz

www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing photos in a set called Sea. Make your own badge here.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Slowness



















"We live in a world of theophanies. Holiness comes wrapped in the
ordinary. There are burning bushes all around you. Every tree is full of
angels. Hidden beauty is waiting in every crumb. Life wants to lead you
from crumbs to angels, but this can happen only if you are willing to
unwrap the ordinary by staying with it long enough to harvest its
treasure."

-Macrina Wiederkehr

***


WE ARE FIELDS BEFORE EACH OTHER

How is it they live for eons in such harmony ---
the billions of stars ---
when most men can barely go a minute
without declaring war in their mind against someone they know.

There are wars where no one marches with a flag,
though that does not keep casualties
from mounting.

Our hearts irrigate this earth.
We are fields before
each other.

How can we live in harmony?
First we need to
know

We are all madly in love
with the same
God.


St. Thomas Aquinas..
--Daniel Ladinsky translation

**

With Hunger for Him

Jane Tyson Clement



He who has come to men
dwells where we cannot tell
nor sight reveal him,
until the hour has struck
when the small heart does break
with hunger for him;

those who do merit least,
those whom no tongue does praise
the first to know him,
and on the face of the earth
the poorest village street
blossoming for him.

Monday, May 28, 2007

All Ears



















The Gift of Ears

By W. H. Auden

The Christian Church came into being at Pentecost. The gift of the Holy Spirit on that occasion is generally called the gift of tongues, but it might equally well be called the gift of ears…. As Sir William Osler said: half of us are blind, few of us feel, and we are all deaf. As writers, readers, human beings, we cannot speak to or understand each other unless we are first prepared to listen. Of all the gifts which the Holy Spirit is able to bestow, the one for which we should first and most earnestly pray is humility of ear.

Words and the Word

***

from comments at Inward/Outward:

"Morton Kelsev wrote that listening is being silent with another person in an active way.

It is silently bearing with another person.

Pentecost is the time when the Holy Spirit came in visible form to begin her invisible activity. I listen with the “gift of ears.

”Pentecost is the time when Jesus sent his spirit into the hearts of all the converts along with his mother, Mary and the disciples. It is a time to remember that a whole new generation -- a supernatural family was being born. It is a time for deep listening."


--Bettina del Sesto

***
It's interesting to contemplate what "deep listening" means.

When I remember things from my childhood, most of my memories are soundless.

I rarely remember people speaking or the sound of their voices. It's a silent movie.
My kindergarten class picture shows everyone sitting at little tables and looking at the camera except me. I'm looking at my hands, and really looking at them as if they are fascinating.

I seem to remember being that kind of dreamy child, always elsewhere. Not that that's a good thing, it just seems to be how I came to be. So when I think of being all ears, listening hard, it seems to imply retrieving my attention to where I have parked it , shepherding it into place and tuning in. Bringing attention to bear and focusing like a laser beam.

I feel like I've missed too much, so many cues that life has given me. I was paying attention elsewhere.

I went to hear Ram Dass speak once in the 1970s. It was an amazing lecture, because Ram Dass said very little. The people listening said very little. We were still and listened together. It was a very powerful event.
Mostly because people gave up the expectation that something would happen. That someone, some other different person would arrive, and would teach them. Everyone relaxed and ceased to wait for something to happen. So then, all kinds of things happened. We shared the evening with one another, outside of time and space.

Fighting the Good Fight












(Photo of the barn on Flannery O'Connor's Milledgeville farm by Patrick Davie.)

"I have found, in short, from reading my own writing, that my subject in fiction is the action of grace in territory largely held by the devil. I have also found that what I write is largely read by an audience which puts little stock either in grace or the devil.

You discover your audience at the same time and in the same way that you discover your subject, but it is an added blow,"

- Flannery O'Connor, "In the Devil's Territory," 1961, collected in "Spiritual Writings."

Permalink

via Andrew Sullivan

And:
From Onehouse:


Put your weapons down.

The Narrow Path

Add to My Profile | More Videos


"Non-violence is not passive. It is an entire way of life."
John Dear, SJ

Jesus













Via Andrew Sullivan;

"Christ has no body now on earth but yours,
no hands but yours, no feet but yours;
yours are the eyes through which Christ's compassion looks out on the world,
yours are the feet with which He is to go about doing good
and yours are the hands with which He is to bless us now."

- Teresa of Avila.

Permalink

**
I've been spring cleaning. A friend who is a stone mason came and pulled up the old deck in front of the house, as well as the old non-working hot tub. He then mercifully hauled these things away. Then he put down a truckload of pea gravel and some large slate stones. We bought a fountain and put out some impatiens, begonias, mint, basil, cilantro and parsley. The gardenias and the magnolias are blooming and aromatic. I'm on to some more horrendous cleaning projects.

I didn't make it to church Sunday a.m. because I felt in need of a break. I feel as though my relationship with God is changing. It may be carrying me away from church , per se.

I am cleaning and making space because I need to return to meditation practice, listening practice, disciplined silence and reading. I need these things because something and someone awaits me there. It has been too long. A part of me is parched, filled with thirst and hunger, dissatisfied. It's not a bad thing. It's a part of me that it's taken me decades to befriend.

Self knowledge is no stroll in the park, I tell you. Hard slogging, at least for me. But at least I've learned a little bit about how to be true to the path, the search. I'm learning.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Me. We.



















"Me, we."
(Supposedly the shortest quote in the English language delivered at a Harvard graduation.)" -


-- Muhammad Ali
***

Escape


DH Lawrence


When we get out of the glass bottles of our ego
And when we escape like squirrels turning in the
Cages of our personality
And get into the forests again,
We shall shiver with cold and fright
But things will happen to us
So that we don't know ourselves.

Cool, undying life will rush in,
And passion will make our bodies taut with power,
We shall stamp our feet with new power
And old things will fall down,
We shall laugh, and institutions will curl up like burnt paper.

***

My son Max graduates from HS today.

He is so beautiful.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Scapegoating



















Image by Mad Priest

From Fr. Jake Stops the World

California Responds to the Scapegoating of Bp. Robinson

From Bishop Marc Handley Andrus of California:

...The tactic of exile and isolation has been among strongest tools of oppression against the human spirit. We were created to be in communion, and there is a deep-seated intution on the part of those who wish to hem in human freedom that the best way to do this is to separate us, one from another.

The ground-breaking work of Rene Girard has revealed the mechanism of scapegoating. Girard teaches that Jesus and the Hebrew prophets began loosening the chains of scapegoating. This action of isolating Bishop Robinson is retrogressive, taking us backwards to a shadowy, scary place from which we have already been delivered by Christ and the Prophets.

The isolation and exile of Bishop Robinson has implications for the Communion too, within the larger framework of scapegoating. A former Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, once said that if you touch one bishop of the Anglican Communion, you touch them all. This refers to the idea that bishops represent the unity of the Church. The bishop as a symbol of unity is usually understood at the level of a diocese, but there is a larger horizon of meaning - when we look at one bishop our spiritual vision can see all bishops everywhere, for the unity represented is most importantly the unity of the Church throughout the earth.

The isolation and exile of Bishop Robinson rebukes the bright vision of the unity of the Church, and substitutes the mechanism of the diabolic, the shattering of communion and integrity. I cannot overemphasize how important it is to meet this action on our Archbishop's part with the weapons of the spirit. I will be praying that my response and our response will be in solidarity with Bishop Robinson, mindful of our relatedness worldwide, full of shalom, and creative, in the manner of Jesus Christ.
"...weapons of the spirit..." Strong words. Maybe too strong for some. Personally, I think Bp. Andrus has got it right.

The exile of Bp. Robinson must be our line in the sand. Our response must be equal to the gravity of this diabolic decision. If the House of Bishops make a strong statement that they will not be party to such scapegoating, there is a possibility that further invitations might be extended over the next fourteen months.

I'm not suggesting that our bishops make idle threats. If they decide to to make a bold statement, such as refusing to participate in Lambeth unless Bp. Robinson is granted full voice and vote, they will need to be willing to live with the consequences of that statement, regardless of the response from Canterbury.

But, if all we have from the bishops are strong words, but no action, then Canterbury will assume that they will show up for Lambeth, and, beyond a few ruffled feathers, all will be well. Dr. Williams must be dissuaded from making such an erroneous assumption.

The bishops have fourteen months. What occurs during that time will depend very heavily on the initial responses we see over the next few weeks. Waiting to see which way the wind blows simply will not do. What Dr. Williams has done is wrong. It is unacceptable. May our bishops state this clearly and boldly, both in word and in deed, in the days to come.

J.


***
Scapegoating. Divide and conquer. The lessons of the gospels seem to be irrevocably tied to inclusion. The good news is that "all are invited." "All are forgiven." All. Once "the group" begins to decide who can and cannot come to the the table, trouble is only multiplied. And multiply it does. In complexity, in groups and subgroups and allegiances, sworn and unsworn. Like High School. Who's in who's out.
Having been the scapegoat in other circumstances, {upon which I won't elaborate here} I can only say that at the time of undergoing , I felt that I could do it and be unaffected by it. Exclusion , "exile and isolation" didn't seem to be a very severe sentence. Not so. And, in my circumstances, most of the people in the group that I truly cared about left with me. Still, it all affects me to this very day. It effects the others involved in the winnowing out too. The long term effects seem to create a tremendous crippling, a deep disability. A true spiritual wound that seems loathe to close properly. Which is why the process and policy is so..... diabolical?
The wound inflicted that is grave and permanent. It is intended to be that. It is this kind of inhumanity and hatred that Jesus taught against. The scandal of Jesus was that he refused to exclude. He went to those in exile and isolation and extended himself to them in compassion.
Again, I say , the issue is not people and their sex lives. It is honesty. The church was built by gay priests deacons and bishops from the get-go. They simply demurred and closeted themselves . They played by the rules of the game and closeted up their true selves.
We seem to be at a place in history now that demands a kind of out front honesty. It demands declaring one's own authentic self. I think that that is what all of this is actually about. We must remember the judgment belongs to God. We leave the exclusion and the isolating to Him. Justice and judgment are ultimately God's because human beings suck at that.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The Inlet Surfer















My sister sent me this picture (I think that she took it.)

It is of Jupiter Inlet. This inlet is quite unpredictable and treacherous -- it is a fairly narrow passage, the current can be horrendous, and the channel is flanked by rocks and cement.

I would think twice before piloting a boat of any kind out of the inlet. Or rowing. Certainly not swimming.

My sister saw this fool surfing the inlet.

When you grow up in a beach town, there are certain things that you are expected to simply know to not be thought a complete fool.

Don't surf the *&%#$! inlet.

Needless to say, I have several brothers who , for all I know, surfed the inlet in their heyday. I never knew about it or saw it, but it wouldn't surprise me. They used to surf the "shark pit" , get high, go out at midnight and surf .....

Now, my friends called me "grandma" so I was not of the daredevil persuasion, but I have plenty of siblings and cousins, and I have seen a lot of crazy stunts that wouldn't have ever crossed my mind as a way to spend an afternoon.

I wonder who decided to get up and surf the inlet?

Something in me is curious, wishes that I were more of that ilk, wishes that I possessed a greater sense of physical dare and brinkmanship. One of my brothers ( at 50+) still surfs, and not just surfing in a nice calm hometown way, but in the Seychelles, in Bali, along the wild shoreline of Nicaragua where men with machine guns patrol the beaches. He likes to spear fish, to dive and challenge the sharks and barracudas for the sixty pound grouper. I asked him why he likes to do these things and he said that it's the adrenaline, it's the rush.

What is it that we are looking for , here in our lives? We want to encounter something extraordinary. We want to taste the essence of something, what is it? Some part of ourselves, our essential nature that feels like it's missing. It's the piece of the puzzle that is missing. If we find it, the entire picture will make sense, it will be whole, complete.

What am I looking for? Maybe I'm posing the question incorrectly. Something is looking for me. Am I open to be found? Am I ready to be seen, to be heard? If I'm called to do it, am I willing to surf the inlet?


What is Closed Opens...



















SAGITTARIUS (Nov. 22-Dec. 21):

Read this passage from the Talmud:

"When the fetus comes forth into the air of the world, what is closed opens and what is open closes."

I believe that's an apt metaphor for what's going on in your life, Sagittarius. You're leaving
behind a situation that has nurtured you even as it has bound you. Ahead of you lies a scary
freedom that will flood into you with a pleasurable shock. Welcome to the brilliant shouting
mystery of it all!

****
Perhaps it is as Martin Buber writes: God “may properly be addressed , not expressed”
(as quoted in Will Herberg’s introduction to
The Writings of Martin Buber. In other words,
addressing God and being
addressed by God face to face is how we learn who he is; to the degree that
God is expressed in any real sense outside of face to face encounter, it is through the living manifestation
of every life that communes with God.

Or, as
Herberg writes, “Our encounter with God is intensively personal, and remains personal to the very end”.
For Buber, and for me, there is
a recognition that each of us is unique and the relationship that we share
with God is necessarily personal; each one of us has his or her
own truth, his or her own destiny and purpose,
and when we find and live in that center, we will then shine like the sun, moon, and stars.


We bear God’s image in the same sense that the face of Moses shone when
he descended the mount:
we not only reflect God’s image, but it has been embossed into our very being and the messenger
literally becomes the message. For Buber, then, expression
is “addression.”

***

As we grow in stature and in truth, part of that growth is closing doors and opening other doors.

Just getting back from my (oldest) son's college graduation brought to mind that time in life when it
seems that all door remain open. All possibilities spread out before us, and we are looking at all of
the seemingly endless possibilities.

But it seems that part of the human journey is as much closing as opening doors. Some door must be
closed and left behind. It can be painful, sad, the cause of regret of guilt of shame. But that's how
the cookie crumbles. Now we have been baptized, with love and with pain, and now we move on to
open and to close other doors. This is the awesome power of being human. We have this great power
of "yes" and of "no."

****

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Telling Stories















May 22, 2007

This Is Your Life (and How You Tell It)

For more than a century, researchers have been trying to work out the raw ingredients that account for personality, the sweetness and neuroses that make Anna Anna, the sluggishness and sensitivity that make Andrew Andrew. They have largely ignored the first-person explanation — the life story that people themselves tell about who they are, and why.

Stories are stories, after all. The attractive stranger at the airport bar hears one version, the parole officer another, and the P.T.A. board gets something entirely different. Moreover, the tone, the lessons, even the facts in a life story can all shift in the changing light of a person’s mood, its major notes turning minor, its depths appearing shallow.

Yet in the past decade or so a handful of psychologists have argued that the quicksilver elements of personal narrative belong in any three-dimensional picture of personality. And a burst of new findings are now helping them make the case. Generous, civic-minded adults from diverse backgrounds tell life stories with very similar and telling features, studies find; so likewise do people who have overcome mental distress through psychotherapy.

Every American may be working on a screenplay, but we are also continually updating a treatment of our own life — and the way in which we visualize each scene not only shapes how we think about ourselves, but how we behave, new studies find. By better understanding how life stories are built, this work suggests, people may be able to alter their own narrative, in small ways and perhaps large ones.

“When we first started studying life stories, people thought it was just idle curiosity — stories, isn’t that cool?” said Dan P. McAdams, a professor of psychology at Northwestern and author of the 2006 book, “The Redemptive Self.” “Well, we find that these narratives guide behavior in every moment, and frame not only how we see the past but how we see ourselves in the future.”

Researchers have found that the human brain has a natural affinity for narrative construction. People tend to remember facts more accurately if they encounter them in a story rather than in a list, studies find; and they rate legal arguments as more convincing when built into narrative tales rather than on legal precedent.

YouTube routines notwithstanding, most people do not begin to see themselves in the midst of a tale with a beginning, middle and eventual end until they are teenagers. “Younger kids see themselves in terms of broad, stable traits: ‘I like baseball but not soccer,’ ” said Kate McLean, a psychologist at the University of Toronto in Mississauga. “This meaning-making capability — to talk about growth, to explain what something says about who I am — develops across adolescence.”

Psychologists know what life stories look like when they are fully hatched, at least for some Americans. Over the years, Dr. McAdams and others have interviewed hundreds of men and women, most in their 30s and older.

During a standard life-story interview, people describe phases of their lives as if they were outlining chapters, from the sandlot years through adolescence and middle age. They also describe several crucial scenes in detail, including high points (the graduation speech, complete with verbal drum roll); low points (the college nervous breakdown, complete with the list of witnesses); and turning points. The entire two-hour session is recorded and transcribed.

In analyzing the texts, the researchers found strong correlations between the content of people’s current lives and the stories they tell. Those with mood problems have many good memories, but these scenes are usually tainted by some dark detail. The pride of college graduation is spoiled when a friend makes a cutting remark. The wedding party was wonderful until the best man collapsed from drink. A note of disappointment seems to close each narrative phrase.

By contrast, so-called generative adults — those who score highly on tests measuring civic-mindedness, and who are likely to be energetic and involved — tend to see many of the events in their life in the reverse order, as linked by themes of redemption. They flunked sixth grade but met a wonderful counselor and made honor roll in seventh. They were laid low by divorce, only to meet a wonderful new partner. Often, too, they say they felt singled out from very early in life — protected, even as others nearby suffered.

In broad outline, the researchers report, such tales express distinctly American cultural narratives, of emancipation or atonement, of Horatio Alger advancement, of epiphany and second chances. Depending on the person, the story itself might be nuanced or simplistic, powerfully dramatic or cloyingly pious. But the point is that the narrative themes are, as much as any other trait, driving factors in people’s behavior, the researchers say.

“We find that when it comes to the big choices people make — should I marry this person? should I take this job? should I move across the country? — they draw on these stories implicitly, whether they know they are working from them or not,” Dr. McAdams said.

Any life story is by definition a retrospective reconstruction, at least in part an outgrowth of native temperament. Yet the research so far suggests that people’s life stories are neither rigid nor wildly variable, but rather change gradually over time, in close tandem with meaningful life events.

Jonathan Adler, a researcher at Northwestern, has found that people’s accounts of their experiences in psychotherapy provide clues about the nature of their recovery. In a recent study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in January, Mr. Adler reported on 180 adults from the Chicago area who had recently completed a course of talk therapy. They sought treatment for things like depression, anxiety, marital problems and fear of flying, and spent months to years in therapy.

At some level, talk therapy has always been an exercise in replaying and reinterpreting each person’s unique life story. Yet Mr. Adler found that in fact those former patients who scored highest on measures of well-being — who had recovered, by standard measures — told very similar tales about their experiences.

They described their problem, whether depression or an eating disorder, as coming on suddenly, as if out of nowhere. They characterized their difficulty as if it were an outside enemy, often giving it a name (the black dog, the walk of shame). And eventually they conquered it.

“The story is one of victorious battle: ‘I ended therapy because I could overcome this on my own,’ ” Mr. Adler said. Those in the study who scored lower on measures of psychological well-being were more likely to see their moods and behavior problems as a part of their own character, rather than as a villain to be defeated. To them, therapy was part of a continuing adaptation, not a decisive battle.

The findings suggest that psychotherapy, when it is effective, gives people who are feeling helpless a sense of their own power, in effect altering their life story even as they work to disarm their own demons, Mr. Adler said.

Mental resilience relies in part on exactly this kind of autobiographical storytelling, moment to moment, when navigating life’s stings and sorrows. To better understand how stories are built in real time, researchers have recently studied how people recall vivid scenes from recent memory. They find that one important factor is the perspective people take when they revisit the scene — whether in the first person, or in the third person, as if they were watching themselves in a movie.

In a 2005 study reported in the journal Psychological Science, researchers at Columbia University measured how student participants reacted to a bad memory, whether an argument or failed exam, when it was recalled in the third person. They tested levels of conscious and unconscious hostility after the recollections, using both standard questionnaires and students’ essays. The investigators found that the third-person scenes were significantly less upsetting, compared with bad memories recalled in the first person.

“What our experiment showed is that this shift in perspective, having this distance from yourself, allows you to relive the experience and focus on why you’re feeling upset,” instead of being immersed in it, said Ethan Kross, the study’s lead author. The emotional content of the memory is still felt, he said, but its sting is blunted as the brain frames its meaning, as it builds the story.

Taken together, these findings suggest a kind of give and take between life stories and individual memories, between the larger screenplay and the individual scenes. The way people replay and recast memories, day by day, deepens and reshapes their larger life story. And as it evolves, that larger story in turn colors the interpretation of the scenes.

Nic Weststrate, 23, a student living in Toronto, said he was able to reinterpret many of his most painful memories with more compassion after having come out as a gay man. He was very hard on himself, for instance, when at age 20 he misjudged a relationship with a friend who turned out to be straight.

He now sees the end of that relationship as both a painful lesson and part of a larger narrative. “I really had no meaningful story for my life then,” he said, “and I think if I had been open about being gay I might not have put myself in that position, and he probably wouldn’t have either.”

After coming out, he said: “I saw that there were other possibilities. I would be presenting myself openly to a gay audience, and just having a coherent story about who I am made a big difference. It affects how you see the past, but it also really affects your future.”

Psychologists have shown just how interpretations of memories can alter future behavior. In an experiment published in 2005, researchers had college students who described themselves as socially awkward in high school recall one of their most embarrassing moments. Half of the students reimagined the humiliation in the first person, and the other half pictured it in the third person.

Two clear differences emerged. Those who replayed the scene in the third person rated themselves as having changed significantly since high school — much more so than the first-person group did. The third-person perspective allowed people to reflect on the meaning of their social miscues, the authors suggest, and thus to perceive more psychological growth.

And their behavior changed, too. After completing the psychological questionnaires, each study participant spent time in a waiting room with another student, someone the research subject thought was taking part in the study. In fact the person was working for the research team, and secretly recorded the conversation between the pair, if any. This double agent had no idea which study participants had just relived a high school horror, and which had viewed theirs as a movie scene.

The recordings showed that members of the third-person group were much more sociable than the others. “They were more likely to initiate a conversation, after having perceived themselves as more changed,” said Lisa Libby, the lead author and a psychologist at Ohio State University. She added, “We think that feeling you have changed frees you up to behave as if you have; you think, ‘Wow, I’ve really made some progress’ and it gives you some real momentum.”

Dr. Libby and others have found that projecting future actions in the third person may also affect what people later do, as well. In another study, students who pictured themselves voting for president in the 2004 election, from a third-person perspective, were more likely to actually go to the polls than those imagining themselves casting votes in the first person.

The implications of these results for self-improvement, whether sticking to a diet or finishing a degree or a novel, are still unknown. Likewise, experts say, it is unclear whether such scene-making is more functional for some people, and some memories, than for others. And no one yet knows how fundamental personality factors, like neuroticism or extraversion, shape the content of life stories or their component scenes.

But the new research is giving narrative psychologists something they did not have before: a coherent story to tell. Seeing oneself as acting in a movie or a play is not merely fantasy or indulgence; it is fundamental to how people work out who it is they are, and may become.

“The idea that whoever appeared onstage would play not me but a character was central to imagining how to make the narrative: I would need to see myself from outside,” the writer Joan Didion has said of “The Year of Magical Thinking,” her autobiographical play about mourning the death of her husband and her daughter. “I would need to locate the dissonance between the person I thought I was and the person other people saw.”

****
We just had EFM (Education for Ministry) Graduation last night.

A large part of the EFM program has to do with telling one's spiritual autobiography each year afresh. We use different metaphors (steppingstones, snapshots...) and structure the exercise a little differently, but it is this exercise in framing and re- framing one's story. It is telling the story by leaving in and by editing out. By selecting elements of the narrative.

It is also about gaining the perspective of myth, forming a narrative that is looking for metaphor, looking at ways of framing, grouping, looking for and finding the sin, the redemption, the metaphors of change, growth, transformation, grace.

If we can't tie the great themes in to our own stories, why would be "buy in" to the Bible stories? It engages and involves us in this act of story making and story telling as a way of seeing our stories in the stories of Western Civilization.



Your Unworthiness Does Not Harm You
















Your worthiness gives you no help, and your unworthiness does not harm you. As one drop of water is as compared to the great ocean, so are my sins as compared with God's incomprehensible grace in Christ.

- Johann Arndt

***
Someone said something to me today about, "Boy I bet God's "up there" pissed off at we human beings for getting everything screwed up."

The idea seemed really odd to me. That God would be like a mediocre elementary school teacher, or a bad-tempered parent. Why would we worship such a God, such a being? The myth, the story about making daddy happy, making God happy, behaving in a way so as to manipulate the big angry Sky Person -- isn't that insulting, both to God and to us? Really, who would seek to be in such a degrading relationship?

Incomprehensible grace. Incomprehensible God. Trying to comprehend God, and the world that God "sees", the God of creation, yet still creating in us, as us. We are alive in , of , and for one another as God is alive in , of, and for us. It is participatory. It is unfolding. "It" is never really over , never really past.

Grace brings the past to the present, informs the future from the salvatory nature of Now. Of Today. Of This.

God is "right here" -- that is, if I can manage to get "here" amidst all the noise and distraction. Here.
Here. The invitation is now, the Eternal now. We are not missing anything, any element for life to be complete no matter what the external circumstances.

Just got back from Mass. for my son's graduation. More about that later. It reminded me of the intensity of that period of life. Bonding with likeminded peers -- sacred space and time, time out of time. It all seemed to be so important then.

I told my son Joseph Campbell's observation about eternal time, spending "eternal" time with those we love, so that no matter the circumstances, we are always with them, we always have them available to us. There is a gulf of age and experience between us, as there is bound to be. But, as he seems to be one of the "ancients," maybe we have always been together in that sense of eternal time.

The trick then, is to let go of that sacred space and time , in faith, and to dive deeply into life's mystery, unafraid. That you will be capable , then of navigating the depths and the shallows of such a place.
That there is nothing that you will have "lost" in so doing.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Holy Fool



















Holy Fool

Richard Rohr


The 'final stage' of the wisdom of faith is what we might call the Holy Fool. Ironically the Holy Fool is one who knows he doesn't know, but doesn't need to either. That's the freedom. I'm not saying the Fool sits in some kind of dull ignorance. I am saying there is a state of inner freedom into which true wisdom comes....

If we can't laugh after 50 or 60 years, we probably haven't done it right. We're taking ourselves too seriously; we have not discerned the mystery. Everything finally belongs. If we can't laugh, we are probably holding our debts against ourselves and we haven't accepted forgiveness. The person of prayer, quite simply, is a person who can cry from the heart and laugh from the belly... God forgives the world for being broken and poor. God forgives us for not being all that we thought we had to be and even for what God wanted us to be. That is probably why we fall in love with such a God. Why wouldn't you? You would be a fool not to - and you will be a 'holy fool' if you do.

Everything Belongs: The Gift of Contemplative Prayer

***

Falwell Dies

















Subversive Christianity (soon deleting the blog) has an interesting take, and a few points of sanity regarding Falwell's passing.

May light perpetual shine on him


Jerry Falwell's dead.

I
t's hard to believe, at least for people of my generation. I was born two years before Falwell founded Thomas Road Baptist Church, and the Moral Majority was a major player on the American scene from my mid-twenties to my mid-thirties. Falwell's been a national presence during my entire lifetime. His death is strange, like the sudden disappearance of a familiar landmark. As my wife exclaimed when I told her Falwell had died: "Dead!?

Jerry Falwell?! Are you serious?!"

The reactions to Falwell's passing are, I suppose, predictable. He was hated and he was loved. Those who hated him are chortling with delight. Some of their responses are downright mean (Goldbricker and the comment thread on Atheist Revolution), others (No More Hornets) joyous but a bit more precise in their reasons for celebrating, and some (Salon and Feminary) measured and reflective. Those who loved him--for example, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and folks at Liberty University--are erring in the opposite direction by offering encomiums of Falwell that whitewash the genuine harm to others--and, I fear, to God--that some of his actions and pronouncements inflicted. Both kinds of responses are understandable.

B
ut both are also unsettling because in their rush to vilify or sanctify Falwell, they don't bother to try to see him as a human being. This failure or refusal only encourages an "us" versus "them" divide between Falwell groupies and Falwell loathers and, more importantly, between the worldviews they represent.

F
alwell's understanding of what it means to be a Christian strikes me as so obviously broken, so obviously defensive and exclusionary and judgmental, that I can only conclude it was embraced by a man who was suffering from wounds that cut deeply into his soul. A man who could condemn and thunder jeremiads as well as Falwell could is either a total charlatan or someone who's in a state of chronic anxiety, fear, anger, self-doubt, and envy--a man who exudes ill-being rather than well-being.

I don't think Falwell was a fake. He was a victim whose personal suffering drove him to embrace a spirituality and value system that victimized others. He was a guy whose own wounds drove him into the arms of a god who demanded that he wound others. When I think of him in these terms, I realize that Falwell deserves our compassion more than our hatred or reverence. Nor do I mean this in a holier-than-thou, patronizing way.

Because my guess is that many of the demons that haunted Falwell haunt us as well. We may not have the clout that Falwell did, and so our destructiveness may be on a less public scale. But it's real nonetheless. Admitting this doesn't whitewash Falwell's life. But it does begin the process of bridging the "us" and "them" divide.


I
so dislike what Falwell did to Christianity in the U.S. But I do so hope that his demons have been at last exorcised. And even though the words stick in my throat--a reflection of the thousands of demons that inhabit my own soul--I say (and pray that I might say it sincerely):

May light perpetual shine on my brother, Jerry.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Graduation

















Commencement 2007 Schedule

____________________________________________________________________________

Thursday, May 10

2:00pm-3:00pm - Division III Costume Parade
Starts in Enfield, concludes with costume judging at the bell.
A parade for all Div. III students to celebrate their accomplishments! Dress like your Div. III or just come and be part of the fun.

Raindate: Friday, May 11

____________________________________________________________________________

Thursday, May 17

3:00pm - General Commencement Meeting for all Graduating Students
Main Lecture Hall, Franklin Patterson Hall
This is a mandatory informational meeting for all graduating students.

4:00pm-6:00pm - Division Free All-Community Celebration
The Red Barn
Join the graduating students and their families in celebrating the start of the Commencement weekend with an afternoon of hors d'oeuvres, refreshments and live jazz.

____________________________________________________________________________

Friday, May 18

1:00pm-5:00pm - Division III Presentations
Franklin Patterson Hall
Schedules with specific times and room numbers will be available in Franklin Patterson Hall during the presentation period, and posted on the commencement website.

5:00pm-6:00pm - President's Reception
Torrey Courtyard, Franklin Patterson Hall
All students, trustees, alumni, faculty, staff, families and friends are welcome.

____________________________________________________________________________

Saturday, May 19

9:00am - Commencement Registration
Lobby, Franklin Patterson Hall

10:15am - Procession Assembles
Torrey Courtyard, Franklin Patterson Hall
Faculty and graduates will assemble in the FPH Torrey courtyard for the processional. If weather is inclement, graduates will assemble in the Library Gallery, and faculty in the Community Center. Academic regalia and festive dress are encouraged.

10:45am – The Procession Begins
The order is as follows: the bagpiper, the convener of the ceremony, the platform party, trustees, faculty, graduates. Seating will be reserved in front of the audience for faculty and graduates.

11:00am - Commencement Ceremony
Library Lawn

1:30pm - Commencement Brunch and Celebration
Merrill-Dakin Quad
Croissants, coffee, and other delectable goodies will be served. In case of inclement weather, the brunch and celebration will be held in the Dining Commons.

****


Shalin Alexander Scupham
Robert E. Seydel
"The Stars Above, The Dirt Below"


***


Going up Thursday to see my favorite resident theologian.

Free Will Astrology :

This week may feel like a far-off trumpet playing mournfully at dawn as you awaken from a dream
about buying pomegranates in a seedy but oddly appealing open-air market in Morocco.

It could also resemble the sensation of talking on the phone long-distance to a person you both love
and hate as rain falls on a metal roof and you gaze at a lunar eclipse that's breaking through a round hole
in the cloud cover.

In other words, Sagittarius, it'll be a time that's rich in hard-to-classify emotions. I expect you'll have
experiences that will both spook you and energize you, both mesmerize you and liberate you.





Genesis














politics theory & photography.

"The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."

- Dorothea Lange

_____________________

"Photography is nothing - it's life that interests me."

- Henri Cartier-Bresson

_____________________

"Light, then, .... is indeed a wonderful instrument ..."

- Mark Rothko


The far corner of the world



The Kamchatka peninsula is one of the most remote and barren places on earth. In the latest stage of his mammoth Genesis project, photographer Sebastião Salgado finds an eerie beauty in a land of volcanos and bears.

In pictures: the Kamchatka peninsula


Saturday May 12, 2007
The Guardian


Kamchatka was discovered by Cossacks more than 300 years ago, yet even today Russians know very little of it, and the rest of the world even less. The peninsula, more than 1,200km long, dips down into the Pacific from the far eastern coast of Russia. Once, it took over a year to reach Kamchatka from central Russia, and few made the attempt; it is still a nine-hour flight from Moscow.

Fewer than 360,000 people live on the peninsula, almost all of them in the capital, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, and around the military bases - nuclear submarine, air force and intercontinental rocket launch - built there for strategic reasons. Kamchatka is not too far from the US, Japan and Canada, which is why, during the cold war years, it was a closed zone - no foreigner was allowed there until 1990 and even Russians needed a special pass.

It is, however, the natural phenomena that make the terrain unique. Kamchatka has probably the highest density of volcanos anywhere in the world. The Kamchatka river is flanked by mountain ranges containing around 160 volcanos, 29 of them still active. Between them runs the Valley of the Geysers.

The highest volcano is Klyuchevskoy (4,835m); Kronotsky (3,528m), with its perfect cone shape, is considered the most beautiful. Its summit is ice-capped, its crater filled with lava, and it exhibits the classic radial drainage pattern extending down its sides. It last erupted in 1923.

A history of fur-trapping and fishing has taken its toll on some species of wildlife, but Kamchatka is still famous for its brown bears. Otherwise, there are wolves, arctic foxes, lynx, sable, several kinds of weasel, ermine and river otter, along with hares, marmot and lemmings.

Biologists estimate that a sixth to a quarter of the world's Pacific salmon originate in Kamchatka, and - responding to poachers - authorities are setting aside nine of the more productive salmon rivers as nature reserves.

***
These photographs are wonderful objects of contemplation. You might as well ponder photographs from another planet.

Volcanos. Land from which massive lava flows retreated . A different sort of ancient.

Go and see more Genesis.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Piano















PIANO

by D.H. Lawrence

Softly, in the dusk, a woman is singing to me;
Taking me back down the vista of years, till I see
A child sitting under the piano, in the boom of the tingling strings
And pressing the small, poised feet of a mother who smiles as she sings.

In spite of myself, the insidious mastery of song
Betrays me back, till the heart of me weeps to belong
To the old Sunday evenings at home, with winter outside
And hymns in the cosy parlour, the tinkling piano our guide.

So now it is vain for the singer to burst into clamour
With the great black piano appassionato. The glamour
Of childish days is upon me, my manhood is cast
Down in the flood of remembrance, I weep like a child for the past.
***
I actually have a memory like this... My mother played piano, gave lessions, directed the choir at church. I remember being very small and sitting under the piano. Or, at any rate, under or near her feet.

I have mother's piano since she died. I haven't played it much at all. I'd like to play well, but I just never seem to get around to practicing.

Anyway, thinking of mom this mother's day. Our relationship goes on with the divine that dwells between us.

Happy Mother's Day , Mom.

May light eternal shine....

Sunday, May 13, 2007

By The Grace of God...



















(Blake's "Christ & Man")

This is from a blog entitled Subversive Christianity -- read it fast, the author will be deleting it next week.

My son does that. Deletes blogs, which really annoys me, as I tend to hold on to things no matter what. Let life delete them if it must. Me, I'm going to hang in there. Is that having to do with my theology?

***

Quoth pilate: what is truth?

Good question.
Your ordinary person in the street* is likely to agree with the old Aristotelian/Thomistic formulation: veritas est adequaetio intellectus et rei, truth is the conformity of the intellect to things. This "factual" understanding of truth, which holds that truth is a quality of sentences that correspond to actual states of affairs, is the received wisdom. But philosophers also make cases for truth as coherence between sentences, or truth as utility, or truth as a social construction, or truth as what would be agreed on in an ideal discourse situation.
I don't have any problem with making room for a multi-functional understanding of truth. In some contexts (empirical inquiries), a straightforward correspondence model is appropriate; in others (formal logical inquiries), it may make more sense to think of truth as coherence; and so on. What I do have a problem with are truth imperialists who insist on reducing truth to one and only one definition, and then using that totalized definition as a bludgeon to beat down any other models or intuitions about truth.
I'm afraid our atheist friends are especially prone to this pugilistic reductionism. The truth bludgeon they wield against "faithheads," as Richard Dawkins charmingly refers to theists, is usually some version or other of correspondence (with an occasional pinch of social constructivism thrown in). But Christians, especially those who take their Bible literally, can also fall into a truth imperialism that mimics correspondence: every verse in scripture is true because it corresponds to the word of God.
So it's important to think about what truth in the context of faith might mean. If we reject the atheist crowd's neo-positivist reduction of truth to "just the facts, ma'am" as well as the Christian literalist's rigid designation of truth as everything that happens to appear in scripture, what's left?
In one of my books (probably the only halfway-decent one I've ever written, to be honest with you), I argue for a return to an ancient understanding of truth, one rediscovered by twentieth-century theologians such as Karl Rahner. I'm talking about truth as aletheia. Aletheia, which is the word for truth commonly used in the Christian scriptures ("I am the way, and the aletheia, and the life"; "You shall know the aletheian, and the aletheia shall make you free"), is a lived experience rather than a correspondence function of propositions. Aletheia is an event (actually, we should probably speak of "truthing" rather than "truth") that unconceals Reality or Being. It is a moment of disclosure, of unveiling, of revealing. The Reality unconcealed in an alethic event is God. So truth is God's act of unconcealing or unveiling. When we experience this unconcealing, we experience Truth.
There are three moments in the alethic experience. Aletheia refers to the gracious event of divine unconcealment, to the bringing-forth of that which was concealed, and to our response to that which has been brought forth. Unconcealment is a grace, a revelatory moment in which the doors of spiritual perception are thrown open. It's an outburst of divine invitation which ruptures the ordinary. Bringing-forth is this invitation's disclosure of that which is ultimately Real, the unveiling of the great I AM in our midst, of the Presence whose absolute plenitude defies the mind's usual strategies of classification and definition. Accordingly, our response to the bringing-forth can frequently be one of initial panic (there's a good reason why angeloi, messengers from God, are always telling people "Be not afraid!"). But panic is either swiftly or slowly replaced with a lived sense of the Mystery and Beneficence of the unconcealed Reality. A lived sense, not merely a head or intellectual one. As Soren Kierkegaard wrote, "Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth." Truth in the alethic sense doesn't just add another item to your cerebral inventory. It suffuses your fiber and transfigures your life. It nudges you toward deification.
Alethic moments for some people are overpoweringly dramatic and bring about instant conversion. Paul on the Damascus Road is the prototype for this kind of encounter with aletheia. But my guess is that most of us grow more gently into the lived experience of aletheia (perhaps this, too, is a grace). So long, that is, as we remain open to the possibility.
________
*Of course, it's important to keep in mind, as C.S. Lewis beautifully reminded us, that in fact there's no such thing as an "ordinary" person. All persons, made as we are in God's image, are quite extraordinary.

Revealing the You to One Another



















Kenneth Rexroth writes in his 1959 essay The Hasidism of Martin Buber:

Existentialism is a frame of mind. For people who do not know the maximum state of insecurity bred in most men caught in our disintegrating social fabric as in a thicket of fire, its dilemmas, like the epistemological dilemma that bothered the British for three centuries, simply do not exist. The dilemma does not exist for Buber. He cannot project himself with any success into the psychosis of total insecurity. He is too much at home in the world. ...

A few paragraphs earlier, Rexroth writes:

Religious Existentialism descends directly from Augustine to Luther to Kierkegaard to Barth. It is obsessed with the absolute transcendence of the creator and the utter contingency of the creature, and it recognizes no mediation except a sort of historically instantaneous thunderbolt, the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, which must be accepted as an act of blind faith. It has no use for the responsibilities of community: Augustine put aside his wife, married after the rites of a slightly different sect, as a whore, and Kierkegaard’s love life was a pitiable farce. It pictures man as ridden by the anxieties and terrors of his only spiritual ability—his realization of his own insignificance. This is why atheist Existentialism is a philosophy of despair, “the philosophy of the world-in-concentration-camp,” a kind of utterly thoroughgoing masochism. Take away God and there is absolutely nothing left. Nothing but black bile. Nobody there. However Martin Buber might disagree doctrinally, take away his God and nothing important in his philosophy has changed. It remains a philosophy of joy, lived in a world full of others. (The Hasidism of Martin Buber)

*****

I do not accept any absolute formulas for living. No preconceived code can see ahead to everything that can happen in a man's life. As we live, we grow and our beliefs change. They must change. So I think we should live with this constant discovery. We should be open to this adventure in heightened awareness of living. We should stake our whole existence on our willingness to explore and experience.

Martin Buber (in Hodes 1972)

****

All real living is meeting.

(Buber 1958: 24-25)

***

From the Essay "Choose This Day Whom You Will Serve"


And now....

Back to "Doom or Destiny -- Martin Buber's I and Thou"



Not even husband and wife relationships can be predicated on feelings alone but only by “revealing the You to one another” (95). Put differently, two things are required for genuine relationship, genuine encounter: all “[1] have to stand in a living, reciprocal relationship to a single living center [the eternal You], and they [2] have to stand in a living, reciprocal relationship to one another” (94). The You, as a sort of third party, is always required for real relationship (95). Real love, then, may be thought of as something like a spiritual force that takes place between two people, not simply within them (67) and that is another reason why all earthly Yous must become Its when the encounter ends: for Buber, then, the idea of unrequited love is not a picture of true love at all but simply a part of the I-world, the world of feelings.

**

It is the space inside the relationship contains.... "all that is." This "mercy seat" that doesn't name or define or seek to make God another kind of law , but invites space to open to what is coming next, what is coming into being?

When I was a little kid, and we got our first television (1950s) I used to wonder if the people in the television were aware of me as I was aware of them. Was it a two way mirror? I don't think that I LITERALLY thought that they could see me.

But my orientation was to relationship, not to watching an object. That took awhile.......

If this "entertainment" was to be a relationship- where was the revelation of the You?

***

But when we take as a given, along with Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, that there is no You out there —or anywhere—we have a determinism that is oppressive and frightening: a cosmological determinism and fatalism that is meaningless, fickle, capricious, and which informs the later existentialism of Sartre and Camus, casting a dark shadow on the meaning they attempt to create for themselves in such a “You-less” world. In such a world, there is only It, or at best, only contingent yous with a little “y.” Whereas the ancients believed in many gods, we moderns believe in many laws: Darwin’s “law of life,” Freud’s “psychological law,” Hegel’s “social law,” or Marx’s “cultural law” (105—at least one assumes these are the thinkers Buber has in mind). The bulk of intelligentsia and higher education all cry the same thing: these modern “many laws” do not


“tolerate any faith in liberation. It is considered foolish to imagine any freedom; one is supposed to have nothing but the choice between resolute and hopelessly rebellious slavery. Although all these laws are frequently associated with long discussions of teleological development and organic evolution, all of them are based on the obsession with some running down, which involves unlimited causality. The dogma of a gradual running down represents man’s abdication in the face of the proliferating It-world. Here the name of fate is misused: fate is no bell that has been jammed down over man; nobody encounters it, except those who started out from freedom. But the dogma of some running down leaves no room for freedom or for its most real revelation whose tranquil strength changes the countenance of the earth: returning. The dogma does not know the human being who overcomes the universal struggle by returning; who tears the web of drives, by returning; who rises above the spell of his class by returning; who by returning stirs up, rejuvenates, and changes the secure historical forms. The dogma of running down offers you only one choice as you face its game: to observe the rules or drop out. But he that returns knocks over the men on the board. The dogma will at most permit you to carry out conditionality with your life and to “remain free” in your soul. But he that returns considers this freedom the most ignominious slavery.” (105–106)

***

For Buber, however, God is not an ought that can be distilled and passed along to others; God can be known, but never proven (159). One can only encounter God as I to You, as person to Person. The best communities—in fact the origins of all societies for Buber—are based on this encounter: something like Moses coming down the mount with shining face, men encounter God and take him back into the world with them and in healthy ages unlike our own, all men alike share in the encounter and flourish and thrive.

Religious systems have their place and are all originally based on genuine revelation, but soon enough they tend to become fossilized by their very nature, for they attempt to preserve what can only be encountered (163). There are many reasons for this phenomenon, but in the end, it speaks of humanity’s desire to experience continuity in time and space: humanity’s desire to have an ordered world: humanity’s comfort in the world of It where things stay in place.

Men have addressed their eternal You by many names. When they sang of what they had thus named, they still meant You: the first myths were hymns of praise. Then the names entered into the It-language; men felt impelled more and more to think of and to talk about their eternal You as an It. But all names of God remain hallowed—because they have been used not only to speak of God but also to speak to him.

Behind all other Yous, God is the You that gives to life its ultimate meaning; the eternal You is neither a part of creation nor absent from it but is fully present in all things (123). Thus, “the pure relation can [only] be fulfilled as the beings become You, as they are elevated to the You, so that the basic holy word sounds through them all” (163). That “basic holy word,” the most sacred name of God, is You. When we speak of God as he or it (or even she), we are only speaking allegorically: such pronouns are but metaphors (146). Only when we say “You” to God is he fully encountered. The most sacred name of God, then, is You (148).

***
Good stuff! It strikes me that we are living in a shrinking world, a world that long to recover it's bigness, its passionate relationship between "You and You" -- But how can it be taught or transmitted? Perhaps it can only be modeled shown or led, like Montessori education. Given all the right materials, environments, elements, that make it more likely that an encounter will result.

****

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Afresh




















The Trees

The trees are coming into leaf
Like something almost being said;
The recent buds relax and spread,
Their greenness is a kind of grief.

Is it that they are born again
And we grow old? No, they die too.
Their yearly trick of looking new
Is written down in rings of grain.

Yet still the unresting castles thresh
In fullgrown thickness every May.
Last year is dead, they seem to say,
Begin afresh, afresh, afresh.

by Philip Larkin

***
Begin afresh.

This beginning afresh seems to require casting off a lot of lines, a lot of balast and weight right now. Both kids are graduating, but not independent. I'm coming to see more and more my own dependence, just going along, not striving, not starting then stopping, just continuing.

What do I want? Part of the problem of wanting so many things is to end up not wanting anything. There is a pruning down that seems to be necessary.

I was thinking about Buber's "I " and "Thou"..... instead of thinking of God as the great "I am" it's looking at the experience of God as the great Thou. God is.... You.


**
The aesthetic stage is life lived on its surface in which we indulge our passions, yet at some point owing to the inevitable tensions that arise from such a life, a person may make a clean break—a leap, an “either/or” and not a Hegelian synthesis—from this surface level into the ethical stage, which abandons hedonism and takes responsibility seriously, universalizing morality according to general principles abstracted from experience. Yet the ethical stage itself has its irreconcilable tensions, prompting the bravest and/or most desperate to leap again into the religious stage where they ultimately find and embrace God and in which morality becomes a matter of particularity and is no longer parceled out in abstractions.

** and then...

After the destruction of the Jerusalem and its temple in 70 a.d., the Jews no longer had a home, a central place of worship, or a priesthood and were left with only the Torah and the oral rabbinical teachings surrounding it. Josephus identifies four groups of Jews during this period: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Fourth Philosophy. The Sadducees were the Jews who held positions of prominence and authority prior to 70 a.d., as they were the temple administrators, the Essenes were separatists and thus isolated, and the Fourth Philosophy were the Jews who mounted the resistance to the Roman rulers (Ehrman, “The World of the Early Christian Traditions”). The destruction of the temple left the Sadducees powerless, leaving only the Pharisees whose complex oral tradition of law was written down around 200 a.d. (Ehrman, A Brief Introduction... 42) in an effort to preserve the Jewish heritage. This oral body of law forms what is known today as the Mishnah, from the Hebrew mišnāh meaning “repetition, teaching.” The Mishnah is the heart of the Talmud, the book of Jewish law consisting of the (1) Mishnah and later commentary collected on it known as the (2) Gemara. The Talmud, in turn, supplies the name to the form of Judaism emerging from this period known as Talmudic Judaism.

The problem with Talmudic Judaism was that it made involved study essential for the devout Jew, a process that took hours of time and was taxing to the intellect. For the common Jew struggling through the tumultuous events and anti-Semitism of the eighteenth century, there was little relief to be found in such a religion, for most working-class Jews simply did not have the time nor had developed the intellectual capacity for such a pursuit. Rising up in response to this need and appealing to the everyday Jew was Hasidism, developed by a reputed worker of miracles who lived from 1698 to 1760 named Rabbi Israel ben Eliezer, better known as Ba’al Shem Tov (a Kabbalist title meaning “Master of the Good Name,” suggesting that he had learned one of the secret names of God and was thus able to work miracles) (Rexroth). Hasidism brought Judaism down to the level of mysticism; in addition to being esoteric, it made God available to the everyday person who could interact with God through prayer, singing, dancing, and entering into trances. Buber, born a century later, was a proponent of this approach to Judaism, though he distanced himself from its more occult elements in favor of what he deemed a more practical approach that brought the mundane events of one’s life into the totality of the spiritual sphere. As Kenneth Rexroth writes in his 1959 essay “The Hasidism of Martin Buber”:

The great trouble with Talmudic Judaism is that it was used up emotionally—it had become a religion of rules and prescriptions, very difficult to get excited about. Hasidism changed all this. The Torah, the Law, became a source of endless intoxicating joy. To use the vulgar phrase of a bad American revivalist, they discovered that it was fun to do good and to be good. It is curious that with the exception of the Quakers, Christianity and the religions influenced by it teach or at least imply that it is very, very hard to be a good human being. This is simply not true, not at least for a person uncorrupted by manufactured guilts. It is not only easy to avoid lying, stealing, fornication, covetousness, idolatry, lust, pride, anger, jealousy, and the rest, it is a positive pleasure. Essential to such a life are magnanimity, courage, and the love and trust of other men. These are above all others the Hasidic virtues, along with humility, simplicity, and joy. These are all virtues of direct dealing with other men—the virtues of dialogue. To the Hasid the mystical trance is a dialogue. The self does not unself itself, but “forgets itself” in conversation with the Other; and from the Other, i.e., God as the ultimate and perfect partner of dialogue, flows out the conversation with all others—the life of dialogue, the philosophy of Martin Buber.

We can see from this description just how life-affirming Hasidism is; as Rexroth writes in the paragraph preceding: “The joke, ‘Good food, good drink, good God, let’s eat,’ could well be a brief Hasidic ‘grace.’” Hasidism did not see a dichotomy between the sacred and the secular, but instead saw the working of God through and in even the most ordinary of events, sanctifying the totality of life and imbuing it with a sort of grace. Serving God did not involve asceticism, but brought all the sensual aspects of humanity to bear into the relationship: one served God with one’s total being, the aspect in Buber’s philosophy that sometimes earns him the existentialist moniker.

***
Which brings us to....

The very first sentence of I and Thou begins: “The world is twofold for man in accordance with his twofold nature” (Buber 55). This sentence is important, for it first tells us we will be reading about the world as seen from the vantage point of humanity—“the world is twofold for man”—and that humanity has a binary, or “twofold” way of viewing the world. This “twofold nature” is explained in the next sentence/paragraph: “The attitude of man is twofold in accordance with the two basic words he can speak,” and he then suggests that these are not single words but word pairs: I-It and I-You (55). In the style of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, Buber then traces these ideas in a series of aphorisms, sketching for us what the I-It and I-You involve: everything about Buber’s philosophy in I and Thou hinges on these distinctions. To help us gain some understanding of this “twofold nature” of I-It and I-You, let’s look at Buber’s portrayal of the formation of civilization and the unfolding of the individual person as he or she gradually progresses from newborn infant into a center of increasingly conscious awareness.

In the early languages of our ancestors, we see a number of relational words instead of words that are abstractions of reality: what are the ideas of “height,” “width,” and “depth,” for example, but highly abstracted concepts involving spatiality? One would be hard pressed to find a “height” in nature or a “width”: both are conceptual words abstracted from concrete objects. We simply take for granted such abstract concepts in our culture, but that is not as true with animistic cultures, for whom words are typically relational with respect to persons. The Zulu, for example, have a “sentence-word” that roughly translates to “where one cries, ‘mother, I am lost’”; if we consider where such a place might be in which a child would cry out “mother, I am lost,” we can get a sense that the Zulu mean far away from home (69–70). “Far away” for us is concept extracted from the physical world that is only implicitly relational; for the Zulu, their word is overtly relational. The Zulu, like many “primitive” groups—Buber defines the word “primitive” as “those who have remained poor in objects and whose life develops in a small sphere of acts that have a strong presence” (69), see people as inextricably linked in and to the world and there are no clearly demarcated boundaries between persons and things (70). The world of such cultures is something like the child in the womb who shares in a complete and total relationship with its mother: a “bodily reciprocity” (76).

When a child is born, that perfect relationship is destroyed and it is thrust into a new world. It is through repeated contacts with this outer world—including its mother now seen externally—that the individual first learns of its own identity, or, as Buber suggests, “[m]an first becomes an I through a You” (80). The newborn infant does not have a sense of being an I; it does not have a sense of itself as a distinct and separate entity or center of consciousness but only one of undifferentiated unity and relationship (76–77). Gradually it begins to notice that while the outside world around it continues to change, the one constant underlying all these interactions is its own awareness: the child gradually becomes aware of its own consciousness through the You of the outer world—and most especially its mother now seen externally.

***

Most importantly:

The description of this You may still be somewhat cryptic to one who unfamiliar with Buber’s terms and the manner in which he employs them. Perhaps an illustration of our own would offer further insight: when I speak to you—yes, you—and when I really speak and listen to you carefully, I am not at that moment considering you as a sum of parts. While I may notice your relative height and eye color and other features, you become to me a total person and if I devote to you my undivided time and attention as you do with me, the passage of minutes and the existence of space are effectively forgotten for us in that instant and the experience is a total one, a mutual reciprocity taking place between us. When I encounter you in this way, I encounter Buber’s You: I am interacting in an undifferentiated relationship, however brief, that transcends the sum of its parts and you become for me the universe, filling both time and space.

And so, we return to the infant, to whom the world is undifferentiated, undivided, unparceled, unanalyzed. How could it be otherwise? For in order to analyze and differentiate, we must have built up a fairly extensive body of knowledge—stored memory—and this is only just beginning to be formed in a newborn infant; what is more, knowledge involves differentiation and categorization, something unknown to the newborn who has previously lived in complete unity with its mother inside the womb. The world of the infant, then, remains the world of the You even after birth. It is only through the gaze of its mother that the child fully learns it is an I: as contemporary philosopher Arthur C. Danto writes in his 1981 effort The Transfiguration of the Commonplace: “I come to know that I am an object simultaneously with coming to know that another is subject: that those eyes are not just pretty bits of color, but are looking at me: I discover I have an outside in a way logically inseparable from my discovery that others have an inside” (10).

{previous is from "Fate: Doom or Destiny? Martin Buber's I and thou"}
More tomorrow.....
More about.... YOU.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Levity

One of my Favorites


This man (on the left wearing a fabulous vintage chiffon-lined Dior gold lamé gown over a silk Vera Wang empire waist tulle cocktail dress, accessorized with a three-foot beaded peaked House of Whoville hat, and the ruby slippers Judy Garland wore in the Wizard of Oz) is worried that The Da Vinci Code might make the Roman Catholic Church look foolish.

Us Vs. Them













A sad result of the "war on terruh" is the further polarization -- not just of this country, but a mentality that divides and judges ; sows fear and hatred.

The dehumanization of the "other" underlying political rhetoric on "immigration" and "poverty" and a thousand thousand other issues great and small is not happening by chance. It is deliberate and personal.

Melanie, from Just a Bump in the beltway cites a story involving immigrants, and links to a very important article by PZ Myers. This article is a crucial piece of observation derived from biology and especially important in this time that has become "anti-science" (anti-intellect? anti-reason? Isn't Al Gore's new book about "The Death Of Reason" ?)

***

There Is No "Them"

Immigration officials allegedly drugged deportees
An ACLU lawyer condemns the incidents in L.A. as 'horrifying.' Both men remain in the U.S. while appealing their cases.
By Anna Gorman and Greg Krikorian, Times Staff Writers
May 9, 2007

U.S. immigration officials sedated two foreign nationals against their will during failed attempts to deport them in Los Angeles, the men and their attorneys said Tuesday.

Indonesian immigrant Raymond Soeoth, 38, who was appealing his case for political asylum, was sedated with antipsychotic drugs in December 2004 at a San Pedro detention facility; Senegal immigrant Amadou Diouf, 31, also pursuing an appeal for permanent legal status, was medicated in February 2006 while on a commercial plane at Los Angeles International Airport, according to both men and the medical files they said they obtained from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"It's horrifying," said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Ahilan Arulanantham, who represents the two. "It's blatantly illegal. You cannot inject people with psychotropic drugs if they are not mentally ill."

The ACLU, with assistance from the law firm of Munger, Tolles and Olson, is investigating the incidents, which were first reported in the Los Angeles Daily Journal. Arulanantham said neither of his clients has been treated for mental illness.

Soeoth and Diouf have been released. Their cases are pending at the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Just a reminder: if they can do it to "them" they can do it to you. Do read that link. It's an essay by biologist PZ Myers that might be the most important thing you will read this year.

An administration which has no trouble with shipping citizens to Gitmo isn't going to have a lot of difficulty with picking you up and drugging you.


Only in the US

Eric Alterman gets mail:

Name: Larry Howe Hometown: Oak Park, IL

Eric --

I'm at a loss to explain this and would love someone to provide an answer. In the first Republican presidential candidate forum, the question "Who here does not believe in evolution?" induced three candidates -- Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo -- to raise their hands. Why is it that no jaws dropped incredulously, or no one in the audience let out so much as a flabbergasted chuckle? The asking of the question itself is enough to give us pause, but the answers show that it was warranted. Ten candidates, three don't "believe" in evolution. The answers of those three candidates reveal that this belief nonsense has brought us to a new point of absurdity. And these three were not fringe candidates using the process to simply attract attention--they hold high elective offices, state and federal.

We know that the rest of the civilized world has not been able to fathom how the current president is now in his second term. It's hard to imagine how the United States will be understood were someone who disregards the scientific foundations of evolution to become the next leader of the free world. In a society educated and knowledgeable about science, the answers that those three candidates gave would be enough to disqualify them immediately.

Sam Brownback is from Kansas, and we know how the science curriculum in that state was hijacked by creationists. But the tornadoes and flooding that tragically struck communities in his state this last weekend should compel the Kansas senator to become a little more educated about science; otherwise he's facing a tall order in explaining to his fellow Kansans what God has against them.

While I agree with the letter writer, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in some form of Biblical based creation or its near cousin, Intelligent Design. This is a percentage which has grown over the last 30 years, which tells you something about how poor public school science education has become.



Jokesters









Proof of Global Warming


Don't blame me (blame Doug!)

A 6 year old and a 4 year old are upstairs in their bedroom.

"You know what?" says the 6 year old. "I think it's about time we
started cussing."

The 4 year old nods his head in approval.
The 6 year old continues, "When we go downstairs for breakfast,
I'm gonna say something with hell and you say something with ass."
The 4 year old agrees with enthusiasm. When the mother walks
into the kitchen and asks the 6 year old what he wants for breakfast,
he replies, "Aw, hell, Mom, I guess I'll have some Cheerios."

WHACK! He flies out of his chair, tumbles across the kitchen
floor, gets up, and runs upstairs crying his eyes out, with his mother
in hot pursuit, slapping his rear with every step. His mom locks
him in his room and shouts, "You can stay there until I let you out!"

She then comes back downstairs, looks at the 4 year old and asks
with a stern voice, And what do YOU want for breakfast, young man?"

"I don't know," he blubbers, "but you can bet your ass
it won't be Cheerios!"

(both jokes from the provisional blog Of Course I Could Be On Vacation)

Because of It's Littleness..



















By Julian of Norwich

God showed me something small, no bigger than a hazelnut, lying in the palm of my hand, as it seemed to me, and it was as round as a ball. I looked at it with the eye of my understanding and thought: What can this be? I was amazed that it could last, for I thought that because of its littleness it would suddenly have fallen into nothing. And I was answered in my understanding: It lasts and always will, because God loves it: and thus everything has being through the love of God.

In this little thing I saw three properties. The first is that God made it, the second is that God loves it, the third is that God preserves it. But what did I see in it? It is that God is the Creator and the protector and the lover. For until I am substantially united to God, I can never have perfect rest or true happiness, until, that is, I am so attached to God that there can be no created thing between my God and me.

Revelations of Divine Love

Monday, May 07, 2007

Time for a Yoga Post



















From the NYTimes:

A Big Stretch

I GREW up watching my father stand on his head every morning. He was doing sirsasana, a yoga pose that accounts for his youthful looks well into his 60s. Now he might have to pay a royalty to an American patent holder if he teaches the secrets of his good health to others. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued 150 yoga-related copyrights, 134 patents on yoga accessories and 2,315 yoga trademarks. There’s big money in those pretzel twists and contortions — $3 billion a year in America alone.

It’s a mystery to most Indians that anybody can make that much money from the teaching of a knowledge that is not supposed to be bought or sold like sausages. Should an Indian, in retaliation, patent the Heimlich maneuver, so that he can collect every time a waiter saves a customer from choking on a fishbone?

The Indian government is not laughing. It has set up a task force that is cataloging traditional knowledge, including ayurvedic remedies and hundreds of yoga poses, to protect them from being pirated and copyrighted by foreign hucksters. The data will be translated from ancient Sanskrit and Tamil texts, stored digitally and available in five international languages, so that patent offices in other countries can see that yoga didn’t originate in a San Francisco commune.

It is worth noting that the people in the forefront of the patenting of traditional Indian wisdom are Indians, mostly overseas. We know a business opportunity when we see one and have exported generations of gurus skilled in peddling enlightenment for a buck. The two scientists in Mississippi who patented the medicinal use of turmeric, a traditional Indian spice, are Indians. So is the strapping Bikram Choudhury, founder of Bikram Yoga, who has copyrighted his method of teaching yoga — a sequence of 26 poses in an overheated room — and whose lawyers sent out threatening notices to small yoga studios that he claimed violated his copyright.

But as an Indian, he ought to know that the very idea of patenting knowledge is a gross violation of the tradition of yoga. In Sanskrit, “yoga” means “union.” Indians believe in a universal mind — brahman — of which we are all a part, and which ponders eternally. Everyone has access to this knowledge. There is a line in the Hindu scriptures: “Let good knowledge come to us from all sides.” There is no follow-up that adds, “And let us pay royalties for it.”

Knowledge in ancient India was protected by caste lines, not legal or economic ones. The term “intellectual property” was an oxymoron: the intellect could not be anybody’s property. You did not pay your guru in coin; you herded his cows and married his daughter, and passed on the knowledge to others when you were sufficiently steeped in it. This tradition continues today, most notably in Indian classical music, none of whose melodies have been copyrighted.

Perhaps it is for this reason that Indians do not feel obligated to pay for knowledge. Pirated copies of my book are openly sold on the Bombay streets, for a fourth of its official price. Many of the plots and the music in Bollywood movies are lifted wholesale from Hollywood. I have sat in on Bollywood script meetings where we viewed American films and decided that replication was the sincerest form of flattery.

Still, Indians get upset every time they hear reports — often overblown — of Westerners’ stealing their age-old wisdom, through the mechanism of copyright law. They were outraged by a story last year of some Americans trying to copyright the sacred Hindu syllable “om” — which would be like trade-marking “amen.”

The fears may be exaggerated, but they are widespread and reflect India’s mixed experience with globalization. Western pharmaceutical companies make billions on drugs that are often first discovered in developing countries — but herbal remedies like bitter gourd or turmeric, which are known to be effective against everything from diabetes to piles, earn nothing for the country whose sages first isolated their virtues. The Indian government estimates that worldwide, 2000 patents are issued a year based on traditional Indian medicines.

Drugs and hatha yoga have the same aim: to help us lead healthier lives. India has given the world yoga for free. No wonder so many in the country feel that the world should return the favor by making lifesaving drugs available at reduced prices, or at least letting Indian companies make cheap generics. If padmasana — a k a the lotus position — belongs to all mankind, so should the formula for Gleevec, the leukemia drug over whose patent a Swiss pharmaceuticals company is suing the Indian government. But the drug companies are playing rough. Abbott, based in Chicago, has decided to sell no new medicines in Thailand, in retaliation for that country’s producing generic versions of three lifesaving drugs.

For decades, Indian law allowed its pharmaceutical companies to replicate Western-patented drugs and sell them at a lower price to countries too poor to afford them otherwise. In this way, India supplied half of the drugs used by H.I.V.-positive people in the developing world. But in March 2005, the Indian Parliament, under pressure to bring the country into compliance with the World Trade Organization’s regulations on intellectual property, passed a bill declaring it illegal to make generic copies of patented drugs.

This has put life-saving antiretroviral medications out of reach of many of the nearly 6 million Indians who have AIDS. And yet, the very international drug companies that so fiercely protect their patents oppose India’s attempts to amend World Trade Organization rules to protect its traditional remedies.

There’s more at stake than just the money involved in the commercial exploitation of traditional knowledge. There is also the perception that the world trading system is unfair, that the deck is stacked against developing countries. Unless the World Trade Organization and developed countries correct this, the entire project of globalization is at risk.

If the copying of Western drugs is illegal, so should be the patenting of yoga. It is also intellectual piracy, stood on its head.

Suketu Mehta is the author of “Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found.”

****

The scale of greed in this era of "globalization" is staggering. And is ruining that which it seeks to "own."

Yoga and the different paths taken in the pursuit of knowledge are ancient, part of the ancient world, just as centering prayer, the lessons of the desert abbas and ammas and lectio divina are preserved knowledge from the past.

By packaging and marketing ourselves and the pieces of knowledge that we claim, we in fact demonstrate that we don't fully understand that knowledge. The "owners" of such knowledge will fade and lose all that they have sought. By clinging to their own importance, their own fortune, they may nail the showy physical posture, but it is empty, only striving, missing the mark that the pose is supposed to point to.

***

Caught this from the Christian Century Magazine:

Faith matters
May 01, 2007

Christian yoga

Once again it was a Lent of loopholes, of minor sacrifices deferred by family travels and travails and of minor irritations unredeemed, so that as Palm Sunday drew near it caught me in need of a new beginning, in want of a jump start. I found that jump start in Unfolding the Mystery, a new book of monastic conferences on the liturgical year by Dom Hugh Gilbert, O.S.B., abbot of Pluscarden, the Scottish Benedictine abbey reborn in 1948 from its picturesque medieval ruins.

The book requires some explanation, for a monastic conference is a genre of its own. Not exactly a sermon, nor a speech, nor a symposium, it is essentially a personal exchange between a spiritual father or mother and the Christian souls under his or her care. To be translated successfully into literary form it must, like the fourth-century Conferences of John Cassian or the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, retain the flavor of informal and even intimate conversation. The reader thus feels drawn in and willingly assumes the place of the monastic seeker who asks, "Give me a word, father, how shall I live?"

In Unfolding the Mystery, the conversation centers on the experience of the liturgy, and the pressing question is this: How shall I live according to the Christian calendar? How do I know that sacred time is real? More to the point: How can I meet Christ in the corporate prayer of the church? What is this strange lassitude that makes me loosen my grip on Lent and lose myself in wool-gathering before the divine altar? Give me a word, Father Hugh. And so, with cheerful frankness, he does.

He begins by acknowledging, as Cassian does, that the monk is, like the rest of us, habitually sunk in a torpor of "unacknowledged, unrepented sin, sleep, depression, anger, deep grievances, habitual irritation and . . . sheer business." Prayer is the most natural activity in the world, but we have become most unnatural. Prayer is the rational occupation of a human being, but we are rational only by fits and starts. We begin to recover our senses when the divine word of a psalm or familiar prayer "rescues us from our own word"; when patient love offered to a vexing neighbor works its subtle alchemy; or when a sharp desire, implanted by the Holy Spirit, makes us realize that to pray is not just a monk's business but a real human need. Though we may be ceaselessly caught up in vain imaginings, unceasing prayer (see 1 Thess. 5:17, Rom. 12:12, Eph. 6:18, 1 Cor. 1:4 , 1 Tim. 2:8 and Luke 18:1)— whether embodied in the chanting of Jesus' name, the regular service of the altar, the daily cycle of the hours, the sudden impulse of the moment, or the great seasons of the Christian year—is ready to meet us at every turn, and turn our face toward the vision of God which is our true end.

"He lay in a crib so that you could stand at the altar," Abbot Hugh writes, expanding a Christmas saying from St. Ambrose. To stand at the altar is to return to God from the torpor of self-regard and, in praying the intercessory "prayer of all for all," bring the whole world along for the ride. "This is the work of God," Abbot Hugh observes, "and we are co-opted into it. It's the work of leading the world into God's joy. Of itself this is completely beyond us. It is a supernatural work and we [are] unworthy workmen with a seemingly limitless capacity for spoiling His purposes. We are afraid of the way of surrender, afraid of the way of love. We are full of misgivings. But 'he lay in the crib' and we have been brought to the altar." And while we are here, he suggests, we do well to use the traditional bodily postures: standing, above all, in honor of the resurrection, but also kneeling, bowing, prostrating when the occasion requires it, and sitting at attention, not like a couch potato but like David when "he sat before the Lord" to ponder astonishing news. One hears the voice of the abbot urging the brethren not to lean too much on their misericords during vigils, while reminding his readers that they will find in the liturgy a Christian yoga of unsuspected variety and depth. If Christian yoga seems too arduous, there remains "the adoration of exhaustion. There's nothing left in me. All I can do is throw myself down and worship. No other prayer but my body. But that'll do."

The unfolding mystery of which Abbot Hugh speaks is the paschal drama, the tale of the Son's dying and rising and ascending with humanity to the Father, a tale retold in the small circle of the monastic day, again in the wider sphere of the Christian week, and again in the cosmic cycle of the Christian year—an archetypal pattern made real by the power of the Holy Spirit, inexhaustible renewer of exhausted hearts. From the 40 days of Lent, whose knots and loopholes tell us that we are still in our sins, we reliably do make it to the 50 days of Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, where we hear the final word God wants to say to us.

The Easter Monday prayer Vivendo teneant!—which Abbot Hugh renders "May we hold on to this in our lives!"—sums up his monastic wisdom. The Christian regularity for which monasticism provides a template, daily rehearsing the paschal mystery, singing the psalms until they repeat in the heart, sitting at table with the same companions over the same unremarkable food, all this repetition leads not to boredom but to joy—objective Christian joy, the precise opposite of happiness on demand. We are to be sunk in joy whether we like it or not. Joy is, in Abbot Hugh's words, a "Trinitarian conspiracy." His conferences make one glad to be caught in the net.
Carol Zaleski is professor of world religions at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts.

Sunday, May 06, 2007

Absurd















From Onehouse:

Avoiding the absurd.

I find myself returning to this:


Hlisten


I put this up over three years ago and the previous post included this.

The first discipline is listening. The word listening in Latin is audire. And if you listen with great attention the words are ob audire. That is the word for "obedience." The word obedience means listening. If you are not listening, you are deaf. The Latin word for deaf is surdus, and if you're actually deaf, you're ab surdus. The "absurd" life is a life in which you're not listening. An obedient life is a life in which you are listening.

(Nouwen)

Spiritual direction













Spiritual direction;
or, "Into great chaos"

Spiritual Direction, while sounding serious and , well, directional organized and purposeful is often chaotic, bewildering, seemingly aimless and purposeless.

A lot of my early childhood was (literally) spent wandering in the woods, playing in the forest across the street from our house, performing funerals for small forest creatures with my Catholic neighbor and lying in the back garden looking at the sky and repeating to myself, "Forever and forever and forever and forever....." until I felt dizzy and nauseous.

How to aid one another in our journey to who knows where? I think that sometimes its simply having a message for someone. Or that someone else has a message for you. It's that listening thing. Listening to others, to yourself, to animals, trees, birds (cheep cheep cheep) to your own heart. It's listening to what others aren't saying. It's me listening to what's going on down deep, down in my heart, unnoticed in the back of my mind. It's hearing a mood, an unasked question.

Simply abiding and offering your presence, your attention , your mood is perfect. There is so little that we must do. It's amazing how little gestures, tokens of ourselves magnify themselves when offered, surrendered as our prayer for those we love. I always forget. It's so important.

More tomorrow.
Tonight I had to (help) write a paper on Grendel & Beowulf. Well. Didn't HAVE to. But then, there's the fun of being a parent.

I offer to you this from Real Live Preacher (via Christian Century)

A listening prayer

I can't imagine absolute silence, neither can I hear it. Even when I'm in a quiet place, my mind produces its own ghostly, seashell sound. The noise in my head is a faint but high-pitched whine accompanied by a lower rumbling that sounds like an engine pulsing away in the distance. These seem to be the default sounds of my brain. It's what I hear when there is nothing else to hear.

About the closest you can come to silence is to become silent yourself and hope for the best. Close your eyes and forsake your vision. Let go of sight and your desperate need to see. Embrace hearing and you will begin to notice the many layers of the sounds around you.

I became silent on the evening of July 11, 2005, while sitting in a swing hanging from a tree at Laity Lodge, a retreat center in the hill country of Texas. I became silent and told God that I would listen to everything and hoped to hear from him.

This is the prayer that I thought that night. "I am listening, Lord. This is my only prayer tonight. I wonder, do you sometimes speak to doubtful and wayward boys like me?"

I do not know if God spoke to me that night. I only know what I heard.

The first thing I heard were the crickets, who provided a throbbing background to everything. Funny, I hadn't heard them before I got quiet, and then suddenly they were deafening. In a juniper tree nearby an insect clattered away in the darkness. He was calling for a mate, or perhaps just singing the song of himself.

My tennis shoe scraped on the hardened earth beneath the swing. With my eyes shut and my ears open, it was an offensive noise, altogether artificial and out of place. I didn't like the sound of it, so I stopped moving my feet.

The ear can focus on things near and far, like the eyes. I turned my head to the left, pointing my ear back over my shoulder and toward the river. I picked up the distant and desperate cries of coyotes on the scent of prey. It was like hearing something from another world.

Suddenly, a sound to the right, and I turned my head back, probing the darkness. I heard a murmuring, a conversation in the distance between two men. I couldn't make out the words, but the voices were masculine and the cadence seemed friendly.

This side of the conversation, I heard a mysterious insect that made a "tick, tick, tick" noise. Another made a sound like a man compulsively rolling ball bearings around in his cupped hand.

When I had heard as far away as I could, I returned to the sound of the crickets around me. Listening hard, I heard two distinct cricket noises. There was a shrill, cricket chirping, but also a deeper, bleating call. The crickets made me feel at home. Theirs was a familiar and comforting sound. I was pressed on all sides by their presence. I was not alone.

I ended my prayer time by listening to the sound of my own breathing and the gentle creaking of the swing.

Everything I heard seemed like a cry of longing and need. The insects were breathing the cool air of the night and dragging their legs and wings together, little violins calling across the darkness for companionship or comfort. The coyotes in the distance cried out in their hunger and in praise of their primitive love of the chase and the kill. The indistinct voices of the men in the distance bore the sound of reason and the timbre of friendship.

And I too was calling in the night, hoping to find the God that I have worshiped and served since I was a boy. Did I hear him that night, or did I just hear the common sounds of creation?

This is prayer. You do not have to speak. Do not let anyone tell you that you must speak. You may speak if you wish, or you may simply listen in the darkness.

Listening is good. Listening pries open the secret places in our hearts where we guard our vulnerability from the dangers of the world. Listening brings layers of sound; it allows you to journey far away and then return to yourself.

Desire is a goodness. Mystery is another. Longing is the sharp tang on the edge of joy that turns it from storybook sugar to an aged and robust wine of the soul. Thank God a part of these three always remain with us. God save us from complete consummation.

Keep your longing for answers in check. Stand trembling at the edge of discovery and hold onto that sweet moment as long as you can. This too is a kind of prayer.

When I left the swing that evening, I knew for certain that I was but one more creature of the night, longing and listening and hoping for what I need. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not I heard from God.

I do not know, and at this season of my life, it doesn't seem to matter.

Gordon Atkinson is the author of RealLivePreacher.com

So Say We All

If you've never visited Padre Mickey at Padre Mickey's Dance Party, it's a fun blog. Padre Mickey is in Panama.


Comments On The Present Unpleasantness

I nicked this from Jesus' General ages ago!

If one was one of those "Anglicans" who get all their information from Titus 1:9 and StandFirm, one might be misled into believing that True Anglicans™ are simply enraptured with the Archbishop of Nigeria and his New, Improved Donatism™. These folks seem to believe that Christians south of the equator are falling all over themselves for the new, pure, Donatist Anglicanism of the Good Folks in Nigeria, Other Parts of Africa, and South America.


It seems that the more rational folks in Virginia aren't buying it either, according to this article. Father Jake has been very clear today that what the Most Blessed Primates of the Global South have been trying to accomplish is nothing less than theft.


Donatism is a heresy because of its Pharisaic nature, the idea that the validity of the Sacraments depends upon the purity of the officiant, and the belief that God can be put in a box, governed by laws and interpretations of scripture.

But God is so much larger than our ideas and our understandings of scripture and our concepts of purity. Much like the magicians of the first three centuries of the Common Era, the neo-donatists think that they can control God and the heavenly hosts.

As shocking as this may be to the neo-donatists, I, too, read the Bible everyday, and as far as I can tell, it's Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Incarnation, who will be doing the judging on el Última Día, not the Archbishop of Nigeria, not +Minns, ++Katherine, not +++Rowan Cantaur, not me, not you, not your mom, and not ++Venables. The truth is, none of us get to decide who is in or out of the Reign of God, and I'm really tired of hearing how I'm not a True Anglican™. Let's quit arguing and start working to bring about God's Reign. No one here in Panamá, as far as I can tell, is worried about the stuff that has ++Akinola and his minions nor the stuff that has TEC worked up. Here in IARCA we are working for the understanding of Anglicanism in a Central American context, and the Global Center is more interested in the survival of our understanding of the Good News in an Anglican context than sexual and political purity.

Tomorrow I will be officiating at the funeral of a friend, a fellow Episcopalian and musician, and right now I really don't give a flying f*** what the bishops of the entire Anglican Communion think. They should be concentrating on the Gospel and not on power. I'm tired of this Christian-Maoist crap.

Here Endeth the Rant.

This post has had several visit by the Alter Guild

Well, That's It Then



















Image from Mad Priest

"The desire to rule is the mother of all heresies."

Saint John Chrysostom


***


Endgame

Well that's it then.

People will pretend otherwise, some of you will, but those of us who understand honour and who have integrity must accept the fact that the Church of England (not Anglicanism) is no longer in the same Communion as Peter Akinola, the (former Anglican) Archbishop of Nigeria. We are still in communion with the people of Nigeria and even the people of the American Schismatic Church (CANA), because only God can excommunicate and that, because of his very nature, he will not do.

Archbishop Rowan Williams now has to make a choice. Does he wish to continue to placate, at any cost, the man who wishes to rule the Anglican Communion in a way that Rowan knows he must not do himself, because he does not have that authority and because he is a Christian man? Or will Rowan choose to now move closer to those who may have, in exasperation, grumbled about him, but who have never once thought of blackmailing the Church or attacking it's structure and integrity?

If Rowan does not choose the second option, and quickly, then TEC must, of their own accord, move away from both Williams and Akinola. In fact, if Katharine was to announce the split tomorrow, whilst everyone is looking at the photographs of a foreign man insulting their presiding bishop and dictating the policy of the American Church, I don't think the numbers that would leave would be that high.

Today, the schismatics are celebrating.

Fools.

Today they lost everything.



***
{comment from "counterlight"}:


This is a gesture of contempt hurled at the whole Episcopal Church from the PB down to the occasional pewsitter.

I wonder how many gay men and lesbians were involved in bringing off that clambake; how many florists, musicians, costume designers, set designers, liturgists, tech people, etc.?
What will CANA and the ConsEvs do without us? They need us as enemies. They need us more as professionals.

Without us, they'll be badly dressed with no music, and they'll be at each others' throats.

Somehow, it seems strangely appropriate to point out that today, May 6, is the 70th anniversary of the Hindenberg disaster.


Oh the humanity!


*****
Mad Priest Says:


“As I have loved you, you also should love one another.”

Simple, eh?

No. Very difficult.

Heck, it’s difficult enough loving the people you love. It’s even more difficult loving the people that you know you’re supposed to love. Loving people you don’t want to be on the same planet as - surely that is impossible. But that is what our Lord tells us to do. But how do we do it?

Well, first things first. Love is not about never getting angry. It is not about letting people walk all over you. It is not about sitting on the fence and saying that "of course, both sides have a point." Jesus often got angry. He often fought back, and usually won the arguments and he always believed that his point of view was the right point of you. You show me the place in the Bible where Jesus says to the pharisee, "Oh, you're right. I see what you mean."

Secondly, when it comes to putting the love thing into practice, I have a simple suggestion. Now, it is only a start. It’s not the real thing. But it so often leads on to the real thing.

I expect you remember Allison Kaye, the lady who started the Peoples’ Kitchen in Newcastle to provide food for our homeless. She died some years ago, but I was speaking to her shortly before she died and she told me about a meeting she’d been invited to speak at in Gateshead, where they wanted her to talk about her work. Afterwards she agreed to answer questions and somebody said that Allison had called herself a rebel and they wanted to know what she meant by “rebel”. After thinking for a while Allison replied that “being a rebel meant always taking the loving option.”

Look, I’ll be honest with you. There are some people in this church who I don’t “lurve.” In fact, some people annoy me a little bit at times. I am certain that some of you feel the same about me. That’s life. But, I’ll tell you something. If any of you are ever in trouble or sick or dying or feeling that your world is so awful that death would be a release, then I will take the loving option and I will be there beside you. It won’t be perfect - I’m only human - but it will be the best that I can do.

Choosing the loving option is not a lie, even if we don’t like the person we’re loving, because, as disciples of Christ, we are doing it on behalf of God and God loves without exception. So the integrity of the act is underwritten by the nature of the God we’re working for and not by ourselves.

So, don’t beat yourself up about this love thing. Of course, you can’t love everybody. But you can act as if you love everybody and when you do so, hating every minute of it, then that is sacrificial love. And in this life that is probably the closest we will ever get to loving others the way that God loves us.

Saturday, May 05, 2007

Riverside

Taking On the Task of Rebuilding a Church
Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times
Taking On the Task of Rebuilding a Church

Riverside Church, capital of a deteriorating theological movement, is about to search for a new senior minister.

Friday, May 04, 2007

The Power of Incarnation : Putting Flesh on an Idea













Wow!
A great story by Fr. Jake.

From his blog, Father Jake Stops the World

Thursday, April 26, 2007

The Boys of Hall

On my forty-five minute drive to the Church this morning, I found myself reliving the day that Mike Drew died. Now it is late at night, and I find the story still haunting me. What follows is an attempt to discover some peace, by trying to put this tale into words.

I left my parents' home at age eleven. After living with various relatives, I struck out on my own at fourteen. The state of Oregon sent me to MacLaren School for Boys at age fifteen. MacLaren was the state reformatory. The decision that I needed to be "reformed" was based on my record of running away from various foster homes, and for usually having a pocket full of drugs when I was finally arrested. I had also stolen a car during one of my escapades.

MacLaren was located in a rural setting outside of Portland. There were no fences. Instead, there were numerous security guards in cars. To run, one would have to cross miles of open fields. The cars almost always caught up to you before you got too far.

The living quarters were broken up into about a dozen self-contained cottages. Each one included a dorm, kitchen, shower area and common room. I was originally assigned to Thayer cottage. A number of the residents of Thayer were older and had obviously been there for awhile. Having already spent some time on the street, at first I wasn't too intimidated. Then we had our first locker search. A staff member started to reach into the locker of the young man standing next to me. "Don't touch that watch!" the boy screamed. "That's my watch!" The staff member continued to reach into the locker. "I said get your hands off my watch. I took that off my dad after I shot him! It's mine now!" I was now officially intimidated.
click to continue



Father of all, we pray to you for Michael, and for all those whom we love but see no longer. Grant to them eternal rest. Let light perpetual shine upon them. May his soul and the souls of all the departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Anglican Drama Update



















More Anglican Follies via The Mad Priest;

MadPriest Thought For The Day

Church structures, infuriating as they can be at times, are the most effective way of keeping Christians of differing views in bed together. In England, liberals and fundamentalists have managed to coexist within the Church of England for over a hundred years. The relationship may not be amicable but it is, at least, a truce based on realities and the tension between the parties has led to change as opposed to the stagnation that would come with a one party denomination. The structures of the Church have changed over the years but only within the due process of the uniting structures.

Therefore, whatever the disagreement, the worst possible "sin" within Anglicanism is a unilateral alteration of the structures by one party, without achieving that alteration through due process. Put simply, setting up an alternative faction of Anglicanism within an existing province is a far worse "sin" than the democratic election of a gay bishop through the due process of a province's electoral system.

We all have to put up with stuff we really don't like in the Church. An honourable Anglican will remain within the structures of the Church whilst campaigning for change (which we can do - we are not Roman Catholic). However, should the Church alter in such a way that a person could no longer stay in bed with the bishops, then an honorable Anglican would leave the Anglican Church completely because, due to that change in Anglicanism, they would no longer be an Anglican.

Big Pete's encroachment into the U.S. and the actions of his supporters there, are not honourable and if there is one thing that Archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons and "metropolitans" should have it is integrity. If the officers of the structures of our Church cannot be trusted then the whole edifice crumbles. Some may think that might not be a bad thing, and in many ways they would be right to believe that. But, the actions of Big Pete and his power hungry minions show the abuse and anarchy that will result should we discard our traditional structures and checks or if they are sabotaged by nihilists calling themselves traditionalists.

***

A Prophecy

Big Pete dies and goes to heaven.

God says to him, "Because you're so good at it, I've decided to let you cross the boundary into somebody else's jurisdiction. Goodbye."

That's it then

I would think that if Big Pete does anything in an official capacity in the U.S. this weekend, then the split has happened and we might as well accept it and get on with our separate lives. However, the split is not between Big Pete and Katharine Zeta but between Big Pete and The Grand Tufti. Read this from THE DAILY CHAMPION out of Lagos:

Not wanting to be roped in with the other liberal Episcopal, so to speak, a group within the Episcopal chose to almost immediately opt out from the rest of the unyielding North American Episcopal by not only breaking away from it but also going ahead to form their own church, which they branded the Convocation of Anglicans, and claiming to owe allegiance to the Primate of Nigeria, on the grounds that the traditional head of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Most Rev. Rowan Williams, had compromised his position by leaning with the Episcopal.

So, CANA etc. don't accept the Grand Tufti but have Akinoled to Nigeria. By involving himself so obviously in the ceremonies of CANA etc. Big Pete is accepting their understanding of his role in the Church. Therefore, Big Pete is categorically setting himself up as the Anti-Tufti.

What is the one true Tufti going to do about this?

No, don't bother writing in on that one. Everybody in the Universe knows the answer.

Schism update

Anglican Mainstream (the voice of prejudice in the UK) is reporting that the Grand Tufti has sent a postcard to Big Pete asking him nicely if he wouldn't mind having other plans this weekend.

This really ups the ante. If Big Pete does cross primatial borders then it is a schism between Big Pete and the Tufti. It can be nothing else. If the druidic bard tries appeasement after such an insult and declaration of intent then Big Pete will just waltz right into Lambeth Palace (metaphorically, at least).

Nobody else seems to have picked up on this. Are we all hoping that if we ignore the bad people they will not burn down our homesteads.

You Are Hilarious














Wisdom

From the Church of the Cautiously Furtive
(Jufiscopalian USA.)


God is God. You, if you are reading this, are most likely a human being, or perhaps a very intelligent cat.

As such, it is likely that you will do one or more of the following today:

    • eat too much,
    • spill something,
    • lust after the wrong person,
    • piss someone off unintentionally,
    • piss someone off intentionally,
    • glance into shiney surfaces with your gut sucked in,
    • say something offensive,
    • do something smelly,
    • use several curse-words,
    • and not finish up all your work.
And that's okay. Because only God is God, and she thinks you're hilarious.


Inside/Outside



















I've always loved this painting of the Prodigal Son. The story is one that you hear so many times that it comes into focus and then loses focus again. It becomes a story that begs to be understood in a different way from time to time.

Human groups seem to have a tendency to include and exclude in unpredictable ways. Like how children in a threesome will tend to gang up on or exclude one, but in a foursome play well together. With adults, sometimes a person leaves a group and then the group will decide to be wounded about it and close the door after the one who left in a way that makes reconciliation unlikely.

I was thinking about loving one's neighbor as oneself, and had the thought that maybe it meant that you love your neighbor AS IF they were literally a part of you, part of your own body or part of your own psyche. Even if your neighbor is a little known or unknown stranger. That's how you think of yourself or your relationship to the world. The personal actually includes everybody. You have to keep expanding, enlarging the circle to include more, not shrink down to become smaller and smaller , less and less.

My sister-in-law (divorced from my brother) told me once , after breaking off an engagement, that it occurred to her that instead of vowing to never fall in love again, she should vow to fall in love more and more , all the time. It's like that. The world may appear to be an obstacle course, full of IEDs -- but it is actually a field in which we can choose to love everything and include it as ourself.

From a new blog I found:


“When some ten years later I began going to church again because I felt I needed to, I wasn’t prepared for the pain. The services felt like word bombardment – agony for a poet – and often exhausted me so much I’d have to sleep for three or more hours afterward. Doctrinal language slammed many a door in my face, and I became frustrated when I couldn’t glimpse the Word behind the words. Ironically, it was the language about Jesus Christ, meant to be most inviting, that made me feel most left out. Sometimes I’d give up, deciding that I just wasn’t religious. This elicited an interesting comment from a pastor friend who said, ‘I don’t know too many people who are so serious about religion that they can’t even go to church.’”

“Even as I exemplified the pain and anger of a feminist looking warily at a religion that has so often used a male savior to keep women in their place, I was drawn to the strong old women in the congregation. Their well-worn Bibles said to me, ‘there is more here than you know,’ and made me take more seriously the religion that caused by grandmother Totten’s Bible to be so well used that its spine broke. I also began, slowly, to make sense of our gathering together on Sunday morning, recognizing, however dimly, that church is to be participated in, not consumed. The point is not what one gets out of it, but the worship of God; the service takes place both because of and despite the needs, strengths, and frailties of the people present. How else could it be? Now, on the occasions when I am able to actually worship in church, I am deeply grateful.”

-- Kathleen Norris, Dakota: A Spiritual Geography
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993) (pp. 94-95)

Like Norris, I struggled mightily with all the church words, which in my youth used to go over the top of my head, but as an adult filled my eyes and ears and seemed to threaten the safety of my over-educated reason. For me it was an old Lutheran pastor who told me with some amusement that I was first person he had ever received into the church who had asked to read both Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms. Of course I never read them all, and finally just let go of my all too reluctant will to understand. Over time, I, too, learned by doing and spending time with those women and their well-worn Bibles. Thank God for their patience with me and the mysteries of Word and sacrament that later came to me as an Episcopalian.

*****

Seeker I

“Seeker” seems to have recently acquired a negative meaning. Instead of “one that seeks: a seeker of the truth,” it has turned into something like “someone who hasn’t found, won’t ever find, my truth” or, more charitably, “someone lost and distracted, going nowhere, or nowhere in the right direction.” At least that’s my take on Stand Firm's editorial decision to lift Mystical Seeker’s “Post-Easter Hangover” essay from his blog and to critique his thoughts and feelings (while, at the same time, sneering that such thoughts and feelings would be very much at home among liberal Episcopalians).

While it is tempting to simply chalk up this episode as another example of how rude and uncharitable so-called Christians can be, I think it goes deeper than the dark humours that permeate the atmosphere at SF. It’s getting to the point where even mention of words and phrases like “metaphor” and “metaphorical truth” – let alone the offending “Christian mythologies” – is enough to bring rampant cries of idolatry and predictions of the end of Christianity. While I commend the efforts of people like Sarah Dylan Breuer to find common ground among liberals and conservatives, an unfortunate consequence may be to silence or at least trigger self-censorship among those who seek, quest, and doubt, those who want to talk to those who do, or simply those who recall the days when they, too, faced Easter Sundays as days of trumpets, pageantry, and hoopla that caused their heads to ache. Those who consider themselves to be “liberal orthodox” have to keep hitting all the “orthodox” words and phrases over and over again in often futile attempts to persuade others that they “mean” what they say.

It’s not that there is discomfort or dishonesty in uttering those words of orthodoxy. It does, however, raise the question of where does the conversation (not to mention the flame wars) leave the seekers and the outsiders looking in? Has it seriously crossed anyone’s radar screen that the numbers of people who don’t know any of the words in the context of any kind of faith are rising, right here in the midst of Western culture founded on the Judeo-Christian tradition? How does one proclaim the Gospel (if necessary, with words) by suggesting that those who do not already “know” that they are seeking the “Risen Christ” bodily resurrected from the dead cannot really be seeking spiritual truth? that those who shudder or are repelled by traditional Christian words and images must be “lazy” or “self-centered” if they think twice about walking through the doors of a local church?

Fortunately, PB ++ Katharine Jefferts Schori, has not risen to the bait. She consistently uses the words she knows and trusts will reach people outside institutional Christianity, never mind the slings and arrows shot her way. No doubt she recalls her earlier years of doubts and questions and those of her colleagues in the scientific community. Why should she or any of us be ashamed of our past or supremely confident that we’ve now got it “right”? Why can’t we shout to the high heavens in thanks for the words, knowledge, and understandings we found in the lab, the classroom, in books of poetry, history, and philosophy, as well as the people and places, both within and without the confines of churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples, who have brought us closer to God?


Visitors


View My Stats

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

Blogging Episcopaleans

Blog Archive

About Me

My Photo
beth
Don't set sail!/Tomorrow the wind will have dropped;/And then you can go,/And I won't trouble about you. -from "The History of Love" Nicole Krauss
View my complete profile