Wherever you find yourself this Christmas Eve, may hope and blessings surround you...
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Love and Suffering
In October, the magazine Presbyterian Today published an article by the well-known theologian Stanley Hauerwas, on the politics embodied by Jesus. You can read it here.
I agree with much of what he was saying, and see much of his words as 'speaking truth to power', or at least 'truth to comfort', to try and shake people out of their complacency. And yet, of late, I have an increasingly hard time with a theology that focuses on sacrifice and suffering.
So I wrote a little response--which got published!--here. (They entitled the letter 'Where is the Love')
I understand that Jesus embodied self-sacrifice. But I truly do believe we must never de-couple that sacrifice from the Love that was core to who he was. Otherwise we start preaching behavior and ethics, as opposed to the liberating Love of God. To preach sacrifice and suffering to those who are already oppressed and abused is to deny them the fullness of life embodied in Christ, in the name of Christianity. It is to validate the oppression and abuse they experience and deny them the 'Yes' God offers to their lives, imposing instead a religiously justified 'No'. What a horror.
I am not saying that there is nothing of sacrifice or suffering Jesus life. What I am saying is that perhaps it is not his suffering alone that should be our model so much as his communion with God, his compassion, his steadfastness, his love and yes, his joy...his own life in sheer palpable overflowing abundance. I know that traditional atonement theories focus on his death as saving us, but as early as the 4th century, Church Fathers such as Athanasius proclaimed that the most important reason for the Incarnation was the defeat of death, through the Resurrection. I know it's hard sometimes to truly believe in the Resurrection, but even with my very limited theological understandings, I think it's unfair exegesis to focus on Jesus' suffering and death as a model of reality and then forego all the other parts of Scripture that focus on the Resurrection and triumph over death as being 'symbolic'. His death can not be considered apart from his resurrection.
I'm not a preacher, and I'm not trying to critique Hauerwas or anyone else. What I am trying to point out is that many people do not know that they are loved. They do not know that they have inherent worth. To insist that Christianity is more about their behavior than about their ontological identity in God is to fail to meet people in their hearts and souls, where their deepest needs and longings exist. It sets up principles instead of relatedness. It brings no healing, no liberation, no life where there was death.
I know Christians are called to 'speak truth to power'. And I know there are far too many of us who are comfortable in our lives and turn a blind eye to the suffering of others. But there are also many who daily suffer under the violence of domestic abuse, the oppression of addiction, the suffering of involuntary poverty. A theology that extols suffering as the 'way of Jesus' without first speaking into these situations, speaking to the inherent worth of these victims, empowering them to get out of the abuse, and yes, even to defend themselves if necessary, is very hard for me to accept. I know Jesus chose to die at the hands of his enemies. But I also believe it was a choice. It was a calling he accepted. That is very different than telling a woman who is attacked on the streets that she should not defend herself--even violently, if absolutely necessary. As my feminist colleagues have pointed out, a dogmatic non-violence can have violence embedded in it--violence against the self. This is a huge question in Christian ethics, and one I don't feel qualified to take on, but I worry that self-sacrifice is far too easy a concept for many people, especially those with incredibly low self-esteem, to grasp. I just don't believe that that these are the places from which God means us to come when acting 'sacrificially'. Without Love as the test of the spirits, how will we know the difference?
I agree with much of what he was saying, and see much of his words as 'speaking truth to power', or at least 'truth to comfort', to try and shake people out of their complacency. And yet, of late, I have an increasingly hard time with a theology that focuses on sacrifice and suffering.
So I wrote a little response--which got published!--here. (They entitled the letter 'Where is the Love')
I understand that Jesus embodied self-sacrifice. But I truly do believe we must never de-couple that sacrifice from the Love that was core to who he was. Otherwise we start preaching behavior and ethics, as opposed to the liberating Love of God. To preach sacrifice and suffering to those who are already oppressed and abused is to deny them the fullness of life embodied in Christ, in the name of Christianity. It is to validate the oppression and abuse they experience and deny them the 'Yes' God offers to their lives, imposing instead a religiously justified 'No'. What a horror.
I am not saying that there is nothing of sacrifice or suffering Jesus life. What I am saying is that perhaps it is not his suffering alone that should be our model so much as his communion with God, his compassion, his steadfastness, his love and yes, his joy...his own life in sheer palpable overflowing abundance. I know that traditional atonement theories focus on his death as saving us, but as early as the 4th century, Church Fathers such as Athanasius proclaimed that the most important reason for the Incarnation was the defeat of death, through the Resurrection. I know it's hard sometimes to truly believe in the Resurrection, but even with my very limited theological understandings, I think it's unfair exegesis to focus on Jesus' suffering and death as a model of reality and then forego all the other parts of Scripture that focus on the Resurrection and triumph over death as being 'symbolic'. His death can not be considered apart from his resurrection.
I'm not a preacher, and I'm not trying to critique Hauerwas or anyone else. What I am trying to point out is that many people do not know that they are loved. They do not know that they have inherent worth. To insist that Christianity is more about their behavior than about their ontological identity in God is to fail to meet people in their hearts and souls, where their deepest needs and longings exist. It sets up principles instead of relatedness. It brings no healing, no liberation, no life where there was death.
I know Christians are called to 'speak truth to power'. And I know there are far too many of us who are comfortable in our lives and turn a blind eye to the suffering of others. But there are also many who daily suffer under the violence of domestic abuse, the oppression of addiction, the suffering of involuntary poverty. A theology that extols suffering as the 'way of Jesus' without first speaking into these situations, speaking to the inherent worth of these victims, empowering them to get out of the abuse, and yes, even to defend themselves if necessary, is very hard for me to accept. I know Jesus chose to die at the hands of his enemies. But I also believe it was a choice. It was a calling he accepted. That is very different than telling a woman who is attacked on the streets that she should not defend herself--even violently, if absolutely necessary. As my feminist colleagues have pointed out, a dogmatic non-violence can have violence embedded in it--violence against the self. This is a huge question in Christian ethics, and one I don't feel qualified to take on, but I worry that self-sacrifice is far too easy a concept for many people, especially those with incredibly low self-esteem, to grasp. I just don't believe that that these are the places from which God means us to come when acting 'sacrificially'. Without Love as the test of the spirits, how will we know the difference?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Random Music Moment
It's Wednesday, and time for a little break. Thanks to my friend "Ufo" for sharing this!
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Bloggers in the Middle East...
..weigh in on the elections. Apparently hope is contagious. Excerpt below:
Esra’a, Bahrain (mideastyouth.com)
I can honestly say that we can finally wave goodbye to the overwhelming anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry that we have suffered with for the past eight years under the Bush administration. We can expect less wars, less corruption, less political abuse. It won’t be perfect, but it will get better. I am so happy and proud of all the Americans who worked extremely hard for Obama, understanding fully well the importance of change in every sense of the word. This moment is not just historical but crucial to us here in the Middle East.
This is a win for all of us, not just America.
This is a win for civil rights and justice.
For all the pessimists out there, allow us to enjoy this moment. If you learned anything from this campaign, you would learn that it starts with hope — not cynicism. And hope is what I have right now, for America and the Middle East.
We can do it, and this time, we can be sure that we can do it together.
I haven’t said this in a really long time, but I am loving America right now.
Esra’a, Bahrain (mideastyouth.com)
I can honestly say that we can finally wave goodbye to the overwhelming anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry that we have suffered with for the past eight years under the Bush administration. We can expect less wars, less corruption, less political abuse. It won’t be perfect, but it will get better. I am so happy and proud of all the Americans who worked extremely hard for Obama, understanding fully well the importance of change in every sense of the word. This moment is not just historical but crucial to us here in the Middle East.
This is a win for all of us, not just America.
This is a win for civil rights and justice.
For all the pessimists out there, allow us to enjoy this moment. If you learned anything from this campaign, you would learn that it starts with hope — not cynicism. And hope is what I have right now, for America and the Middle East.
We can do it, and this time, we can be sure that we can do it together.
I haven’t said this in a really long time, but I am loving America right now.
Friday, November 7, 2008
The View
Not my normal source of political opinion, but these two clips say a lot from different perspectives...(warning: get a tissue)
Shock and Awe
I've been wanting to post some reflections on this election for a few days now, but haven't had any time until now....
When I went to sleep on Monday night, I felt a vague sense of anxiety. I wasn't sure what it was all about, but I dreamt about the elections, and woke up in the middle of the night with this eery sense that I finally understood what Carl Jung meant when he talked about the power of archetypes. Archetypes (as I understand them) are those facets of the 'collective unconscious' that all humans can resonate with, because they exist at a level that goes beyond the personal or even cultural. The 'hero' is an archetype. The 'lover' is another archetype. These are personal symbols. But I would guess that racism is a type of archetype--at the very least oppression is. And democracy (literally the power of the people) is another archetype. Change, and resistance to change, both have deep archetypal senses to them. And archetypes play extremely powerful roles in our subconscious, often directing our behavior in ways we can barely fathom. And so it struck me at 2am, that this election had a lot of archetypes going on. The symbolism underlying this election was, to me, as strong if not stronger than the actual policies at stake. And this made me hugely nervous. Historically, and personally, archetypal shifts generate a lot of upheaval. And the history of non-violent democratic change is still relatively young. When emotions run this deep and broad, humans become capable of their best and worst actions. So yes, I was nervous.
But Tuesday went off gloriously. Not because the candidate I favored won, but because there does not seem to have been any sense of undue complications or aggression. This alone, to me, is a miracle. When the results started to come in, and the networks called it at 11pm, John McCain gave a gracious speech with the powerful words "the people have spoken clearly." With that, he blessed the incoming President.
And then it began to sink in for me. I realised the world had just shifted cataclysmically. I'm still trying to understand why. I'm not sure I ever will. I know it has to do with the breaking of the bondage of racism on this country. I know it has to do with the tears of joy and heads held higher that my African and African-American friends have experienced. I think it has to do with the children across the world who see in Obama some resonance to their own multi-culturalism and embrace of a global identity over simply national identity. I suspect it has to do with the hopes many of us have for wisdom and maturity and reality to be reinstated at the highest levels of leadership in this country. But whatever it is, it resonated around the world. It showed how much people other countries still want to look to America to lead and inspire. And how the world held it's breath while waiting to see what America would do.
The fact that we as a country created this movement for change, and did it non-violently, speaks volumes louder of the power of freedom and democracy than any 'shock and awe' tactic we would ever be able to contrive.
And while it's true that most people I know supported Obama, I have seen those who supported McCain share equally in the joy that is watching a country deal a death blow to the chains that bound it, for we are not more free than our brothers and sisters are bound. Their liberation is our own liberation.
This election doesn't just give hope for the overturning of deeply entrenched racism, but of the overall ability of America, as a democratic system, to wrestle, struggle and grapple with its call to 'mend its every flaw'. There is still bondage, but we have seen how change can happen, and in the past few days I have seen, heard and felt hope break into the dreams of blacks, whites, males, females, Christians, Muslims, adults and children. For this I am truly grateful, and to be an American at this time, I am truly glad.
When I went to sleep on Monday night, I felt a vague sense of anxiety. I wasn't sure what it was all about, but I dreamt about the elections, and woke up in the middle of the night with this eery sense that I finally understood what Carl Jung meant when he talked about the power of archetypes. Archetypes (as I understand them) are those facets of the 'collective unconscious' that all humans can resonate with, because they exist at a level that goes beyond the personal or even cultural. The 'hero' is an archetype. The 'lover' is another archetype. These are personal symbols. But I would guess that racism is a type of archetype--at the very least oppression is. And democracy (literally the power of the people) is another archetype. Change, and resistance to change, both have deep archetypal senses to them. And archetypes play extremely powerful roles in our subconscious, often directing our behavior in ways we can barely fathom. And so it struck me at 2am, that this election had a lot of archetypes going on. The symbolism underlying this election was, to me, as strong if not stronger than the actual policies at stake. And this made me hugely nervous. Historically, and personally, archetypal shifts generate a lot of upheaval. And the history of non-violent democratic change is still relatively young. When emotions run this deep and broad, humans become capable of their best and worst actions. So yes, I was nervous.
But Tuesday went off gloriously. Not because the candidate I favored won, but because there does not seem to have been any sense of undue complications or aggression. This alone, to me, is a miracle. When the results started to come in, and the networks called it at 11pm, John McCain gave a gracious speech with the powerful words "the people have spoken clearly." With that, he blessed the incoming President.
And then it began to sink in for me. I realised the world had just shifted cataclysmically. I'm still trying to understand why. I'm not sure I ever will. I know it has to do with the breaking of the bondage of racism on this country. I know it has to do with the tears of joy and heads held higher that my African and African-American friends have experienced. I think it has to do with the children across the world who see in Obama some resonance to their own multi-culturalism and embrace of a global identity over simply national identity. I suspect it has to do with the hopes many of us have for wisdom and maturity and reality to be reinstated at the highest levels of leadership in this country. But whatever it is, it resonated around the world. It showed how much people other countries still want to look to America to lead and inspire. And how the world held it's breath while waiting to see what America would do.
The fact that we as a country created this movement for change, and did it non-violently, speaks volumes louder of the power of freedom and democracy than any 'shock and awe' tactic we would ever be able to contrive.
And while it's true that most people I know supported Obama, I have seen those who supported McCain share equally in the joy that is watching a country deal a death blow to the chains that bound it, for we are not more free than our brothers and sisters are bound. Their liberation is our own liberation.
This election doesn't just give hope for the overturning of deeply entrenched racism, but of the overall ability of America, as a democratic system, to wrestle, struggle and grapple with its call to 'mend its every flaw'. There is still bondage, but we have seen how change can happen, and in the past few days I have seen, heard and felt hope break into the dreams of blacks, whites, males, females, Christians, Muslims, adults and children. For this I am truly grateful, and to be an American at this time, I am truly glad.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
You Can Vote However You Like
I first saw this on Andrew Sullivan's blog, and it was later aired on the evening news. It was put together by a middle school debate team. These kids did a smashing job, and what a reminder that whatever our differences may be politically, in the United States of America, we still get to vote however we like. It reminds me that not everyone else, and not everywhere else, has that same right. So on this final day of campaigning in what feels like the most intense Presidential campaign ever, a sense of gratitude arises to all those throughout the centuries, and in our modern world, who have done what they could to guarantee us this amazing, blessed, freedom that I--most of the time at least--take completely for granted. Thank you.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Palin Goes Too Far
Gov. Sarah Palin. I've tried to stay away from that topic because I've doubted, and seen my own continuous failure, to (as Greg Boyd would say) ascribe unsurpassable worth to her even as I am critical of the things she says. So I've tried to just shut up.
But tonight I read an article about how she is now going after Obama's ties to an 'ex-PLO spokesman'. For a moment I was startled. But I almost fell off my chair when I saw who, in fact, she was referring to. Professor Rashid Khalidi is the Chair of Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia University (undoubtedly known to Gov. Palin as that wacky liberal Ivy league that has no ROTC program and allowed Ahmadinejad on campus for a forum). Whatever one might think of Columbia's political leanings, it is an Ivy league school with a stellar reputation, not least through their School of International and Political Affairs. But fine. Whatever. He could still be a radical. So why am I up in arms about this?
Whatever his political leanings have been, and I truly don't know what they have been or are, Prof. Khalidi (whose book Resurrecting Empire I mentioned some time back) is one of the most informed, succinct and impassioned historians I have ever read. Read his book, Resurrecting Empire. Take yourself out of a purely American mindset and allow his book to show you what our actions abroad have looked like to millions of others. What our complicity has allowed to blossom in the form of poverty and oppression, death and dismay. Allow thousands of years of rich Middle Eastern history to enter into your mind and spirit...that land of Mesopotamia and Babylon...the very lands that Sarah Palin, and others of us, read about in the Old Testament of the Bible. And then allow him to at least make the point of how our country's actions, with a fairly myopic historical perspective, have been viewed. It's hard not to be struck by how naive, at best, some of our policies have been and how arrogantly belligerent at worst. And this is not just from Khalidi's viewpoint, but countless others who share a keen interest in both the wellbeing of the United States, and the human rights of all individuals throughout the world.
I'm not saying that reading Khalidi will cause you to give up your views, for or against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as they may be, but just listen to the informed viewpoint of someone who has brought a great deal of thought, caring and expertise to this discussion.
And then ask yourself if you think Sarah Palin should even go near him in her squawking about Obama's ties to alleged radicals. It seems to me that to critique the thoughts and actions of another, one ought to have at least a modicum of understanding about the issue involved. She has shown, repeatedly, that she has none. (She might have actually done better on her foreign policy interviews if someone had allowed her to read Khalidi's book. At the very least she would have understood what the Bush doctrine was!) It breaks my heart that she is even allowed to drag his name through the mud in such a shallow, superficial, righteous way. Perhaps it's not a kind or charitable thing to say, but I think she shouldn't be allowed to speak to this issue at all without being fully exposed to the horrors of which she knows nothing. The issue she is stepping on is highly complex and has caused untold suffering for thousands--Jews and Palestinians both. And she knows, and seems to care, nothing about it. Nothing other than a last ditch attempt to take Obama (and now Khalidi) down into the mud with her. The McCain camp must be getting very, very desperate.
But tonight I read an article about how she is now going after Obama's ties to an 'ex-PLO spokesman'. For a moment I was startled. But I almost fell off my chair when I saw who, in fact, she was referring to. Professor Rashid Khalidi is the Chair of Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia University (undoubtedly known to Gov. Palin as that wacky liberal Ivy league that has no ROTC program and allowed Ahmadinejad on campus for a forum). Whatever one might think of Columbia's political leanings, it is an Ivy league school with a stellar reputation, not least through their School of International and Political Affairs. But fine. Whatever. He could still be a radical. So why am I up in arms about this?
Whatever his political leanings have been, and I truly don't know what they have been or are, Prof. Khalidi (whose book Resurrecting Empire I mentioned some time back) is one of the most informed, succinct and impassioned historians I have ever read. Read his book, Resurrecting Empire. Take yourself out of a purely American mindset and allow his book to show you what our actions abroad have looked like to millions of others. What our complicity has allowed to blossom in the form of poverty and oppression, death and dismay. Allow thousands of years of rich Middle Eastern history to enter into your mind and spirit...that land of Mesopotamia and Babylon...the very lands that Sarah Palin, and others of us, read about in the Old Testament of the Bible. And then allow him to at least make the point of how our country's actions, with a fairly myopic historical perspective, have been viewed. It's hard not to be struck by how naive, at best, some of our policies have been and how arrogantly belligerent at worst. And this is not just from Khalidi's viewpoint, but countless others who share a keen interest in both the wellbeing of the United States, and the human rights of all individuals throughout the world.
I'm not saying that reading Khalidi will cause you to give up your views, for or against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as they may be, but just listen to the informed viewpoint of someone who has brought a great deal of thought, caring and expertise to this discussion.
And then ask yourself if you think Sarah Palin should even go near him in her squawking about Obama's ties to alleged radicals. It seems to me that to critique the thoughts and actions of another, one ought to have at least a modicum of understanding about the issue involved. She has shown, repeatedly, that she has none. (She might have actually done better on her foreign policy interviews if someone had allowed her to read Khalidi's book. At the very least she would have understood what the Bush doctrine was!) It breaks my heart that she is even allowed to drag his name through the mud in such a shallow, superficial, righteous way. Perhaps it's not a kind or charitable thing to say, but I think she shouldn't be allowed to speak to this issue at all without being fully exposed to the horrors of which she knows nothing. The issue she is stepping on is highly complex and has caused untold suffering for thousands--Jews and Palestinians both. And she knows, and seems to care, nothing about it. Nothing other than a last ditch attempt to take Obama (and now Khalidi) down into the mud with her. The McCain camp must be getting very, very desperate.
Friday, October 17, 2008
My new favorite blog...
Check it out sisters!
Beauty Tips for Ministers
She combines heart, sass, wit and style and a happy refutation that to be 'Godly' means somehow not cherishing yourself as well as others. Fabulous! (Now if I can just get her to start weighing in on perfume....)
Beauty Tips for Ministers
She combines heart, sass, wit and style and a happy refutation that to be 'Godly' means somehow not cherishing yourself as well as others. Fabulous! (Now if I can just get her to start weighing in on perfume....)
Thursday, October 16, 2008
What would Jesus think?
This morning I came across this video clip, about a young woman in Texas who has Down Syndrome, and was crowned homecoming queen of her high school. It's very moving. When I was growing up, as I am sure was the case for some of you, the role of homecoming queen seemed like it was reserved for the coolest, most beautiful, most popular girl in the class (and the one most likely to be dating the cutest football star). In other words, the one girl who would represent all our ideals about 'fitting in'. That stereotype may have moved on since then, but seeing this just made me wonder about the changes in the upcoming generation. They chose a young woman of heart, and no small amount of spirit, to receive the crown. They looked for beauty of a different kind. Is it too much to say that, in addition to being moved by the young woman who received the crown, I am also moved by the recognition of those who grew out of societal stereotypes enough to recognize a different and, I would venture, truer beauty in front of their eyes?
I'm reminded of Greg Boyd's recent sermons on how Jesus always extended the invitation to the kingdom of Heaven to those on the margins--those who are overlooked and underestimated, diminished and rebuked for not fitting in with our ideals. Of course, the psychoanalyst in me says that in ostracizing or avoiding them, we are also projecting on to them the parts of ourselves that we cannot, or will not, deal with. From that perspective, seeing a community embody a spirit of inclusion of that which is different from the mainstream, still sadly lacking in far too many parts of the world, gives me great hope not only for those who have suffered with disabilities or conditions that have made them invisible, and the enormous pain of that invisiblity, but also for those whose eyes and hearts have become whole enough to move beyond such division into a community of equality.
I'm reminded of Greg Boyd's recent sermons on how Jesus always extended the invitation to the kingdom of Heaven to those on the margins--those who are overlooked and underestimated, diminished and rebuked for not fitting in with our ideals. Of course, the psychoanalyst in me says that in ostracizing or avoiding them, we are also projecting on to them the parts of ourselves that we cannot, or will not, deal with. From that perspective, seeing a community embody a spirit of inclusion of that which is different from the mainstream, still sadly lacking in far too many parts of the world, gives me great hope not only for those who have suffered with disabilities or conditions that have made them invisible, and the enormous pain of that invisiblity, but also for those whose eyes and hearts have become whole enough to move beyond such division into a community of equality.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
We're Going Forward...
Check out this video clip of some remarks given by Donna Brazile, in response to a discussion on race in the Presidential election. It's the best thing I've regarding this election in the past few months (yes, it even trumps SNL)!
(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
Monday, September 29, 2008
Keeping Sane
Between watching the market news, the campaign, and reading on average 300 pages of Freud a week, this is the resulting post....
(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
Friday, September 19, 2008
Calling all New Yorkers...
I was very glad to learn of this initiative, and thought to share it here....
September 19, 2008
Dear New Yorker,
I am writing today in hopes that you might join me in spreading the word about efforts currently underway to provide badly-needed relief to hurricane victims in Haiti.
As you know, this past month, three deadly hurricanes left more than 100 dead and tens of thousands homeless in Haiti before barreling into the U.S. and wreaking havoc and destruction along the Gulf Coast.
On Thursday, following similar relief efforts to our neighbors in the South, Governor Paterson directed the opening of the New York Army National Guard Armory in Brooklyn to allow for the collection of donated relief supplies for the hurricane-stricken island nation of Haiti.
Items in high demand for shipment to Haiti include:
Bottled water (packed in cases or six packs at a minimum). Single bottles are inappropriate donations since they would have to be repackaged.
Rice (dried in bags)
Beans (dried cans only)
Sterno canisters
Tarpaulin (of any size, preferably 10 ft. x 10 ft. or larger) - to be used for both roofing and flooring
Nylon cord (100 ft. rolls)
Hygiene items limited to toothbrushes, toothpaste, mild soaps
New underclothes (children sizes)
New hand towels
Soldiers from the New York National Guard will be on hand to receive, sort and prepare donations at the following locations:
Bedford Armory
1579 Bedford Avenue at Union Street, Brooklyn
Sept. 18 - Sept. 26, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Adam Clayton Powell State Office Building
163 West 125th at Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Blvd., Harlem
Sept. 18 - Sept. 26, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
As the aftermath of these hurricanes continues to unfold, it's important that we do what we can to help alleviate some of the pain and suffering in Haiti.
The Council and I have already begun reaching out to our constituents to encourage them to collect and donate. If you could please pass this information along to the members of your community and encourage them to do the same, we'd deeply appreciate it. Working together, we can help make a difference in the lives of the Haitian people.
In closing, I would like to thank all of our state and city elected officials, especially Governor Paterson, Council Members Mathieu Eugene and Larry Seabrook, and the members of the Council's Black, Latino and Asian Caucus, for heading up this important relief effort.
I would also like to thank our brave men and women of the New York National Guard for once again stepping in during a time of crisis to help those in need.
For more information about the Haitian relief effort, please call (212) 681-4010 or e-mail relief@chamber.state.ny.us.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Christine C. Quinn
Speaker
New York City Council
September 19, 2008
Dear New Yorker,
I am writing today in hopes that you might join me in spreading the word about efforts currently underway to provide badly-needed relief to hurricane victims in Haiti.
As you know, this past month, three deadly hurricanes left more than 100 dead and tens of thousands homeless in Haiti before barreling into the U.S. and wreaking havoc and destruction along the Gulf Coast.
On Thursday, following similar relief efforts to our neighbors in the South, Governor Paterson directed the opening of the New York Army National Guard Armory in Brooklyn to allow for the collection of donated relief supplies for the hurricane-stricken island nation of Haiti.
Items in high demand for shipment to Haiti include:
Bottled water (packed in cases or six packs at a minimum). Single bottles are inappropriate donations since they would have to be repackaged.
Rice (dried in bags)
Beans (dried cans only)
Sterno canisters
Tarpaulin (of any size, preferably 10 ft. x 10 ft. or larger) - to be used for both roofing and flooring
Nylon cord (100 ft. rolls)
Hygiene items limited to toothbrushes, toothpaste, mild soaps
New underclothes (children sizes)
New hand towels
Soldiers from the New York National Guard will be on hand to receive, sort and prepare donations at the following locations:
Bedford Armory
1579 Bedford Avenue at Union Street, Brooklyn
Sept. 18 - Sept. 26, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Adam Clayton Powell State Office Building
163 West 125th at Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Blvd., Harlem
Sept. 18 - Sept. 26, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
As the aftermath of these hurricanes continues to unfold, it's important that we do what we can to help alleviate some of the pain and suffering in Haiti.
The Council and I have already begun reaching out to our constituents to encourage them to collect and donate. If you could please pass this information along to the members of your community and encourage them to do the same, we'd deeply appreciate it. Working together, we can help make a difference in the lives of the Haitian people.
In closing, I would like to thank all of our state and city elected officials, especially Governor Paterson, Council Members Mathieu Eugene and Larry Seabrook, and the members of the Council's Black, Latino and Asian Caucus, for heading up this important relief effort.
I would also like to thank our brave men and women of the New York National Guard for once again stepping in during a time of crisis to help those in need.
For more information about the Haitian relief effort, please call (212) 681-4010 or e-mail relief@chamber.state.ny.us.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Christine C. Quinn
Speaker
New York City Council
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Ideology
This past week or so has been a whirlwind of new ideas, tons of reading (300 pages of Freud in one week!?!), and of course, meeting new people.
Out of all of this, one phrase, made as an offhand comment by a professor well versed in church history, has stayed with me as perhaps one of the most profound commentaries on theology as well as society I have ever heard...He said (without being able to remember his exact wording, unfortunately) that 'whenever people are unable to discern between that which is life-giving, and that which is not, they cling to ideology'.
Your thoughts?
Out of all of this, one phrase, made as an offhand comment by a professor well versed in church history, has stayed with me as perhaps one of the most profound commentaries on theology as well as society I have ever heard...He said (without being able to remember his exact wording, unfortunately) that 'whenever people are unable to discern between that which is life-giving, and that which is not, they cling to ideology'.
Your thoughts?
Relationships
This op-ed by David Brooks is very interesting. I have often wondered about the balance between being an autonomous human being, and a deeply relational one at the same time. He looks at Conservative thinking from this angle, and I think hits the nail on the head...
The Social Animal
The Social Animal
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Autumn in Seminary
Some of you know that I applied last spring to go to seminary/divinity school for an MDiv degree. I was fairly ambivalent about it, but thought to give it a try. I was a bit relieved when I was not accepted, and decided that God must have other plans for me. I turned my sights away from seminary, and focused in on my work, my own heart and soul, and tried to stay open to any hint of a vocation.
Over the summer, as some areas of my life became clearer, I did indeed feel a sense of call developing...what I think might be a call to combine theology and psychology in addressing the suffering of others. This is not a call I would have chosen for myself, but a call that seemed to be emerging in spite of myself. With the encouragement of many others, I took a look around at local seminaries to see if I could take a class or two this autumn, and...long story short...right now I am enrolled at Seminary as a non-degree student and currently carrying a more-than-full-time course load.
How did this happen? As I sat on stage last Wednesday during the opening process for the school year, receiving the wisdom and blessing of the new President (a woman, hurray!), and looking around in wonder at my new class-mates, most of who had been planning to attend for the past 6 months at least, as opposed to my two-weeks notice, I felt a great deal of awe and not a little terror. I could only look up at the chapel ceiling and wonder if God had known all along what She was doing.
I hope God stills knows what God is doing, because I certainly do not.
That being said, it has been wonderful so far. I have never been in a community so devoted to thought and care of the deepest and most precious things of life. All are welcome, all are engaged, no belief treated cruelly, but few going unchallenged as well. It seems to be a place of strengthening and deepening, a place to ask questions, perhaps find answers, perhaps not, but always be supported in the process. I truly have no idea where this will lead, but it has been a blessing so far and I hope it will continue to be fruitful.
And as for this blog, I will try to use it to share with you all some of what I am learning, and a lot of what I am reading. And I'll try to remember to try some cookie recipes out now and again as well.....
I wish you all a wonderful autumn!
Over the summer, as some areas of my life became clearer, I did indeed feel a sense of call developing...what I think might be a call to combine theology and psychology in addressing the suffering of others. This is not a call I would have chosen for myself, but a call that seemed to be emerging in spite of myself. With the encouragement of many others, I took a look around at local seminaries to see if I could take a class or two this autumn, and...long story short...right now I am enrolled at Seminary as a non-degree student and currently carrying a more-than-full-time course load.
How did this happen? As I sat on stage last Wednesday during the opening process for the school year, receiving the wisdom and blessing of the new President (a woman, hurray!), and looking around in wonder at my new class-mates, most of who had been planning to attend for the past 6 months at least, as opposed to my two-weeks notice, I felt a great deal of awe and not a little terror. I could only look up at the chapel ceiling and wonder if God had known all along what She was doing.
I hope God stills knows what God is doing, because I certainly do not.
That being said, it has been wonderful so far. I have never been in a community so devoted to thought and care of the deepest and most precious things of life. All are welcome, all are engaged, no belief treated cruelly, but few going unchallenged as well. It seems to be a place of strengthening and deepening, a place to ask questions, perhaps find answers, perhaps not, but always be supported in the process. I truly have no idea where this will lead, but it has been a blessing so far and I hope it will continue to be fruitful.
And as for this blog, I will try to use it to share with you all some of what I am learning, and a lot of what I am reading. And I'll try to remember to try some cookie recipes out now and again as well.....
I wish you all a wonderful autumn!
Monday, August 25, 2008
Vacation thoughts...
I'm down in Wilmington, North Carolina for a few days vacation before the autumn schedule starts up. This fall I will be taking classes at a local seminary, and I am quite excited as well as nervous about that. I also need to find a new job, so I anticipate I will be busy. All this to say, I'm enjoying my few days vacation by the beach and Wilmington is an unexpectedly lovely town. It's immensely historic, grand architecture abounds, it's filled with mansions, museums, tree-lined streets laden with fragrant flowers, dockside restaurants and shops. The Cape Fear river flows smoothly by on one side, while on the other the vast and wonderful expanses of the Atlantic ocean pound at the sand day and night.
Getting out of New York always does me more good than I realise. I noticed that down here, everyone (and I mean everyone) who passes you on the street says hello. Men hold doors open for women. People smile at you when you walk in a shop. No one is in a hurry. I don't usually think of myself as a New Yorker, but dressed in black and tapping my foot impatiently when the shop owners direction-giving turns into a half hour musing on the politics of North Carolina, I realise 'if the shoe fits'....
But I don't WANT to be a New Yorker in that sense. There are other things about New York that I love, but I don't love the edgy restlessness that seems to pervade my life and that of so many people I know. I don't love the hardness and entitlement that sometimes characterizes the suburbs. Mostly, what I don't love is a sense of constant fear and stress that shows in the set of the jaw and the way people snap at each other when they are out of sorts (which seems often). New Yorkers often seem to be surviving, which is very different than living.
I know there is no perfect place, but it just does my heart a world of good to be in a place where people seem glad to be where they are, to live where they live. If I had to use one word to describe the somewhat mixed spectrum of people I have conversed with since I got to North Carolina, I might use the word content. They seem to be happy with their lives--not in a fairy tale sort of way, but in a way that leaves room for great amounts of goodness and even pleasure, while also acknowledging the challenges they might face. It's lovely. It takes the wind out of my constantly fighting sails and leave me hanging in a sort of lovely, languid way.
Before I embark on a hectic fall, it is perhaps a gentle reminder (and gift) from God that life (and even theology?) is as much about being as it is about doing. Life isn't always a fight, although I recognize that it is so for far too many people on a daily basis. But healing can seep into the soul even when we are not struggling--perhaps even more when we cease to struggle. All the more reason, perhaps, to stay aware of the impact that rest,nourishment,peace and beauty can have--particularly beauty. The restorative power of beauty is always amazing to me, and I forget it far too often. But beauty often reminds us of God. In the beauty of the created world, we see God's affirmation, His 'yes' to creation, and we can find reconciliation to life in a world that is sometimes so brutal as to cause us to want to split from it altogether. But beauty extends a loving a hand to beckon us back. As a friend has written about in her book Saving Paradise (about which more later), it is a theology of redemptive beauty instead of redemptive suffering. Perhaps God desires to nourish and love us into wholeness and redemption, and the gift of beauty is one of His ways of reaching us with His extravagant love.
A little quote from Augustine comes to mind (taken from that same book):
"I said to all things that throng the gateway of the senses: 'Tell me of my God, since you are not He. Tell me something of Him.' And they cried out in a great voice: 'He made us.' My question was my gazing upon them, and their answer was their beauty."
Getting out of New York always does me more good than I realise. I noticed that down here, everyone (and I mean everyone) who passes you on the street says hello. Men hold doors open for women. People smile at you when you walk in a shop. No one is in a hurry. I don't usually think of myself as a New Yorker, but dressed in black and tapping my foot impatiently when the shop owners direction-giving turns into a half hour musing on the politics of North Carolina, I realise 'if the shoe fits'....
But I don't WANT to be a New Yorker in that sense. There are other things about New York that I love, but I don't love the edgy restlessness that seems to pervade my life and that of so many people I know. I don't love the hardness and entitlement that sometimes characterizes the suburbs. Mostly, what I don't love is a sense of constant fear and stress that shows in the set of the jaw and the way people snap at each other when they are out of sorts (which seems often). New Yorkers often seem to be surviving, which is very different than living.
I know there is no perfect place, but it just does my heart a world of good to be in a place where people seem glad to be where they are, to live where they live. If I had to use one word to describe the somewhat mixed spectrum of people I have conversed with since I got to North Carolina, I might use the word content. They seem to be happy with their lives--not in a fairy tale sort of way, but in a way that leaves room for great amounts of goodness and even pleasure, while also acknowledging the challenges they might face. It's lovely. It takes the wind out of my constantly fighting sails and leave me hanging in a sort of lovely, languid way.
Before I embark on a hectic fall, it is perhaps a gentle reminder (and gift) from God that life (and even theology?) is as much about being as it is about doing. Life isn't always a fight, although I recognize that it is so for far too many people on a daily basis. But healing can seep into the soul even when we are not struggling--perhaps even more when we cease to struggle. All the more reason, perhaps, to stay aware of the impact that rest,nourishment,peace and beauty can have--particularly beauty. The restorative power of beauty is always amazing to me, and I forget it far too often. But beauty often reminds us of God. In the beauty of the created world, we see God's affirmation, His 'yes' to creation, and we can find reconciliation to life in a world that is sometimes so brutal as to cause us to want to split from it altogether. But beauty extends a loving a hand to beckon us back. As a friend has written about in her book Saving Paradise (about which more later), it is a theology of redemptive beauty instead of redemptive suffering. Perhaps God desires to nourish and love us into wholeness and redemption, and the gift of beauty is one of His ways of reaching us with His extravagant love.
A little quote from Augustine comes to mind (taken from that same book):
"I said to all things that throng the gateway of the senses: 'Tell me of my God, since you are not He. Tell me something of Him.' And they cried out in a great voice: 'He made us.' My question was my gazing upon them, and their answer was their beauty."
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Last Post for the Evening...
I enjoyed Andrew Sullivan's comments on this as well...check them out here.
On Second Thought...
Ok, so perhaps I was a bit hasty. I'm finding this really interesting--not least because I think Obama is giving some unexpected and interesting answers that I want to hear. I think what I overlooked in my emotional response to this being held in a church is the fact that so many policy issues have been faith-driven, ie stem cell research, so hearing the candidates' views on those issues, directly addressing the faith component, may be more necessary than I thought. Some questions are perhaps less necessary to current policy issues, but on balance, I think it's rather well done...plus, I keep forgetting that it's actually taking place in a church!
Saddleback Saturday
So tonight McCain and Obama will meet at Saddleback Church, where Pastor Rick Warren will moderate a two hour long session, and allegedly they will meet in the middle. Obama is scheduled to go first, and McCain apparently will not be able to hear his answers.
I'm not sure whether I'm more horrified or fascinated. Actually, I'm pretty sure I'm more horrified, although peversely I'll probably end up watching it--at least for as long as I can. This is blurring church and state lines a bit too close for comfort for me, and I'm suddenly reminded of a reversal of Constantine convoking the Council of Nicea in 325 in order to have the various Christian bishops arrive at an ecumenical consensus around the nature of the relationship of Jesus Christ to God. In that case a secular power summoned the religious authoritiy figures to decide 'once and for all' a matter of great religious import (and one which was causing divisions that were threatening the stability of the empire, as I understand it). Today a religious power figure invites (summons?) secular authority figures to answer questions--I don't dare to assume what they will be--but I imagine around faith and also around the increasingly voiced concerns of the 'evangelical' world--poverty, HIV/AIDS, war, the environment and torture among others.
Based on their responses to these questions, they will be evaluated by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters. Given that they have yet to meet in an official debate forum, and given the press around this event, this event could have the same impact a debate would have on the public, but it distresses me that this will be taking place in a church. Don't get me wrong, I suspect it will be an interesting discussion, but I wish it could take place in another setting, even if Pastor Rick Warren still were to moderate it. But to do it in the church subconsciously sets the church up as a forum, and authority, for examination of secular candidates, (who belong, by the way, to a country of immense religious pluralism), in a way that I can't help but feel is not part of the mission of the church originally founded by Christ.
At some level I appreciate the dialogue that Pastor Warren is attempting to start. But I also have my misgivings about the type of thinking around faith and politics that such an event may legitimize. Let's see what happens...
I'm not sure whether I'm more horrified or fascinated. Actually, I'm pretty sure I'm more horrified, although peversely I'll probably end up watching it--at least for as long as I can. This is blurring church and state lines a bit too close for comfort for me, and I'm suddenly reminded of a reversal of Constantine convoking the Council of Nicea in 325 in order to have the various Christian bishops arrive at an ecumenical consensus around the nature of the relationship of Jesus Christ to God. In that case a secular power summoned the religious authoritiy figures to decide 'once and for all' a matter of great religious import (and one which was causing divisions that were threatening the stability of the empire, as I understand it). Today a religious power figure invites (summons?) secular authority figures to answer questions--I don't dare to assume what they will be--but I imagine around faith and also around the increasingly voiced concerns of the 'evangelical' world--poverty, HIV/AIDS, war, the environment and torture among others.
Based on their responses to these questions, they will be evaluated by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters. Given that they have yet to meet in an official debate forum, and given the press around this event, this event could have the same impact a debate would have on the public, but it distresses me that this will be taking place in a church. Don't get me wrong, I suspect it will be an interesting discussion, but I wish it could take place in another setting, even if Pastor Rick Warren still were to moderate it. But to do it in the church subconsciously sets the church up as a forum, and authority, for examination of secular candidates, (who belong, by the way, to a country of immense religious pluralism), in a way that I can't help but feel is not part of the mission of the church originally founded by Christ.
At some level I appreciate the dialogue that Pastor Warren is attempting to start. But I also have my misgivings about the type of thinking around faith and politics that such an event may legitimize. Let's see what happens...
Staying Connected
Lately I've been thinking a lot about what it means to be connected. It's an interesting word--connection--used in lots of different ways. Often it means relationship, or a facet of a deep relationship, as in, "we had this amazing connection". Of course, in that context, it doesn't say much about the other aspects of the relationship such as commitment, integrity, or even health, as it can be all too easy to connect in unhealthy ways.
But connection is core to our lives. We connect through the internet, on the phone, across kitchen tables, through prayer, through compassion, through commerce, through policy and politics, through art and literature, and a million other ways small and large that show our lives to be inextricably connected. We connect through, and also to, the food we eat, the air we breath, the earth that sustains us, the animals around us. Love is, of course, a deep form of connection, but so, I would argue, is hate. We may not always be related well to each other, but still we are always connected.
If it is true, then, that we are connected, why do so many people feel so isolated so much of the time?
This is what I have been pondering.
The conclusion I have come to is that many of us, for many reasons, would rather not be connected. We would prefer to feel that we are entirely autonomous, fairly in control, and perhaps most of all, invulnerable. We would rather not be subject to the hurtful emotions others have surrounded us with, perhaps in our past, or even in our present. We distance ourselves from that which is overwhelming, internally or externally, and I suspect it is important that we do that. For a time at least. But sooner or later the price will become too high for this distance, and isolation is that price. It can be the painful emotional isolation of someone who has never known strong loving secure connection to anybody. It can be the--in my belief at least--spiritual isolation of someone who hoards and stores up resources for themselves so as to never know lack, turning a blind eye and deaf heart to the overwhelming cries of the starving. Maybe they never 'had enough' and now that fear drives them to shove away their connection to others who still struggle. It can be the physical isolation of those so scarred by violence that they dare not trust the world they live in, nor those with whom they share this world, and retreat behind a shell of bravado, recklessness or utter withdrawal.
I suppose what I am getting at is that it seems to me that isolation is the price we pay for wounded connection. Whatever coping mechanisms we need to employ to survive a traumatic situation, it seems that some kind of isolation is often--if not always--a side effect. It doesn't seem a fair price, as most people do not choose the situation that abused them. Abuse of connection, or even, if you will, of our basic created status of connectivity, happens in families, job situations, political situations and economic situations. It happens deliberately and inadvertently. But it's still an affront to, and abuse of, an underyling truth of connection. So I come to think that violating connection is a form of abuse. Denigrating another's intrinsic worth is emotional abuse, and violating their physical body is certainly physical abuse, and sadly we see these things all the time happening around us. We do at least name them as forms of abuse, because, in many cultures at least, we have (officially at least) come to accept that the individual has an inherent worth and certain inalienable rights.
But what about the inherent worth of the simple truth of our connection to others? Does that have inalienable rights?
I'm wondering if it would even be safe to say that most of the human-wrought ills in the world--and even some that seem natural--are a product of abused connection?
Which brings me to the faith aspect of these ponderings. If sin is that which separates us from God (meaning, that is the original usage of the word sin), then what we are once again talking about here is connection. We were connected to God, but then 'sin' got in the way and now--to the degree we live in sin (and no, I don't mean living with someone outside of marriage!)--to that degree we are separate--indeed isolated--from God.
So God is all about connection too, because it seems to me that much of the original theological language is talking about a relationship that mankind was created to have, not just a belief system. Beliefs are easier to maintain than connections are though. Less frightening too.
So, the big question for me is, how is our connection to God--our authentic connection--linked to our connection to others, and indeed our willingness to connect. And, if we believe that God created us, and that God is the author and object of deep connection and connectivity, that human beings--like it or not--live in a deeply connected world, does that endow 'connection' with a specific importance? If this is a 'truth', is it one we pay enough attention to?
PS Hope you all have been having a good summer (or winter)! It's good to be back! :)
But connection is core to our lives. We connect through the internet, on the phone, across kitchen tables, through prayer, through compassion, through commerce, through policy and politics, through art and literature, and a million other ways small and large that show our lives to be inextricably connected. We connect through, and also to, the food we eat, the air we breath, the earth that sustains us, the animals around us. Love is, of course, a deep form of connection, but so, I would argue, is hate. We may not always be related well to each other, but still we are always connected.
If it is true, then, that we are connected, why do so many people feel so isolated so much of the time?
This is what I have been pondering.
The conclusion I have come to is that many of us, for many reasons, would rather not be connected. We would prefer to feel that we are entirely autonomous, fairly in control, and perhaps most of all, invulnerable. We would rather not be subject to the hurtful emotions others have surrounded us with, perhaps in our past, or even in our present. We distance ourselves from that which is overwhelming, internally or externally, and I suspect it is important that we do that. For a time at least. But sooner or later the price will become too high for this distance, and isolation is that price. It can be the painful emotional isolation of someone who has never known strong loving secure connection to anybody. It can be the--in my belief at least--spiritual isolation of someone who hoards and stores up resources for themselves so as to never know lack, turning a blind eye and deaf heart to the overwhelming cries of the starving. Maybe they never 'had enough' and now that fear drives them to shove away their connection to others who still struggle. It can be the physical isolation of those so scarred by violence that they dare not trust the world they live in, nor those with whom they share this world, and retreat behind a shell of bravado, recklessness or utter withdrawal.
I suppose what I am getting at is that it seems to me that isolation is the price we pay for wounded connection. Whatever coping mechanisms we need to employ to survive a traumatic situation, it seems that some kind of isolation is often--if not always--a side effect. It doesn't seem a fair price, as most people do not choose the situation that abused them. Abuse of connection, or even, if you will, of our basic created status of connectivity, happens in families, job situations, political situations and economic situations. It happens deliberately and inadvertently. But it's still an affront to, and abuse of, an underyling truth of connection. So I come to think that violating connection is a form of abuse. Denigrating another's intrinsic worth is emotional abuse, and violating their physical body is certainly physical abuse, and sadly we see these things all the time happening around us. We do at least name them as forms of abuse, because, in many cultures at least, we have (officially at least) come to accept that the individual has an inherent worth and certain inalienable rights.
But what about the inherent worth of the simple truth of our connection to others? Does that have inalienable rights?
I'm wondering if it would even be safe to say that most of the human-wrought ills in the world--and even some that seem natural--are a product of abused connection?
Which brings me to the faith aspect of these ponderings. If sin is that which separates us from God (meaning, that is the original usage of the word sin), then what we are once again talking about here is connection. We were connected to God, but then 'sin' got in the way and now--to the degree we live in sin (and no, I don't mean living with someone outside of marriage!)--to that degree we are separate--indeed isolated--from God.
So God is all about connection too, because it seems to me that much of the original theological language is talking about a relationship that mankind was created to have, not just a belief system. Beliefs are easier to maintain than connections are though. Less frightening too.
So, the big question for me is, how is our connection to God--our authentic connection--linked to our connection to others, and indeed our willingness to connect. And, if we believe that God created us, and that God is the author and object of deep connection and connectivity, that human beings--like it or not--live in a deeply connected world, does that endow 'connection' with a specific importance? If this is a 'truth', is it one we pay enough attention to?
PS Hope you all have been having a good summer (or winter)! It's good to be back! :)
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Chocolate Chip Cookies
With all that is going on in the world, I find it oddly comforting that the second most emailed article on the New York Times this week is a recipe for the ultimate chocolate chip cookie. Enjoy!
Chocolate Chip Cookie Recipe
PS For further reading on the same topic, see "Perfection? Hint: It's Warm and Has a Secret"
Chocolate Chip Cookie Recipe
PS For further reading on the same topic, see "Perfection? Hint: It's Warm and Has a Secret"
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Technologically challenged....
Since my technology skills leave something to be desired, it seems I've managed to post the video below in a way that makes it a)easy to watch, b)only half visible on the screen or c)entirely absent from the screen---all depending on what kind of computer and browser you are using. If you can not see it, and would like to, email me at discoveringfire@gmail.com and I will send you the video via email. Otherwise you can find it at the MSNBC Today show homepage!
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Grace
This is a video interview with Ingrid Betancourt, the recently freed hostage from Colombia, whose rescue made waves around the world.
I caught part of this interview with Ann Curry on the nightly news, and was astonished at her grace, poise and eloquence. They did not mention much about the faith aspect, which they do go into a bit here in the lengthier version, but even though that alone might have caught my interest, I was simply mesmerized by her authenticity. I wish I could convey to her how very inspiring she is to me at this moment--but perhaps the least I can do is share her story of forgiveness with others who might care to listen.
I caught part of this interview with Ann Curry on the nightly news, and was astonished at her grace, poise and eloquence. They did not mention much about the faith aspect, which they do go into a bit here in the lengthier version, but even though that alone might have caught my interest, I was simply mesmerized by her authenticity. I wish I could convey to her how very inspiring she is to me at this moment--but perhaps the least I can do is share her story of forgiveness with others who might care to listen.
Checking in...
So once again I check in with this blog only to admit how remiss I have been in posting. Too much going on, and too many books to read once again. I do hope to be sharing again shortly, and look forward to reconnecting with you all! In the meantime, I hope you are having a wonderful summer....
Monday, June 9, 2008
Blogging the Conference
So, it turns out that I am unable to attend the conference after all. Today, as I was pouting a bit about missing all the fascinating theological discussion which I am sure is taking place, I started surfing the web to see what I could find. To my delight, one of the participants is blogging parts of the proceedings. I am posting the link here, which is the first post from their blog on the conference, and you can go forward into more recent posts from there, if you are interested.
One thing that I already love---the definition of poverty proposed during one of the learning tracks includes not only material deficit, but relational poverty as well. This I find so incredibly important in a culture where many people, both rich and poor, find themselves incredibly isolated and 'doing life alone'. If there is one theological tenet I have had underscored for me in the past year, and which has made the greatest difference in my life, it is this: GOD IS RELATIONAL. I would also add that God is transformational, but that is the subject for another blog post. But I suspect that to the degree we do not grasp the relational aspect of God, we will continue to think faith/religion is just about assenting to a series of beliefs about God, and we will put emphasis on being right/wrong, rather than cultivating--and being transformed by-- authentic relationships to God, ourselves, others, and the planet we live on.
Ok, off the soapbox and back to reading other people's blogs!
One thing that I already love---the definition of poverty proposed during one of the learning tracks includes not only material deficit, but relational poverty as well. This I find so incredibly important in a culture where many people, both rich and poor, find themselves incredibly isolated and 'doing life alone'. If there is one theological tenet I have had underscored for me in the past year, and which has made the greatest difference in my life, it is this: GOD IS RELATIONAL. I would also add that God is transformational, but that is the subject for another blog post. But I suspect that to the degree we do not grasp the relational aspect of God, we will continue to think faith/religion is just about assenting to a series of beliefs about God, and we will put emphasis on being right/wrong, rather than cultivating--and being transformed by-- authentic relationships to God, ourselves, others, and the planet we live on.
Ok, off the soapbox and back to reading other people's blogs!
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Envision 08: The Gospel, Politics and the Future
So I promised I would be posting again shortly, and I haven't been. But a few quick words about the conference posted below....with a new, much more affordable, registration rate and affordable housing available as well...this conference is unprecedented in the way it is bringing a diversity of theological perspectives together to focus on the call of the Gospel to engage with, and care for, the people and world around us. The hearts and minds that have been involved in the planning come from hugely diverse backgrounds, theologically, ethnically, and even in terms of nationality. This is one conference that is designed to break down the stereotyped relationships between faith and politics, and take a look at what really matters--caring for others. I hope you will consider joining us!
Learn more here.
Learn more here.
Check it out again--last chance and fantastic rate!
EV|08 $99 Special!
A National Conference
@ Princeton University
June 8-10, 2008.
Envision...
The election year where faith matters.
Envision...
The voices of young and old calling for prophetic faith in action in the public square.
Hundreds of Evangelical and Mainline Christian activists, scholars, students, leaders, artists together to craft a statement charting the gospel politics of the future.
Join Ray Aldred, Vincent Bacote, Jay Bakker, Randall Balmer, Melinda Berry, Bart Campolo, Rich Cizik, Shane Claiborne, Ruth Padilla DeBorst, Jeremy Del Rio, Mimi Haddad, Lisa Sharon Harper, Obery Hendricks, Al Hsu, David Kuo, Daisy Machado, Brian McLaren, Brenda Salter McNeil, John Perkins, Sammy Rodriguez, Ron Sider, Andrea Smith, Amy Sullivan, Richard Twiss, Miroslav Volf, Jim Wallis, Randy Woodley and many, many more!
You can't afford to miss this
unprecedented gathering.
$99 Special
is back!
Plus, Special Group Rate* $79
* Group rate applies to groups of 5 or more
PLUS!
Join an online dialog to help create "Envision the Future: The Next Decade," a vision statement of our hopes for change. You can help set directions for change by joining this online dialog for JUST TWO HOURS, even if you cannot attend EV|08 June 8-10. Christians from anywhere in the world can log in and help determine the issues we must push for in the next ten years through a new online technology called Synanim (http://www.synanim.com). It is as easy to use as sending and receiving emails.
Don't delay, register today!
Please help us spread the word by forwarding this email to your friends and networks. Thank you
Friday, May 16, 2008
L'Ombre dans L'Eau
So I have been very remiss in posting lately. I wrapped up a rather large research/writing project which left me unable to formulate any more coherent sentences, and then I took the week off from anything remotely intellectual--which was lovely. I'm back to my ponderings and I hope to be posting more regularly soon, but in the meantime, it seems a perfect day for a little perfume post....
Today is a day for L'Ombre dans L'Eau by Diptyque. The notes are blackcurrent leaf and Bulgarian roses, and it is described as the 'scent of a riverside garden'. I've never seen a riverside garden, but this scent is a bit rougher than I imagine that to be, with a hint of dark forests and crushed leaves jumbled together in an overgrown blackcurrent bramble, the sound of rushing water in the distance. I get distinctly 'humid' notes, and maybe even a bit of stone, such as one might find in a mountain river, but mostly covered by a biting leafy green and touch of sweet rose. In some ways it reminds of me the magical Voleur des Roses by L'Artisan Parfumuer, a scent which smells like roses in the deep forest earth after a drenching rain. There is a bit of that here, but more green and less rose (and no patchouli). On a rainy day such as today, this fragrance blooms, bridging indoors and out with a fresh sharp edginess that is almost restless, while the distant roses promise the return of the sun.
For wonderful reviews of this fragrance see Now Smell This and Perfume Smellin' Things
Today is a day for L'Ombre dans L'Eau by Diptyque. The notes are blackcurrent leaf and Bulgarian roses, and it is described as the 'scent of a riverside garden'. I've never seen a riverside garden, but this scent is a bit rougher than I imagine that to be, with a hint of dark forests and crushed leaves jumbled together in an overgrown blackcurrent bramble, the sound of rushing water in the distance. I get distinctly 'humid' notes, and maybe even a bit of stone, such as one might find in a mountain river, but mostly covered by a biting leafy green and touch of sweet rose. In some ways it reminds of me the magical Voleur des Roses by L'Artisan Parfumuer, a scent which smells like roses in the deep forest earth after a drenching rain. There is a bit of that here, but more green and less rose (and no patchouli). On a rainy day such as today, this fragrance blooms, bridging indoors and out with a fresh sharp edginess that is almost restless, while the distant roses promise the return of the sun.
For wonderful reviews of this fragrance see Now Smell This and Perfume Smellin' Things
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Another Random Music Moment...
Ok ok one more and then I'll knock it off. But you have to love the Desi vibe, and plus, how often do you see Simon Cowell smile?
Britains Got Talent Michael Jackson Surprise - Watch more free videos
Britains Got Talent Michael Jackson Surprise - Watch more free videos
Summer Sun
And while we are spending the afternoon in Italy....here's last year's romantic summer hit. Ah, Italia....
But, how do you really feel?
Andrew Sullivan speaks for a lot us in saying that if Clinton drops out, he will know what to do....
I can't remember the last time I was so excited about politics in the US. Yesterday's primaries seem to have tipped the balance. It's too soon to say for sure, but could it be that it might really be over soon?
I can't remember the last time I was so excited about politics in the US. Yesterday's primaries seem to have tipped the balance. It's too soon to say for sure, but could it be that it might really be over soon?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Quote of the Day
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility"--Dietrich Bonhoeffer
(...and sorry for the prolonged absence, have been under deadline, hope to be back very soon!)
(...and sorry for the prolonged absence, have been under deadline, hope to be back very soon!)
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Yoke of Religion
"Come unto me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and you shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30
I've fallen in love. I've fallen in love and I want to marry...a book. Can I marry a book?
I've rarely come across a book that has so many profound insights gathered between it's pages, so many earth shattering revelations, so simply put, as The Shaking of the Foundations by Paul Tillich, the great existential theologian. I mentioned this book in my last post on existential Christianity, and I've been reading it some more. It's a collection of sermons that he delivered 'in a language avoiding traditional terms'. For a great theologian, that might just mean that he makes himself understandable! But levity aside, it also means he speaks through theory and into practice in a way that resonates profoundly.
Why? Because he names things. He unrelentingly names the human condition. A very real human condition--not a glossed over, superficial, Hollywood version of our psyches and existences. And he names all the little warped and twisted things we do to wriggle out of our condition, only to dig ourselves deeper. But he does this with compassion, and ultimately joy, because he has been gripped and freed by the bigger answer.
My latest read is his sermon entitled 'The Yoke of Religion'. He explores the above passage from Matthew. Here is an excerpt:
The burden [Christ] wants to take from us is the burden of religion...the law of religion is the great attempt of man to overcome his anxiety and restlessness and despair, to close the gap within himself, and to reach immortality, spirituality and perfection. So he labors and toils under the religious law in thought and act.
The religious law demands that he accept ideas and dogmas, that he believe doctrines and traditions, the acceptance of which is his salvation from anxiety, despair and death. So he tries to accept them although they may have become strange or doubtful to him. He labors and toils under the religious demand to believe things he cannot believe. Finally he tries to escape the law of religion. He tries to cast away the heavy yoke of the doctrinal law imposed on him by Church authorities, orthodox teachers, pious parents and fixed traditions...He casts away the yoke but none can live in the emptiness of mere skepticism, and so he returns to the old yoke in a kind of self-torturing fanaticism and tries to impose it on other people, on his children or pupils. He is driven by an unconscious desire for revenge, because of the burden he has taken on himself.
Others find new yokes outside the Church, new doctrinal laws under which they begin to labor: political ideologies which they propagate with religious fanaticism, scientific theories which they defend with religious dogmatism, and utopian expectations they pronounce as the condition of salvation for the world, forcing whole nations under the yoke of their creeds which are religions, even while they pretend to destroy religion. We are all laboring under the yoke of religion....
He then goes on to talk about what Jesus truly meant in saying that His yoke was light. And he brings the reader to a depth of understanding about the New Being formed in the person of the Christ which surpasses almost anything else I have ever read on this subject. His ability to put words to the experience of living the Truth is so beautiful I dare not try to transcribe it here. I can not recommend highly enough reading this sermon for yourself, but in case you can not get a hold of it, I give you an excerpt from the conclusion....
...He does not impose religion and law, burden and yokes, upon men. We would turn down His call with hatred if He called us to the Christian religion or to the Christian doctrine or to the Christian morals. We would not accept His claim to be meek and humble and to give rest to our souls, if He gave us new commands for thinking and acting. Jesus is not the creator of another religion, but the victor over religion; He is not the maker of another law, but the conqueror of law. We, the ministers and teachers of Christianity, do not call you to Christianity but rather to the New Being to which Christianity should be a witness and nothing else, not confusing itself with that New Being. Forget all Christian doctrines; forget your own certainties and your own doubts, when you hear the call of Jesus. Forget all Christian morals, your achievements, and your failures, when you come to Him. Nothing is demanded of you--no idea of God, and no goodness in yourselves, not your being religious, not your being Christian, not your being wise, and not your being moral. But what is demanded is only your being open and willing to accept what is given to you, the New Being, the being of love and justice and truth, as it is manifest in Him Whose yoke is easy and Whose burden is light.
The foundations are shaking indeed. For those who are interested in owning a copy of this marvelous book, you can find inexpensive and used copies on Amazon, look for the 1948 version by Scribner.
I've fallen in love. I've fallen in love and I want to marry...a book. Can I marry a book?
I've rarely come across a book that has so many profound insights gathered between it's pages, so many earth shattering revelations, so simply put, as The Shaking of the Foundations by Paul Tillich, the great existential theologian. I mentioned this book in my last post on existential Christianity, and I've been reading it some more. It's a collection of sermons that he delivered 'in a language avoiding traditional terms'. For a great theologian, that might just mean that he makes himself understandable! But levity aside, it also means he speaks through theory and into practice in a way that resonates profoundly.
Why? Because he names things. He unrelentingly names the human condition. A very real human condition--not a glossed over, superficial, Hollywood version of our psyches and existences. And he names all the little warped and twisted things we do to wriggle out of our condition, only to dig ourselves deeper. But he does this with compassion, and ultimately joy, because he has been gripped and freed by the bigger answer.
My latest read is his sermon entitled 'The Yoke of Religion'. He explores the above passage from Matthew. Here is an excerpt:
The burden [Christ] wants to take from us is the burden of religion...the law of religion is the great attempt of man to overcome his anxiety and restlessness and despair, to close the gap within himself, and to reach immortality, spirituality and perfection. So he labors and toils under the religious law in thought and act.
The religious law demands that he accept ideas and dogmas, that he believe doctrines and traditions, the acceptance of which is his salvation from anxiety, despair and death. So he tries to accept them although they may have become strange or doubtful to him. He labors and toils under the religious demand to believe things he cannot believe. Finally he tries to escape the law of religion. He tries to cast away the heavy yoke of the doctrinal law imposed on him by Church authorities, orthodox teachers, pious parents and fixed traditions...He casts away the yoke but none can live in the emptiness of mere skepticism, and so he returns to the old yoke in a kind of self-torturing fanaticism and tries to impose it on other people, on his children or pupils. He is driven by an unconscious desire for revenge, because of the burden he has taken on himself.
Others find new yokes outside the Church, new doctrinal laws under which they begin to labor: political ideologies which they propagate with religious fanaticism, scientific theories which they defend with religious dogmatism, and utopian expectations they pronounce as the condition of salvation for the world, forcing whole nations under the yoke of their creeds which are religions, even while they pretend to destroy religion. We are all laboring under the yoke of religion....
He then goes on to talk about what Jesus truly meant in saying that His yoke was light. And he brings the reader to a depth of understanding about the New Being formed in the person of the Christ which surpasses almost anything else I have ever read on this subject. His ability to put words to the experience of living the Truth is so beautiful I dare not try to transcribe it here. I can not recommend highly enough reading this sermon for yourself, but in case you can not get a hold of it, I give you an excerpt from the conclusion....
...He does not impose religion and law, burden and yokes, upon men. We would turn down His call with hatred if He called us to the Christian religion or to the Christian doctrine or to the Christian morals. We would not accept His claim to be meek and humble and to give rest to our souls, if He gave us new commands for thinking and acting. Jesus is not the creator of another religion, but the victor over religion; He is not the maker of another law, but the conqueror of law. We, the ministers and teachers of Christianity, do not call you to Christianity but rather to the New Being to which Christianity should be a witness and nothing else, not confusing itself with that New Being. Forget all Christian doctrines; forget your own certainties and your own doubts, when you hear the call of Jesus. Forget all Christian morals, your achievements, and your failures, when you come to Him. Nothing is demanded of you--no idea of God, and no goodness in yourselves, not your being religious, not your being Christian, not your being wise, and not your being moral. But what is demanded is only your being open and willing to accept what is given to you, the New Being, the being of love and justice and truth, as it is manifest in Him Whose yoke is easy and Whose burden is light.
The foundations are shaking indeed. For those who are interested in owning a copy of this marvelous book, you can find inexpensive and used copies on Amazon, look for the 1948 version by Scribner.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Wonder Bread and Curry...
Jhumpa Lahiri, the wonderful Indian-American author of The Interpreter of Maladies and the wonderful novel that was made into a movie, The Namesake, has released a new collection of stories, Unaccustomed Earth. Extensive New York times review here.
For anyone who has experienced the transcendent joys and the oddly mundane, but occasionally paralyzing, insecurities of being both at home and a stranger to this wonderful country, her books will resonate.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Existential Christian Musings Part II
The other day in my reading I came across an argument that the Semitic languages, Hebrew and Arabic, are very much 'verb-oriented' and so tend to focus on action. The Indo-European languages, by contrast, and in particular Greek, are very 'noun-oriented', thereby focusing on the name-ability of life (yes, I just invented that word, no idea if it exists, sorry!).
The argument went on to point out that for this reason, words which were originally used to describe an actuality--christanoia, meaning those who seek to be like the Christ, and islam, meaning submission to God--began, through the subtle influence of language and how it shapes our thinking, to be used as nouns describing groups of people, rather than as verbs describing how certain people oriented themselves existentially.
I had no idea that languages had impacted evolution of thought about religion to such an extent, and more troubling, that language could have impacted our very experience of our life lived in faith, in such a way as to make it an entirely superficial ordeal. But consider the very real experience that many of us have had in encountering 'Christians' who in no way act like Christ, and 'Muslims' who show no interest in islam. The fact that we continue, untroubled, to use these words throughout the world in a way that designates identity groups rather than an inner posture shows the schism that we have come to take for granted in our thinking.
Some time back, the discussion touched on 'types' of faith. Marcus Borg, in his book The Heart of Christianity, describes four types of faith: assensus, where we give our mental assent to a proposition or doctrine (and he maintains this is the most common type of faith both within the church and without), fiducia, meaning a radical trust in God (not in statements about God, but in God), fidelitas , meaning faith as a fidelity to our relationship with God, the commitment of our deepest self, and visio, the way in which we see the whole picture as determined by our faith in God. This broadened vision of faith as needing to mean more than a mental 'assent' has been invaluable to me in my own understanding of why so much of what is commonly called 'faith' seems insufficient to many people in dealing with the reality of life.
Where Borg's book led me, but didn't follow through, (I was instead met by the likes of Emil Brunner and Paul Tillich) was down to the existential 'ground of being'. The place of original encounter with God. And at the ground of being is where the great theologians meet us with our own existential realities. With the truth of our desire to defy God, even escape God. These are not thoughts I would ever have lightly entertained. It had seemed to me that God was the answer to so many of my heart's questions, so why should I ever want to escape God? And yet, at some level, I came to see that I do. Emil Brunner writes of Man in Revolt, an entire tome on man's inherent predisposition to this effect. And Paul Tillich, in one of the most devastating sermons I have ever read, Escape from God, writes that "Man tries to escape God, and hates Him, because he cannot escape Him. The protest against God, the will that there be no God, and the flight to atheism are all genuine elements of profound religion."
I have come to believe, with the help of these profound men of faith, that this occurs at a profoundly existential level because at that level, or perhaps especially at that level, God is the undeniable Witness to our lives, whose presence is unchosen and yet inescapable. And at this, we falter. We want to have chosen God, rather than have Him to have chosen us. We are comfortable with a God who exists for us, rather than an 'us' or a 'me' who exists because of God. And in the world we live in, and perhaps even because of the language to which we are accultured, this sort of wrestling is almost never spoken of. We speak of a a loving God, a gracious God, and perhaps we debate about omniscience and omnipotence, but rarely do we allow ourselves to be brought to that place where we are forced to accept and truly experience that, ultimately, God is not ours to define. Compared to this realization, it would be more comforting, at times, to stand with the atheists and proclaim that God is a man-made invention, an 'opiate' of the people. Perhaps some have even argued that that is the more courageous route. But I am coming to see that faith takes a courage I never imagined. I would begin to argue, as Tillich did, that "the Man who has never tried to flee God has never experienced the God Who Is Really God". For to encounter that God is to at once realise the defeat of our own most cherished illusions about ourselves. To be quite blunt, this is an appalling state of affairs for the ego. It is no wonder that the instinct is to flee. And yet, to encounter 'That God Who Is Really God' is the beginning of the possibility of being reconciled to Him, and therefore to our deepest existential reality.
And it is here where Christianity shows something perhaps unexpected about God; that even as He created us and sees us clearly in our rebellious nature, He understands this rebellion better than we ourselves do and did the only thing He could do to reconcile us to Him without crushing our already appalled egos. Again, Paul Tillich leads us through the depths of our rebellion to the redemption of reconciliation and says the following:
"Yet when the Divine is rejected, It takes the rejection upon Itself. It accepts our crucifixion, our pushing away, the defence of ourselves against It. It accepts our refusal to accept, and thus conquers us. That is the centre of the mystery of the Christ. Let us try to imagine a Christ Who would not die, and Who would come in glory to impose upon us His power, His wisdom, His morality, and His piety. He would be able to break our resistance by His strength, by His wonderful government, by His infallible wisdom, and by His irresistible perfection. But He would not be able to win our hearts. He would bring a new law, and would impose it upon us by His all-powerful and all-perfect Personality. His power would break our freedom; His glory would overwhelm us like a burning, blinding sun; our very humanity would be swallowed up in His Divinity. One of Luther's most profound insights was that God made Himself small for us in Christ. In so doing, He left us our freedom and our humanity. He showed us His heart, so that our hearts could be won." (from He Who is the Christ, in the book The Shaking of the Foundations)
It is, indeed, the only way. No other action that I can conceive of would be able to speak so eloquently through our defenses, so tenderly honor our humanity, so greatly pierce our hearts. For it seems a certainty that the only thing that would be able to convince the frightened ego to let go of its resistance to the overwhelming reality of God would be the utter conviction that not only did God create us, but that He loves us, and that that Love which threatens at first to take away our 'lives' is a Love that will ultimately give us true life, unconquerable life, with the peace, joy and freedom we so deeply crave. The only way it would all come together is if we could overcome our fear because our love for God, in response to His great love for us, became greater than our fear. In Christ, God makes us this offer and this promise. Our existential choice, and God's blessing of us with free-will, is that it is we are free to accept it, or free to deny it (and to take the consequences that come with both choices). But we can not change it. The offer, promise, reality and Love of God will stand regardless.
The argument went on to point out that for this reason, words which were originally used to describe an actuality--christanoia, meaning those who seek to be like the Christ, and islam, meaning submission to God--began, through the subtle influence of language and how it shapes our thinking, to be used as nouns describing groups of people, rather than as verbs describing how certain people oriented themselves existentially.
I had no idea that languages had impacted evolution of thought about religion to such an extent, and more troubling, that language could have impacted our very experience of our life lived in faith, in such a way as to make it an entirely superficial ordeal. But consider the very real experience that many of us have had in encountering 'Christians' who in no way act like Christ, and 'Muslims' who show no interest in islam. The fact that we continue, untroubled, to use these words throughout the world in a way that designates identity groups rather than an inner posture shows the schism that we have come to take for granted in our thinking.
Some time back, the discussion touched on 'types' of faith. Marcus Borg, in his book The Heart of Christianity, describes four types of faith: assensus, where we give our mental assent to a proposition or doctrine (and he maintains this is the most common type of faith both within the church and without), fiducia, meaning a radical trust in God (not in statements about God, but in God), fidelitas , meaning faith as a fidelity to our relationship with God, the commitment of our deepest self, and visio, the way in which we see the whole picture as determined by our faith in God. This broadened vision of faith as needing to mean more than a mental 'assent' has been invaluable to me in my own understanding of why so much of what is commonly called 'faith' seems insufficient to many people in dealing with the reality of life.
Where Borg's book led me, but didn't follow through, (I was instead met by the likes of Emil Brunner and Paul Tillich) was down to the existential 'ground of being'. The place of original encounter with God. And at the ground of being is where the great theologians meet us with our own existential realities. With the truth of our desire to defy God, even escape God. These are not thoughts I would ever have lightly entertained. It had seemed to me that God was the answer to so many of my heart's questions, so why should I ever want to escape God? And yet, at some level, I came to see that I do. Emil Brunner writes of Man in Revolt, an entire tome on man's inherent predisposition to this effect. And Paul Tillich, in one of the most devastating sermons I have ever read, Escape from God, writes that "Man tries to escape God, and hates Him, because he cannot escape Him. The protest against God, the will that there be no God, and the flight to atheism are all genuine elements of profound religion."
I have come to believe, with the help of these profound men of faith, that this occurs at a profoundly existential level because at that level, or perhaps especially at that level, God is the undeniable Witness to our lives, whose presence is unchosen and yet inescapable. And at this, we falter. We want to have chosen God, rather than have Him to have chosen us. We are comfortable with a God who exists for us, rather than an 'us' or a 'me' who exists because of God. And in the world we live in, and perhaps even because of the language to which we are accultured, this sort of wrestling is almost never spoken of. We speak of a a loving God, a gracious God, and perhaps we debate about omniscience and omnipotence, but rarely do we allow ourselves to be brought to that place where we are forced to accept and truly experience that, ultimately, God is not ours to define. Compared to this realization, it would be more comforting, at times, to stand with the atheists and proclaim that God is a man-made invention, an 'opiate' of the people. Perhaps some have even argued that that is the more courageous route. But I am coming to see that faith takes a courage I never imagined. I would begin to argue, as Tillich did, that "the Man who has never tried to flee God has never experienced the God Who Is Really God". For to encounter that God is to at once realise the defeat of our own most cherished illusions about ourselves. To be quite blunt, this is an appalling state of affairs for the ego. It is no wonder that the instinct is to flee. And yet, to encounter 'That God Who Is Really God' is the beginning of the possibility of being reconciled to Him, and therefore to our deepest existential reality.
And it is here where Christianity shows something perhaps unexpected about God; that even as He created us and sees us clearly in our rebellious nature, He understands this rebellion better than we ourselves do and did the only thing He could do to reconcile us to Him without crushing our already appalled egos. Again, Paul Tillich leads us through the depths of our rebellion to the redemption of reconciliation and says the following:
"Yet when the Divine is rejected, It takes the rejection upon Itself. It accepts our crucifixion, our pushing away, the defence of ourselves against It. It accepts our refusal to accept, and thus conquers us. That is the centre of the mystery of the Christ. Let us try to imagine a Christ Who would not die, and Who would come in glory to impose upon us His power, His wisdom, His morality, and His piety. He would be able to break our resistance by His strength, by His wonderful government, by His infallible wisdom, and by His irresistible perfection. But He would not be able to win our hearts. He would bring a new law, and would impose it upon us by His all-powerful and all-perfect Personality. His power would break our freedom; His glory would overwhelm us like a burning, blinding sun; our very humanity would be swallowed up in His Divinity. One of Luther's most profound insights was that God made Himself small for us in Christ. In so doing, He left us our freedom and our humanity. He showed us His heart, so that our hearts could be won." (from He Who is the Christ, in the book The Shaking of the Foundations)
It is, indeed, the only way. No other action that I can conceive of would be able to speak so eloquently through our defenses, so tenderly honor our humanity, so greatly pierce our hearts. For it seems a certainty that the only thing that would be able to convince the frightened ego to let go of its resistance to the overwhelming reality of God would be the utter conviction that not only did God create us, but that He loves us, and that that Love which threatens at first to take away our 'lives' is a Love that will ultimately give us true life, unconquerable life, with the peace, joy and freedom we so deeply crave. The only way it would all come together is if we could overcome our fear because our love for God, in response to His great love for us, became greater than our fear. In Christ, God makes us this offer and this promise. Our existential choice, and God's blessing of us with free-will, is that it is we are free to accept it, or free to deny it (and to take the consequences that come with both choices). But we can not change it. The offer, promise, reality and Love of God will stand regardless.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Equals in Creation...
In Vali Nasr's book, The Shia Revival, he cites a letter that was written by Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed, during the brief period of his Caliphate in the mid 7th century. He wrote this letter to his governor in Egypt, and it was later compiled along with other letters and sermons of his which together formed the basis of much political wisdom in early Islam, particularly among the Shia.
In his letter, he commends the governor to be a just and righteous ruler, prudent and self-disciplined. He then goes on to say the following:
"...Infuse your heart with mercy, love, and kindness for your subjects. Be not in the face of them a voracious animal, counting them as easy prey, for they are of two kinds: either they are your brothers in religion or your equals in creation. Error catches them unaware, deficiencies overcome them, and evil deeds are committed by them intentionally and by mistake. So grant them your pardon and your forgiveness to the same extent that you hope God will grant you His pardon and His forgiveness...."
Either they are your brothers in religion, or your equals in creation.
How utterly eloquent. And brilliant, because the reality of God is invoked in both options, but the need to agree 'about' God only limited to one.
In his letter, he commends the governor to be a just and righteous ruler, prudent and self-disciplined. He then goes on to say the following:
"...Infuse your heart with mercy, love, and kindness for your subjects. Be not in the face of them a voracious animal, counting them as easy prey, for they are of two kinds: either they are your brothers in religion or your equals in creation. Error catches them unaware, deficiencies overcome them, and evil deeds are committed by them intentionally and by mistake. So grant them your pardon and your forgiveness to the same extent that you hope God will grant you His pardon and His forgiveness...."
Either they are your brothers in religion, or your equals in creation.
How utterly eloquent. And brilliant, because the reality of God is invoked in both options, but the need to agree 'about' God only limited to one.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Books on Islam
Sorry I haven't posted much lately, I've been swamped with reading and also a cold, but for those who may be interested, I thought I'd share some of the latest books I've read--all of which I highly recommend:
On basic Islamic beliefs....What's Right with Islam, by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an unexpectedly rich source of all kinds of information, with an exploration of basic Islamic tenets, how those tenets interact with other religions as well as Western values (in particular the US context), and also lots of fascinating nuggets on the history of the Islamic world.
On the history and evolution of Islam as a religion and a political force, with particular focus on the idea that we are currently witnessing an 'Islamic reformation'....No god but God by Reza Aslan remains one of my favorites. It's clear, eloquent and informative, and his gift for story-telling brings the history alive in startling and often moving ways.
On the current state of affairs in the Middle East...Resurrecting Empire by Rashid Khalidi is a knock-out. I haven't read all of it, but what I have read makes me want to weep for the arrogance with which we have handled so many of our foreign policy decisions. He is a well-known and respected historian, and brings a much needed historical analytical perspective to the constant superficial media portrayals of that part of the world.
And for those who really want to go deeper....The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr is an amazing account of how Sunni and Shia political and theological conflicts have long shaped interactions in the Islamic world, and will continue to do so in the future. This book is packed with relevant facts, offering a clear window into the wide ranging sweep of the evolving Islamic world, and a deep intuitive grasp of the underlying motivations and currents impacting decision-making among the religious elite. Imho, it should be a must-read for anyone involved in the foreign policy or military worlds!
If anyone has read these already, or intends to do so, will love to know what you think!
On basic Islamic beliefs....What's Right with Islam, by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an unexpectedly rich source of all kinds of information, with an exploration of basic Islamic tenets, how those tenets interact with other religions as well as Western values (in particular the US context), and also lots of fascinating nuggets on the history of the Islamic world.On the history and evolution of Islam as a religion and a political force, with particular focus on the idea that we are currently witnessing an 'Islamic reformation'....No god but God by Reza Aslan remains one of my favorites. It's clear, eloquent and informative, and his gift for story-telling brings the history alive in startling and often moving ways.
On the current state of affairs in the Middle East...Resurrecting Empire by Rashid Khalidi is a knock-out. I haven't read all of it, but what I have read makes me want to weep for the arrogance with which we have handled so many of our foreign policy decisions. He is a well-known and respected historian, and brings a much needed historical analytical perspective to the constant superficial media portrayals of that part of the world.
And for those who really want to go deeper....The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr is an amazing account of how Sunni and Shia political and theological conflicts have long shaped interactions in the Islamic world, and will continue to do so in the future. This book is packed with relevant facts, offering a clear window into the wide ranging sweep of the evolving Islamic world, and a deep intuitive grasp of the underlying motivations and currents impacting decision-making among the religious elite. Imho, it should be a must-read for anyone involved in the foreign policy or military worlds!If anyone has read these already, or intends to do so, will love to know what you think!
Friday, March 28, 2008
Get your candles ready...(scented or otherwise)
Tomorrow (or today for some of you), people around the world will be observing Earth Hour. Turn of your lights for an hour, starting at 8pm local time, and stand in solidarity with the rest of the planet as we tackle climate change together!
Thoughts of Thomas Merton
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
On Faith...
Get Religion highlights a beautiful story that ran on the front page of the Washington Post Sunday edition. Read it here.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
More on Dae's Easter Sermon
An excerpt from Dae's sermon. You can now link to the entire sermon here.
"And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and beacame like dead men. But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified." (Matthew 2:5)
"...This morning I have good news for you....this very angel who delivered this message 'fear not, fear not' is sitting on the very gravestones that have been rolled away by the power of God. No, not the gravestones of yesterday--two thousand years ago, but the very gravestones--your own gravestones. We all have our graves, where we bury our deep festering wounds. And let me tell you, it stinks and smells pretty rotten. It's that place where our lives are held hostage by fear. It's that place where the power of death has taken hold of our lives such that we breath and move about, but are not living. It's that place where we keep our shame hidden, our guilt, and our need for forgiveness, tucked away. It's that place from which we constantly hear the whispers 'you're not good enough, you're never good enough...you don't have enough'. In these places violence is the currency, and from these places our hearts become indifferent to our fellow human beings. Therefore we are able to wage wars upon one another, take more than we need, and we create enemies. We hate and our hated, we deprive the powerless the basic necessities for life...violating our common human dignity and rights, and even in the name of religion. Yes, our collective graves are quite smelly and stinky, pretty bad in our world. And I don't have to continue explaining to you our gravesites.
But I have good news for you this morning. Because Christ is risen, there is no place for fear. The awful stench that arises from our graves is transformed into new life. Our dead bodies are infused with God's love, for God has once again breathed into our being the breath of life, the very Spirit of God, the power of resurrection. The Easter message is quite simple. Beacuse Christ lives, you also live. Because Christ is risen, you also will rise. Because Jesus is the resurrection, you are the resurrection...now this is the great earthquake...."
"And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and beacame like dead men. But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified." (Matthew 2:5)
"...This morning I have good news for you....this very angel who delivered this message 'fear not, fear not' is sitting on the very gravestones that have been rolled away by the power of God. No, not the gravestones of yesterday--two thousand years ago, but the very gravestones--your own gravestones. We all have our graves, where we bury our deep festering wounds. And let me tell you, it stinks and smells pretty rotten. It's that place where our lives are held hostage by fear. It's that place where the power of death has taken hold of our lives such that we breath and move about, but are not living. It's that place where we keep our shame hidden, our guilt, and our need for forgiveness, tucked away. It's that place from which we constantly hear the whispers 'you're not good enough, you're never good enough...you don't have enough'. In these places violence is the currency, and from these places our hearts become indifferent to our fellow human beings. Therefore we are able to wage wars upon one another, take more than we need, and we create enemies. We hate and our hated, we deprive the powerless the basic necessities for life...violating our common human dignity and rights, and even in the name of religion. Yes, our collective graves are quite smelly and stinky, pretty bad in our world. And I don't have to continue explaining to you our gravesites.
But I have good news for you this morning. Because Christ is risen, there is no place for fear. The awful stench that arises from our graves is transformed into new life. Our dead bodies are infused with God's love, for God has once again breathed into our being the breath of life, the very Spirit of God, the power of resurrection. The Easter message is quite simple. Beacuse Christ lives, you also live. Because Christ is risen, you also will rise. Because Jesus is the resurrection, you are the resurrection...now this is the great earthquake...."
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Obama Factor
A reader, having noticed my somewhat obvious regard for Barack Obama, recently commented "I can't help thinking that you're going to be pretty disappointed if he doesn't make it through to the next round or even President."
At some level, yes, of course I would be disappointed. I would be disappointed because I would love to see what could happen in this country over time, with someone like him leading it. I would love to see how his facile grasp of complex issues would manifest in decision-making. I would love to see if the country would indeed become more unified--because I can't see anyone else right now who could do that better than he could. And finally, yes I would be disappointed because I think he has the most intuitive grasp of foreign policy that I have seen in a long time (a topic close to my heart).
But on the other hand, I won't be too upset because I know that over time, all politicians will show their flaws and he will be no exception. The other candidates have their strengths too, and a lot of responsibility for the well-being of the country still lies outside of politics altogether. And even if he doesn't make it, he has still indelibly altered the course of the US political landscape. To have Bill Richardson endorse him partly because 'he speaks to us as adults', goes a long way, imho, to naming one of the biggest problems in the way this country deals with critical social issues. The media and PR spinners tend to simplify and polarize issues, treating us like children, and we are rarely given the opportunity to explore nuance, let alone engage in authentic dialogue. Everything is broken down into soundbites and black and white solutions.
In my view, Obama is bringing some reality back in to those discussions (yes, I'm thinking of his 'race speech'), and that has already caused positive consquences. He wades into the difficult issues, and doesn't promise easy answers. But he inspires people to believe that we can find the answers, we can find the healing, without having to deny the very real difficulties we face. Some very real and hopeful dialogues are being held throughout this country right now--not because Obama has all the answers, but because he seems to be able to create the space that allows for the right questions. And hopefully, regardless of who wins what, we will not fall back into being satisfied with the status quo we have had thus far.
I support him as nominee and hopefully as President, as a leader for this country, in large part because I see he is already leading this country.
At some level, yes, of course I would be disappointed. I would be disappointed because I would love to see what could happen in this country over time, with someone like him leading it. I would love to see how his facile grasp of complex issues would manifest in decision-making. I would love to see if the country would indeed become more unified--because I can't see anyone else right now who could do that better than he could. And finally, yes I would be disappointed because I think he has the most intuitive grasp of foreign policy that I have seen in a long time (a topic close to my heart).
But on the other hand, I won't be too upset because I know that over time, all politicians will show their flaws and he will be no exception. The other candidates have their strengths too, and a lot of responsibility for the well-being of the country still lies outside of politics altogether. And even if he doesn't make it, he has still indelibly altered the course of the US political landscape. To have Bill Richardson endorse him partly because 'he speaks to us as adults', goes a long way, imho, to naming one of the biggest problems in the way this country deals with critical social issues. The media and PR spinners tend to simplify and polarize issues, treating us like children, and we are rarely given the opportunity to explore nuance, let alone engage in authentic dialogue. Everything is broken down into soundbites and black and white solutions.
In my view, Obama is bringing some reality back in to those discussions (yes, I'm thinking of his 'race speech'), and that has already caused positive consquences. He wades into the difficult issues, and doesn't promise easy answers. But he inspires people to believe that we can find the answers, we can find the healing, without having to deny the very real difficulties we face. Some very real and hopeful dialogues are being held throughout this country right now--not because Obama has all the answers, but because he seems to be able to create the space that allows for the right questions. And hopefully, regardless of who wins what, we will not fall back into being satisfied with the status quo we have had thus far.
I support him as nominee and hopefully as President, as a leader for this country, in large part because I see he is already leading this country.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
