I refer to St. Ephraim when it is largely no longer customary to refer to Patristic writers as saints. The reason for this, as it was once told to me, was that “they were all saints” and “they all referred to each other this way.” I suspect there may be a little Catholic vs. Protestant in stripping these saints of their former titles. I believe restoring the title in the case of St. Ephraim is warranted for two reasons: 1) he simply deserves it, reasons why stated below 2) there were so many people and places named Ephraim in antiquity, especially Semitic antiquity, that it is a useful way of distinguishing among them. 3) I happen to like the overdetermined nature of term and signifier and the uneasiness it causes. That having been said, I may on occasion slip and call him simply Ephraim because it is easier.
Ephraim the Syrian (another of his appellations) wrote over five hundred hymns and theological treatises in the middle of the fourth century. One way of celebrating his importance, and there are several, is by turning to the relationships between theology and "interfaith" practice seen in his writings. It is said that Ephraim did not turn to hymn writing until he saw the importance of it in the Manichean church under the influence of Bardaisan in the region in which both he and Ephraim lived. Edessa was the capitol of once Byzantine controlled Syria which had recently come under the control of Persia. Stanley Hauerwas says that "one reason why we Christians argue so much about which hymn to sing, which liturgy to follow, which way to worship is that the commandments teach us to believe that bad liturgy eventually leads to bad ethics. You begin by singing some sappy, sentimental hymn, then you pray some pointless prayer, and the next thing you know you have murdered your best friend." In Ephraim’s Edessa, where Persian and Byzatine political influence interacted with religious ideas stemming from the followers of Nicean orthodoxy, Manichean schools of thought and practice and various shades of Gnostic influence and all of these competed with on another, Haeurwas’ observation was as true then as it is today.
In the First Discourse Against The False Teachers, a theological treatise in the form of a letter, which Ephraim wrote to a follower of Bardaisan named Hypatius, we find ideas that speak to the present day. In my view, the most important ecumenical question of our day is not how Christian denominations can find common groud, indeed an important question, but how religions can find common ground to talk to one another. A subset of this is how to maintain and celebrate differences while still entering into dialog. The “clash of civilzations,” in Samuel Huntington’s phraeology, which did not exist in any way before 9/11 like it did after it, is something which has broght Christian denominations closer to one another at the same that it has pushed Christians and Muslims apart. This has nullified old needs but created new ones.
In this text St. Ephraim is urging accord between followers of Nicean orthodoxy and Manichean teacher Bardaisan. He is also attacking the doctrine of determinism that stems from Bardaisan and arguing instead for an understanding of Free Will. I could not help but see connections between President George W. Bush’s War on Terror, his references to “evil doers,” and current conflicts between the at least nominaly Christian world (which extends arguably from California eastward through the U.S. Europe and on to South Korea) and the Muslim world (which covers at least swaths of almost everthing else minus China and India). Bush’s worldview has more than once been called “Manichaean.”
Ephraim’s advice to the Manicheans of his day and those in ours is the following. Speaking of an ontological mixture of good and evil in the world and in our own souls is not only a denial of free will, it is blasphemous, he says. Doing so denies our ability to change and redirect our lives, as well as our ability to see this in others. “Whoever denies that there is Freewill utters a great blasphemy in that he hastens to ascribe his vices to God”(sec 24). “How was He who was unable to give Freewill able to give a Law when there was no Freewill? But if He gave the Law, the righteousness which is in His Law censures our Freewill, for he rewards it according to its works.” (sec 27)
While one may suggest that the decidely Christian character of Ephraim’s First Discourse would be offensive to Muslims, I would aruge that Ephraim’s world-view is sufficiently Abrhamaic and stemming from the ancient Semitic Patrarchs to allow it to speak to Muslims. The notion that God’s law interacts with and is impossible without human freewill is found in Islam and Judaism. St. Ephraim says God’s multivariate body (an ecumenical image if there ever was one) is like Mt. Sinai with Moses standing at its top. “All those who are like Moses are near to his holiness like Moses, and form one body ..and by means of that body, too,which our Lord was raised, all bodies have received a pledge that they will be raised in like manner.” (sec 5). There are a number of other helpful ecumencial images in this work of Ephraim, but none are as helpful as the idea that our souls and bodies are basically pure. While evil exists along with those who do evil, it is the will of these individuals which is the cause of this rather than the structure of the cosmos or the human psyche. This is a useful thing to keep in mind as Pakistan attempts to deal with political unrest and a new Prime Minister, and we realize it was not “the surge” alone that caused a drop in violence in Iraq recently, but rather individuals assocaited with the Awakening Councils along with Muqtadar AlSadr’s militians who decided to stop the violence they chose to engage in rather than ontological violence stemming from their non-Christian souls.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Obama on the economy
I stole this off the net, but this person probably did the same. That is how the net works. Let's spread useful, in this case VERY useful information. Obama gave this economic speech on March 27th. See anything that indicates foresight?
Obama:
But the American experiment has worked in large part because we have guided the market's invisible hand with a higher principle. Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest. We have done this not to stifle - but rather to advance prosperity and liberty. As I said at NASDAQ last September: the core of our economic success is the fundamental truth that each American does better when all Americans do better; that the well being of American business, its capital markets, and the American people are aligned.
I think all of us here today would acknowledge that we've lost that sense of shared prosperity.
This loss has not happened by accident. It's because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington. Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both...
I do not believe that government should stand in the way of innovation, or turn back the clock to an older era of regulation. But I do believe that government has a role to play in advancing our common prosperity: by providing stable macroeconomic and financial conditions for sustained growth; by demanding transparency; and by ensuring fair competition in the marketplace.
Our history should give us confidence that we don't have to choose between an oppressive government-run economy and a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. It tells us we can emerge from great economic upheavals stronger, not weaker. But we can do so only if we restore confidence in our markets. Only if we rebuild trust between investors and lenders. And only if we renew that common interest between Wall Street and Main Street that is the key to our success...
We need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. It makes no sense for the Fed to tighten mortgage guidelines for banks when two-thirds of subprime mortgages don't originate from banks. This regulatory framework has failed to protect homeowners, and it is now clear that it made no sense for our financial system. When it comes to protecting the American people, it should make no difference what kind of institution they are dealing with.
This seems to be the right argument for regulation. I'm on record as proclaiming the death of Reaganomics. The notion that government is the problem has been proven false. Without proper government oversight, the markets run wild, salaries for the wealthiest explode, and the cost of basic needs (gas, food, housing, health insurance) soar.
Let's hope America wakes up and gives the dunces who have fostered this style of economics for the past 30 years the boot.
Obama:
But the American experiment has worked in large part because we have guided the market's invisible hand with a higher principle. Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest. We have done this not to stifle - but rather to advance prosperity and liberty. As I said at NASDAQ last September: the core of our economic success is the fundamental truth that each American does better when all Americans do better; that the well being of American business, its capital markets, and the American people are aligned.
I think all of us here today would acknowledge that we've lost that sense of shared prosperity.
This loss has not happened by accident. It's because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington. Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both...
I do not believe that government should stand in the way of innovation, or turn back the clock to an older era of regulation. But I do believe that government has a role to play in advancing our common prosperity: by providing stable macroeconomic and financial conditions for sustained growth; by demanding transparency; and by ensuring fair competition in the marketplace.
Our history should give us confidence that we don't have to choose between an oppressive government-run economy and a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. It tells us we can emerge from great economic upheavals stronger, not weaker. But we can do so only if we restore confidence in our markets. Only if we rebuild trust between investors and lenders. And only if we renew that common interest between Wall Street and Main Street that is the key to our success...
We need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. It makes no sense for the Fed to tighten mortgage guidelines for banks when two-thirds of subprime mortgages don't originate from banks. This regulatory framework has failed to protect homeowners, and it is now clear that it made no sense for our financial system. When it comes to protecting the American people, it should make no difference what kind of institution they are dealing with.
This seems to be the right argument for regulation. I'm on record as proclaiming the death of Reaganomics. The notion that government is the problem has been proven false. Without proper government oversight, the markets run wild, salaries for the wealthiest explode, and the cost of basic needs (gas, food, housing, health insurance) soar.
Let's hope America wakes up and gives the dunces who have fostered this style of economics for the past 30 years the boot.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Not facing Mecca, or Washington, but the Body
I want to follow up on the Yoga post I made the other day and Seane Corn's thoughts on Yoga. She says, as I quoted her, that we cannot approach God through the head but have to do it through the body. This gets us into feeling and feeling gets us to surrender.
Since I have been in Saudi Arabia I have done Yoga hundreds of times. But every time I do it I face away from the direction of Mecca and instead face the east, the land of the Buddha and the Dharma. This is partly a revolt against Islam. But it is also a taking on of their practices too, since some Yoga poses, such as Down Dogs, clearly involve prostration and a kind of submission. So am I moving toward Islam or away from it? Both, probably. I believe I am on the verge of something here and simply wanted to say that this is probably Seane Corn territory.
Speaking of the body as an avenue away from and to God, lately I have been very irritated at Republicans in my country and their embrace of Sara Palin. I get so angry with Republicans that I loose all perspective. I have begun recently to give this to my yoga practice and dedicate it to all those who I know who feel the same way. New Age silliness you say? Suggesting that it is not is this verse from Matthew which jumped out at me the other day. You may not think the body can be thought of as a kind of altar upon which we lay our junk, but we have several major world traditions saying something contrary. It also suggests that Yoga may be a way of facing neither Mecca, nor Washington but the body and that place where "we move and have our being."
Matthew 5:21-26
21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother [15] will be liable to judgment; whoever insults [16] his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell [17] of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny. [18]
Since I have been in Saudi Arabia I have done Yoga hundreds of times. But every time I do it I face away from the direction of Mecca and instead face the east, the land of the Buddha and the Dharma. This is partly a revolt against Islam. But it is also a taking on of their practices too, since some Yoga poses, such as Down Dogs, clearly involve prostration and a kind of submission. So am I moving toward Islam or away from it? Both, probably. I believe I am on the verge of something here and simply wanted to say that this is probably Seane Corn territory.
Speaking of the body as an avenue away from and to God, lately I have been very irritated at Republicans in my country and their embrace of Sara Palin. I get so angry with Republicans that I loose all perspective. I have begun recently to give this to my yoga practice and dedicate it to all those who I know who feel the same way. New Age silliness you say? Suggesting that it is not is this verse from Matthew which jumped out at me the other day. You may not think the body can be thought of as a kind of altar upon which we lay our junk, but we have several major world traditions saying something contrary. It also suggests that Yoga may be a way of facing neither Mecca, nor Washington but the body and that place where "we move and have our being."
Matthew 5:21-26
21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother [15] will be liable to judgment; whoever insults [16] his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell [17] of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny. [18]
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Yoga, Seane Corn, Christianity
Since hardly anyone reads this blog on any regular basis, you won't know that I occassionaly brag about NPR's Speaking of Faith Program. But I do. I am not whining, it's true. I don't care if anyone reads this blog. I am writing for me and that reader of writers in me.
SOF ran an excellent program this week on Yoga with yoga teacher Seane Corn. You really need to hear this one, and can't see how genuine and on the money she is from this excerpt from the transcript. But I put a couple of sections from the interview with her in order show how Christianity and Yoga can work together. It was a highly revealing interview for me.
There are some 20 million people across the U.S. that are doing yoga on a regular bassis, and there are far more outside that country. If we can't connect Christianity with some of the gems that are coming to us and through the issues talked about here, then we are missing a major opportunity. I am quoting way more than I should here, but just sort of can't help it. And you should hear what she says about working with junkie and prostitute teenagers, which I have not put here. Gotta' go online for that, which is here http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/
---------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Tippett: Let's talk about some of the words that you use in the context of yoga that in fact are spiritual words, like "grace." Talk about invoking the energy of grace in a yoga practice. I don't think that would make sense to many people.
Ms. Corn: I think that there's a lot of ways. I think first I need to define my relationship with God. I talk about God all the time in class, and I'm pretty confident in my relationship with God. And therefore, I'm comfortable using the word. But when I define spirit, it's that which exists within that's of truth and love. And so when I refer to grace or to spirit or to God, I'm talking of truth and love.
Ms. Tippett: And so, I mean, again, and this is kind of the same theme, when you say that the heart of the practice of yoga is love, you know, what do you mean by that?
Ms. Corn: Yeah.
Ms. Tippett: How can love be the heart of this practice of a series of physical poses and breathing?
Ms. Corn: It comes down to this for me: You can't get to God through your head, at least in my experience. I might come back in 20 years and say, you know, "Remember everything I was saying at 41? I was totally wrong." But how I've experienced it is that you can't get to God through your head, because it's determined by your five senses, so therefore we're limited to what we know, what we see, what we've experienced here on earth. For me, I've only been able to get to God through my heart, not through what I know but through what I feel because feelings lead to surrender. Surrender allows you to step into that unknown state where there's a different level of acceptance to what is rather than what you're choosing it to be. So for me, you release the tension, it opens you up to feelings, feelings connect you to surrender, and suddenly you're hearing with a new ear that moves beyond human interpretation but to spiritual perception which is infinite and limitless.
Ms. Corn: Yeah. Yeah. Another aspect is actually using your body to pray.
Ms. Tippett: Well, talk to me about that. Body prayer is something you do.
Ms. Corn: Yeah. Well, again, it all connects ultimately back to service, which is also, you know, kind of the evolution of the work that I've done. But using your body to pray. I trust that if I do my yoga practice, I'm going to get stronger and more flexible. If I stay in alignment, if I don't push, if I don't force, then my body will organically open in time. I know that if I breathe deeply, I'll oxygenate my body. It has an influence on my nervous system. These things are fixed and I know to be true. But I also recognize that it's a mystical practice, and you can use your body as an expression of your devotion. So the way that you place your hands, the ways that you step a foot forward or back, everything is done as an offering. I offer the movements to someone I love or to the healing of the planet. And so if I'm moving from a state of love and my heart is open to that connection between myself and another person or myself and the universe, it becomes an active form of prayer, of meditation, of grace.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Tippett: I want to ask you if these experiences of yours, these insights, and especially the work you do with child prostitutes, there's also this shadow side of this observation that mind, body, and spirit are linked. We know that when there is sexual violence, when there is rape or, you know, when there's sexual abuse, it's not just bodies that suffer; it's the soul.
Ms. Corn: Mm-hmm.
Ms. Tippett: How has yoga helped you understand that more deeply?
Ms. Corn: Well, again, it goes back into my own history, and it all lines — you know, it's all interdependent and connected and that's where I see the god. My first experience of betrayal, perhaps, was molestation at six years old. And I'm very public with this. I've talked about this frequently because it's led me to where I am today. It's where I find so much gratitude, and I marvel at how one thing can become something else. When you're a child, you have no — I had no sense of sexuality, of course, yet I experienced both panic and pleasure. And I didn't know what pleasure was, so I felt ashamed and guilty. And, again, this is not something I was conscious about. I was very aware of the molestation, but I wasn't as conscious of the intricacies that I'm sharing with you.
Ms. Tippett: Right. Right.
Ms. Corn: That came later. And so when I went through my own journey to the understanding that these events have happened, now what am I going to do with it? Am I going to continue pointing the finger back to my life and saying, "You did this to me and therefore I get to spend the rest of my life in inappropriate relationships, afraid of the world, because of what you did"? Or can I say, like, "No. That was done. Here's how it disconnected me to spirit. Here's how I can reclaim this. And now look what I get to do with it, not in spite of the experience, but because of it." And suddenly this thing that was so bad actually became a gift. And that gift not only changes my heart, but maybe can impact someone else's.
Ms. Tippett: You also in that practice of body prayer, I think it was there, you talked about — let me just look at my notes — about thinking about, dedicating your practice and channeling that energy that you experience and tap into and take in and release in yoga, even towards the people who have, you know, not just towards the people you love and the things you're grateful for, but the people you're not grateful for. Right? That the people who've hurt you.
Ms. Corn: I have to.
Ms. Tippett: And what happens when you do that? I mean, what —
Ms. Corn: Part of me gets irritated, but that's just my ego. That's the part of me that just doesn't know better. But my heart opens. The people who have hurt or harmed me were also my teachers. They provided fierce lessons that brought me closer to myself and then therefore God, and also taught me about life. I always pray for the people who have hurt and harmed me, and just when I think I've forgiven them, I forgive them again, because always that energy will rear its head, and I have to make sure that I'm constantly keeping myself clean. Otherwise, I'm holding onto that shadow of anger, and the inability to forgive, they say, is a poison you take hoping someone else will die. And, again, it keeps us disconnected from God.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Tippett: You know, as we've said, there are so many people doing yoga now. There are yoga centers springing up on every street corner in every city and not just yoga centers, but classes and YMCAs. And I'm sure you're aware within Christian circles there is some resistance to that, some wariness, because there is this sacred aspect to the tradition of yoga, the sacred history. And, you know, there is some movement to replace some of the Hindu phrases or the Sanskrit phrases with Christian vocabulary and words. I'm just curious about your response to that, how you think about that.
Ms. Corn: You know, again, yoga has been happening for thousands of years, and it's certainly a continually evolving practice. I like to think that yoga itself is bigger than any one tradition and that it has its place in all the different traditions. And if a Christian needs to bring in — I mean, when I go into the Bible Belt, for example, and using prayer in the class, I will always mention Jesus Christ because I want to invoke into the space a sense of the sacred that's going to be familiar and comfortable to the practitioners that I'm working with so that they feel at home and they feel welcomed. So I don't really have a problem with it.
That's probably not a popular decision or opinion, but there is room for yoga and Christianity. There's room for yoga and Judaism. There's room for yoga in all the different traditions. What it comes down to, what you can't take away is that yoga means we are all one, and so it's fine by me. If that's what's going to take these religions to get everyone breathing together, moving together, releasing tension together, and being more available to authentic prayer — not prayer from your head, but prayer from your heart — that's more unified, then I welcome it.
SOF ran an excellent program this week on Yoga with yoga teacher Seane Corn. You really need to hear this one, and can't see how genuine and on the money she is from this excerpt from the transcript. But I put a couple of sections from the interview with her in order show how Christianity and Yoga can work together. It was a highly revealing interview for me.
There are some 20 million people across the U.S. that are doing yoga on a regular bassis, and there are far more outside that country. If we can't connect Christianity with some of the gems that are coming to us and through the issues talked about here, then we are missing a major opportunity. I am quoting way more than I should here, but just sort of can't help it. And you should hear what she says about working with junkie and prostitute teenagers, which I have not put here. Gotta' go online for that, which is here http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/
---------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Tippett: Let's talk about some of the words that you use in the context of yoga that in fact are spiritual words, like "grace." Talk about invoking the energy of grace in a yoga practice. I don't think that would make sense to many people.
Ms. Corn: I think that there's a lot of ways. I think first I need to define my relationship with God. I talk about God all the time in class, and I'm pretty confident in my relationship with God. And therefore, I'm comfortable using the word. But when I define spirit, it's that which exists within that's of truth and love. And so when I refer to grace or to spirit or to God, I'm talking of truth and love.
Ms. Tippett: And so, I mean, again, and this is kind of the same theme, when you say that the heart of the practice of yoga is love, you know, what do you mean by that?
Ms. Corn: Yeah.
Ms. Tippett: How can love be the heart of this practice of a series of physical poses and breathing?
Ms. Corn: It comes down to this for me: You can't get to God through your head, at least in my experience. I might come back in 20 years and say, you know, "Remember everything I was saying at 41? I was totally wrong." But how I've experienced it is that you can't get to God through your head, because it's determined by your five senses, so therefore we're limited to what we know, what we see, what we've experienced here on earth. For me, I've only been able to get to God through my heart, not through what I know but through what I feel because feelings lead to surrender. Surrender allows you to step into that unknown state where there's a different level of acceptance to what is rather than what you're choosing it to be. So for me, you release the tension, it opens you up to feelings, feelings connect you to surrender, and suddenly you're hearing with a new ear that moves beyond human interpretation but to spiritual perception which is infinite and limitless.
Ms. Corn: Yeah. Yeah. Another aspect is actually using your body to pray.
Ms. Tippett: Well, talk to me about that. Body prayer is something you do.
Ms. Corn: Yeah. Well, again, it all connects ultimately back to service, which is also, you know, kind of the evolution of the work that I've done. But using your body to pray. I trust that if I do my yoga practice, I'm going to get stronger and more flexible. If I stay in alignment, if I don't push, if I don't force, then my body will organically open in time. I know that if I breathe deeply, I'll oxygenate my body. It has an influence on my nervous system. These things are fixed and I know to be true. But I also recognize that it's a mystical practice, and you can use your body as an expression of your devotion. So the way that you place your hands, the ways that you step a foot forward or back, everything is done as an offering. I offer the movements to someone I love or to the healing of the planet. And so if I'm moving from a state of love and my heart is open to that connection between myself and another person or myself and the universe, it becomes an active form of prayer, of meditation, of grace.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Tippett: I want to ask you if these experiences of yours, these insights, and especially the work you do with child prostitutes, there's also this shadow side of this observation that mind, body, and spirit are linked. We know that when there is sexual violence, when there is rape or, you know, when there's sexual abuse, it's not just bodies that suffer; it's the soul.
Ms. Corn: Mm-hmm.
Ms. Tippett: How has yoga helped you understand that more deeply?
Ms. Corn: Well, again, it goes back into my own history, and it all lines — you know, it's all interdependent and connected and that's where I see the god. My first experience of betrayal, perhaps, was molestation at six years old. And I'm very public with this. I've talked about this frequently because it's led me to where I am today. It's where I find so much gratitude, and I marvel at how one thing can become something else. When you're a child, you have no — I had no sense of sexuality, of course, yet I experienced both panic and pleasure. And I didn't know what pleasure was, so I felt ashamed and guilty. And, again, this is not something I was conscious about. I was very aware of the molestation, but I wasn't as conscious of the intricacies that I'm sharing with you.
Ms. Tippett: Right. Right.
Ms. Corn: That came later. And so when I went through my own journey to the understanding that these events have happened, now what am I going to do with it? Am I going to continue pointing the finger back to my life and saying, "You did this to me and therefore I get to spend the rest of my life in inappropriate relationships, afraid of the world, because of what you did"? Or can I say, like, "No. That was done. Here's how it disconnected me to spirit. Here's how I can reclaim this. And now look what I get to do with it, not in spite of the experience, but because of it." And suddenly this thing that was so bad actually became a gift. And that gift not only changes my heart, but maybe can impact someone else's.
Ms. Tippett: You also in that practice of body prayer, I think it was there, you talked about — let me just look at my notes — about thinking about, dedicating your practice and channeling that energy that you experience and tap into and take in and release in yoga, even towards the people who have, you know, not just towards the people you love and the things you're grateful for, but the people you're not grateful for. Right? That the people who've hurt you.
Ms. Corn: I have to.
Ms. Tippett: And what happens when you do that? I mean, what —
Ms. Corn: Part of me gets irritated, but that's just my ego. That's the part of me that just doesn't know better. But my heart opens. The people who have hurt or harmed me were also my teachers. They provided fierce lessons that brought me closer to myself and then therefore God, and also taught me about life. I always pray for the people who have hurt and harmed me, and just when I think I've forgiven them, I forgive them again, because always that energy will rear its head, and I have to make sure that I'm constantly keeping myself clean. Otherwise, I'm holding onto that shadow of anger, and the inability to forgive, they say, is a poison you take hoping someone else will die. And, again, it keeps us disconnected from God.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Tippett: You know, as we've said, there are so many people doing yoga now. There are yoga centers springing up on every street corner in every city and not just yoga centers, but classes and YMCAs. And I'm sure you're aware within Christian circles there is some resistance to that, some wariness, because there is this sacred aspect to the tradition of yoga, the sacred history. And, you know, there is some movement to replace some of the Hindu phrases or the Sanskrit phrases with Christian vocabulary and words. I'm just curious about your response to that, how you think about that.
Ms. Corn: You know, again, yoga has been happening for thousands of years, and it's certainly a continually evolving practice. I like to think that yoga itself is bigger than any one tradition and that it has its place in all the different traditions. And if a Christian needs to bring in — I mean, when I go into the Bible Belt, for example, and using prayer in the class, I will always mention Jesus Christ because I want to invoke into the space a sense of the sacred that's going to be familiar and comfortable to the practitioners that I'm working with so that they feel at home and they feel welcomed. So I don't really have a problem with it.
That's probably not a popular decision or opinion, but there is room for yoga and Christianity. There's room for yoga and Judaism. There's room for yoga in all the different traditions. What it comes down to, what you can't take away is that yoga means we are all one, and so it's fine by me. If that's what's going to take these religions to get everyone breathing together, moving together, releasing tension together, and being more available to authentic prayer — not prayer from your head, but prayer from your heart — that's more unified, then I welcome it.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
9/11 Vegetarianism
I feel really pretentious saying anything about 9/11, especially on 9/11, but on any day for that matter. But on this 9/11 I became a vegetarian. So instead of saying something corny on 9/11 I am doing something for myself and possibly, just ever so possibly, for the world too.
I was sitting in an Indian restaurant and it just hit me; that is what I needed to do. Some people become vegetarians for health reasons. Others do it for spiritual reasons, as did I. I want to let go of more suffering and be more open to people. 9/11 seemed to be a good day to do this. I also want to better train myself to manage my moods and not succumb to negative thoughts. The kind of thing the practice of Buddhist meditation that has sloppily been part of my life for ten years now is about. But how can I do this when I consume the flesh of beings who have been raised for the slaugher? Would not 9/11 be the perfect day for committing more thoroughly to letting go of suffering in myself and stopping the imputation of it to others? From now on the only flesh I consume is that of Jesus and fish (I am not going to cut out eggs either). Since Jesus is represented by a fish, and the sea is place of vast nutritional resources just as the cosmos is--what the Chinese heritage Buddhists would call "the ten-thousand things"--I see no contradiction there.
I found the following 9/11 reflection on Sojourners website. It was written by Brian Mclaren, a guy who keeps popping into my life more and more. So, I post it here. I believe he's put his finger on a way to honor 9/11 but also work through it and build from it.
From Sojourner's website, Thursday, September 11, 2008
Holding 9/11's Emotions Up to the Light of God (by Brian McLaren)
All of us remember this day, where we were when we heard the news, our feelings, our fears. There has been a lot of controversy about how the memory of this day has been or is being used or misused for political purposes, but I always come back to one of my life mottoes: the best antidote to misuse is not disuse -- it is proper use.
In many ways we have run from the feelings of that day ... grief, grievance, unity, confusion, dislocation, vulnerability and solidarity. In many ways, we quickly transmuted those emotions into ones that we are more familiar with, ones we know how to "work with" -- anger, lust for revenge, blame, scapegoating, offended pride, even hate.
But maybe now, seven years later, we are able to return to the feelings of that day and in some way learn from them now what we may not have been able to learn from them back then.
Grief -- we lost so much that day. Loved ones. A sense of invulnerability. A sense of transcendence over the rest of the world for whom violence is so much a part of daily life. Ungrieved grief makes us sick, and so it is good, today, to grieve.
Grievance -- we knew instantly that the people who were suffering were not guilty of the violence they were experiencing, and this sense of having been wronged filled us all. Something healthy happens in our souls when we hold that feeling up to the light -- without letting it toxify into bitterness and revenge.
Unity -- we knew that we needed each other and needed to stand together. Now, in the midst of a bitterly fought election, can we recall that understanding of our standing together?
Confusion -- we realized that the world was more complex than we realized, that there were forces at work we weren't attending to, and of the pain in being pushed from the category of knowers to seekers. Not understanding is humbling, and again, it is good to hold ourselves in that humility without relieving ourselves of it by pretending we have everything figured out according to our various ideologies and slogans.
Vulnerability -- our confidence in our own power shaken, we faced that there were other powers that must be reckoned with. We felt that we are more like our neighbors around the world than we realized: that our lives can be interrupted by those with grievances, pain, confusion, and fear of their own ... that we are connected with those who have grievances against us, and we must share the world with them, and they with us.
Solidarity -- many said that the whole world was American that day, but it was also true that we in America felt solidarity with the rest of our war-torn, violence scarred world that day. I believe at some deep level, the Holy Spirit was warming each of our hearts with a longing for shalom/salaam/peace ... since we so acutely felt its absence.
If you just read over each of these emotions, and hold them up in your heart to the light of God, you will see the ways in which these emotions can open us towards the living God of love. Then, perhaps, consider the alternatives -- anger, lust for revenge, blame, scapegoating, even hate -- and think of the effect these feelings can have on your spiritual life, how they can be "sacralized" and baptized and camouflaged under religious language. Perhaps, if you see this dark process at work in you and us, that will move you to repentance and prayer.
If you have a few more minutes, listen to this podcast from my friend Fred Burnham, who was across the street from ground zero, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, when the towers fell. His story exemplifies how we can let the experience of 9/11 be a sanctifying one in our lives, individually and together. May it be so.
Brian McLaren is a speaker and author, most recently of Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again. He serves as board chair for Sojourners.
I was sitting in an Indian restaurant and it just hit me; that is what I needed to do. Some people become vegetarians for health reasons. Others do it for spiritual reasons, as did I. I want to let go of more suffering and be more open to people. 9/11 seemed to be a good day to do this. I also want to better train myself to manage my moods and not succumb to negative thoughts. The kind of thing the practice of Buddhist meditation that has sloppily been part of my life for ten years now is about. But how can I do this when I consume the flesh of beings who have been raised for the slaugher? Would not 9/11 be the perfect day for committing more thoroughly to letting go of suffering in myself and stopping the imputation of it to others? From now on the only flesh I consume is that of Jesus and fish (I am not going to cut out eggs either). Since Jesus is represented by a fish, and the sea is place of vast nutritional resources just as the cosmos is--what the Chinese heritage Buddhists would call "the ten-thousand things"--I see no contradiction there.
I found the following 9/11 reflection on Sojourners website. It was written by Brian Mclaren, a guy who keeps popping into my life more and more. So, I post it here. I believe he's put his finger on a way to honor 9/11 but also work through it and build from it.
From Sojourner's website, Thursday, September 11, 2008
Holding 9/11's Emotions Up to the Light of God (by Brian McLaren)
All of us remember this day, where we were when we heard the news, our feelings, our fears. There has been a lot of controversy about how the memory of this day has been or is being used or misused for political purposes, but I always come back to one of my life mottoes: the best antidote to misuse is not disuse -- it is proper use.
In many ways we have run from the feelings of that day ... grief, grievance, unity, confusion, dislocation, vulnerability and solidarity. In many ways, we quickly transmuted those emotions into ones that we are more familiar with, ones we know how to "work with" -- anger, lust for revenge, blame, scapegoating, offended pride, even hate.
But maybe now, seven years later, we are able to return to the feelings of that day and in some way learn from them now what we may not have been able to learn from them back then.
Grief -- we lost so much that day. Loved ones. A sense of invulnerability. A sense of transcendence over the rest of the world for whom violence is so much a part of daily life. Ungrieved grief makes us sick, and so it is good, today, to grieve.
Grievance -- we knew instantly that the people who were suffering were not guilty of the violence they were experiencing, and this sense of having been wronged filled us all. Something healthy happens in our souls when we hold that feeling up to the light -- without letting it toxify into bitterness and revenge.
Unity -- we knew that we needed each other and needed to stand together. Now, in the midst of a bitterly fought election, can we recall that understanding of our standing together?
Confusion -- we realized that the world was more complex than we realized, that there were forces at work we weren't attending to, and of the pain in being pushed from the category of knowers to seekers. Not understanding is humbling, and again, it is good to hold ourselves in that humility without relieving ourselves of it by pretending we have everything figured out according to our various ideologies and slogans.
Vulnerability -- our confidence in our own power shaken, we faced that there were other powers that must be reckoned with. We felt that we are more like our neighbors around the world than we realized: that our lives can be interrupted by those with grievances, pain, confusion, and fear of their own ... that we are connected with those who have grievances against us, and we must share the world with them, and they with us.
Solidarity -- many said that the whole world was American that day, but it was also true that we in America felt solidarity with the rest of our war-torn, violence scarred world that day. I believe at some deep level, the Holy Spirit was warming each of our hearts with a longing for shalom/salaam/peace ... since we so acutely felt its absence.
If you just read over each of these emotions, and hold them up in your heart to the light of God, you will see the ways in which these emotions can open us towards the living God of love. Then, perhaps, consider the alternatives -- anger, lust for revenge, blame, scapegoating, even hate -- and think of the effect these feelings can have on your spiritual life, how they can be "sacralized" and baptized and camouflaged under religious language. Perhaps, if you see this dark process at work in you and us, that will move you to repentance and prayer.
If you have a few more minutes, listen to this podcast from my friend Fred Burnham, who was across the street from ground zero, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, when the towers fell. His story exemplifies how we can let the experience of 9/11 be a sanctifying one in our lives, individually and together. May it be so.
Brian McLaren is a speaker and author, most recently of Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again. He serves as board chair for Sojourners.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
David VS Goliath, the Emergent Paradigm takes on the right
I have been fighting with a guy on a particular website in a forum devoted to Emergent Christianity. I have been so grabbed intellectually (and spiritually) by this exchange that I feel the need to post bits of it here. I have changed the names to protect the identities of those involved. It all began with a very insightful list of characterizations of the emergent movement, which I will post here. The question was: which of the items on this list do you like? Which do you not like? Why? Here is the list: The emergents seem to espouse:
1. An awareness of and attempt to reach those in the changing postmodern culture.
2. An attempt to use technology, i.e., video, slide shows, internet.
3. A broader approach to worship using candles, icons, images, sounds, smells, etc.
4. An inclusive approach to various, sometimes contradictory belief systems.
5. An emphasis on experience and feelings over absolutes.
6. Concentration on relationship building over proclamation of the gospel.
7. Shunning stale traditionalism in worship, church seating, music, etc.
8. A de-emphasis on absolutes and doctrinal creeds
9. A re-evaluation of the place of the Christian church in society.
10. A re-examination of the Bible and its teachings.
11. A re-evaluation of traditionally held doctrines.
12. A re-evaluation of the place of Christianity in the world.
I'm sure there are many more. Do you like some of the things on the list?
Hello again,
First of all, I started a new discussion thread. I'd like to take a step back and cover the "emerging" versus "emergent" definitions. I think they are two different things.
As I see them defined:
Emerging refers to those who would consider themselves to be (to at least a degree of the traditional definition) evangelical Christians. Perhaps "Biblical" Christians would be a better term? They hold to the "essentials" of the Christian faith, but believe there is a stream (you would probably call them the "religious right") that has taken Christianity away from what was intended. I'm in this camp of those who want to live out a Christian faith based on God's Word - not on politics.
Emergent refers to those who would consider themselves to be "open" to various streams of faith and what they have to offer the global religious perspective. While I don't hold any antagonism against emergent individuals, I don't think they should be defined the same way. Forgive me if I am incorrect, but I believe you are in this camp.
There is a big difference between the two.
I wouldn't call either "fake." They are two completely different things though in my opinion.
And, last but not least (because I can't seem to stop myself),
- If you are mentioning Simon bar Giora mentioned in Josephus, that is a totally different situation from the historical texts. They were literally digging under the wall to escape. If you are referring to someone else, please let me know.
- Q will continue to be debated by many, many "great minds." While I am obviously not one of those great minds, I respect the opinions of both sides. As one who does try to think sometimes, I would put myself in the camp of those who don't put credence in a document that became "factual" by a process of reverse development. Aristotle's law of contradiction is an interesting contemplation here. Q either exists or it doesn't.
Anyway - Please consider responding to the other discussion thread.
Pax, John Doe
_____________________________
Hi John Doe,
I must confess that a lot of what I know about the EC comes from my reading on the internet. I have ordered MacLaren's first book and books by Stanley Haurwaus, Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. Since the internet and new media is such a big part of EC, I think having learned of it there and in blogs and continuing to learn of it in these places is not such a bad thing. It may be the best way in fact. It seems to be the case that the terms "emergent" and "emerging" are interchangeable. What I would like to hear a good explanation of is how the use of these terms relates to the phrase "emergent properties" which we often hear bandied about in Systems Theory and Neuroscience. Is this a useful designation, however cool and interesting it may sound? I believe it is, but I am still coming to terms with it. I do think new forms of christian community and evangelizaton are appearing because of the internet, the cutting edge of technology and the way the globe is being brought together by it, represent something very new and exciting. Keep in mind that I am in Saudi Arabia, one of the strictest Muslim countries on earth, as we debate some of the important things happening in the church. That is not a pat on my back but an indication of how the world is changing.
Getting a bit into a response to the content of your last post, and into the question of where the political dimension lies in the EC "conversation", I just clipped this out of the wikipedia entry on EC. I highly encourage folks to do searches in wiki on emerging church, emergent church, emerging christianity and emergent community. Lots of rich stuff here. but basically there is a core, and which is captured in this:
"The emerging church (sometimes referred to as the emergent church movement) is a Christian movement whose participants seek to live their faith in modern society by emulating Jesus Christ irrespective of Christian religious traditions. Proponents of this movement call it a "conversation" to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature as well as its emphasis on interfaith dialogue rather than one-way evangelism. Members of emerging communities may be disillusioned with the organized and institutional church and often support the deconstruction of modern Christian dogma. The movement often favors the use of simple story and narrative, occasionally incorporating mysticism. Members of the emerging movement place high value on good works or social activism, sometimes including missional living or new monasticism; while Evangelicals may emphasize eternal salvation, many in the emerging movement emphasize the here and now and the need to create a kingdom of heaven on Earth."
I do not want to demonize those who feel comfortable with the label evangelical. This is because I feel EC is basically a "conversation" between the left and right sides of the church. Without both talking to one another, we've got nothing. But the EC movement's energy clearly seems to be coming from those on the side opposite the evangelicals and who embrace post modernism and the hodgepodge of ideas connected to it (and entire thread needs to be devoted to that, what we think it is and how it should be seen and treated).
You will note that the view towards other traditions I was espousing is represented in the quote above. I will concede however, that there is only so far we can go with this and still remain Christian. I am a Christian and do not feel that a Buddhist or a Muslim, no matter how many wonderful hours we spend in ecumenical dialog, can just walk in off the street and partake in the Eucharist. There is a long process of commitment that needs to take place before this, let alone a baptism. So you and I are on the same page to an extent. I am just not concerned over whether or not they are going to the of heaven of Jesus, or some vague notion thereof. I have Buddhists in my family and I have felt too powerfully their sacred and have spent too much time in the Muslim world to think they need to embrace Jesus to go to heaven or think this is the right way to approach our shared lives, our shared religious lives, on this planet.
This is an article on the messiah named Simon that has been recently found. It is previously unknown and is not referred to in Josephus. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
what this all means is another story. But i have given my take on it. but I would not suggest that i am the last word here, by any means.
as for the existence of Q. There are major chunks of text in the three synoptic gospels that are so similar it would suggest that the three writers were either showing each other what they wrote and making a conscious effort to be uniform almost to the very word. But the three texts represent different communities and so this seems unlikely. Or, there were circulating oral traditions and sayings of Jesus that predated the three gospels. Mark may have been part of what circulated too. The gospel of Thomas, which is often unfairly called "Gnostic," as if that is the end of the story, is dated very early by some scholars. Thomas should be called Coptic Christian rather than Gnostic in my view so that it is not so easily dismissed. It circulated in a sayings format that bears remarkable resemblance to the core texts that are found in the synoptics. What we think of the theology of Thomas aside, to me it is a bit mystical and fringe too, to me it looks there was a set of oral tradtions, memory and a set of sayings that predated the synoptics. I call this Q until I am swayed in another direction. Feel free to show me where I am wrong.
thanks for this conversation, M XYZ
1. An awareness of and attempt to reach those in the changing postmodern culture.
2. An attempt to use technology, i.e., video, slide shows, internet.
3. A broader approach to worship using candles, icons, images, sounds, smells, etc.
4. An inclusive approach to various, sometimes contradictory belief systems.
5. An emphasis on experience and feelings over absolutes.
6. Concentration on relationship building over proclamation of the gospel.
7. Shunning stale traditionalism in worship, church seating, music, etc.
8. A de-emphasis on absolutes and doctrinal creeds
9. A re-evaluation of the place of the Christian church in society.
10. A re-examination of the Bible and its teachings.
11. A re-evaluation of traditionally held doctrines.
12. A re-evaluation of the place of Christianity in the world.
I'm sure there are many more. Do you like some of the things on the list?
Jane Doe said:
This non-distinction is tough to relate to you when you have grown up in a Christian community that loves to dichotomize and separate sacred from secular. I think for the EC, it isn't so much that "they" are non-Christians "out there" and "we" are Christians "in here," but rather we are all in the world together. Furthermore, as I interact with people whom I perhaps may have written off as not-yet-believers, I may find that they are much closer to God than I had thought, perhaps even closer than I am! So as radical as it sounds, many in the EC are not looking to create converts, not trying to get non-Christians to become Christians, but like you said, growing in the knowledge of Jesus Christ as savior. These can be two different things - although it sounds weird at first. A person can grow in the
____________________
John Doe responded:
WHAT? "A person can grow in the
I may sound critical, but how do you interpret Jesus' words - I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) One MUST become a follower of Christ (read - Christian) in order to become a part of the Kingdom.
One point of agreement though - I do think that some may "grow into" Christianity as they are on the journey. They may be a lot deeper than we OR they know. Because we are all made in the image of God, we can see Christ in others. Regardless, we must be clear that the only way is through Christ.
Malcom XYZ says: "but how do you interpret Jesus' words - I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)"
As a way of interpreting this, we might want to ask what it means to come through the father through Jesus? does it mean we have to beat people into submission and say that until they accept our version of reality and yell to the hilltops that they are indeed a Christian? Does it mean they have to consume the symbols of Christ in the Eurcharist? or might it mean that we take seriously Jesus statement that he came so that we could have life and have it more abundantly? There is a way of living implied in Jesus' words and sayings and in what he did. There is an openness there that is far beyond the dogma that we must make card-carrying Christians out of everyone we encounter. If I find someone who has that openness, whether they be Buddhist, Muslim or agnostic, they are coming to the father through Jesus whether they know it or not.
John's gospel was written in the last years of the first century, almost 60 years after Jesus had left us. This was a time when the theology of the early church had changed and become more Christocentric. Jesus might not have even said this and just because John says he did does not mean that he did. Once again, human values and good common sense need to win out over narrow dogmatic (and I am tempted to say Evangelical) interpretations.
____________________________
John Doe says: Wow. I thought I'd met some people who took things out of context, but I guess my circle is pretty small. I'm trying to reply respectfully, but wow... I'm amazed at some of your audacious statements.
""Jesus might not have said this and just because John says he did does not mean that he did." That's a bold statement. Do you think Jesus said anything? How do you choose to pick what you believe He said?"
Do you seriously apply that same philosophy to other historical literature (Plato for example) or is it only to Christianity and the Bible? There are two reputable stances to the dating of the Gospel. One places it pre-fall of
As far as your "openness" theology, the teachings of Buddha,
your philosophy of living out Christ's command to love and live out faith is EXCELLENT. But please don't throw out or water down the things in the Bible that may be more difficult than "being nice." That is not an honest approach to history, scholarship and faith.
With respect, I have yet to beat anyone into submission or force anyone to do anything they do not believe. I know I don't have everything perfect. But I am willing to learn, read, study, listen, etc.
__________________________________
Hi John Doe,
Let me quote you as I respond to your post.
You wrote:
""Jesus might not have said this and just because John says he did does not mean that he did." That's a bold statement. Do you think Jesus said anything? How do you choose to pick what you believe He said?"
We have to ask if it squares with Q or if it is in Q. The highly Christological Gospel of John, which I happen to like but because of John himself rather than the idea that he interviewed Jesus with a mic and a notepad, mostly does not square with Q. Most scholars date it around the turn of the first century. That makes it post fall of
You wrote:
"As far as your "openness" theology, the teachings of Buddha,
I am not sure which dogmatic conclusions you are referring to, but if you mean the notion that there is value in these other traditions and that they deserve our respect, but not blind acceptance, then I suppose it was my darned liberal and pluralistic education that helped me reach that one.
You wrote:
"please don't throw out or water down the things in the Bible that may be more difficult than "being nice." That is not an honest approach to history, scholarship and faith."
I believe that Jesus taught us ultimately to be nice, and that anything less is not worthy of his legacy. There are only two laws after all, one is to love God with all our heart, and the other is to love our neighbor as our selves. Jesus did not know of the other traditions. God has many names now. The Christocentric overlay that developed after the fall of
If you can think of ways that I could be more intellectually and religiously honest, then please let me know what that is. This is serious stuff we are discussing here. And you and I both take it very seriously. Forgive me if I seem gruff. But I have spent 30 years overcoming my Evangelical upbringing and I am not about to give an inch. There is an open and non-dogmatic Christianity our there and worth fighting for. It is also a real Christianity. Not the fake you want to make it out to be.
_______________________________
Hi Malcom XYZ,
Thanks for your reply. This does not appear to be the appropriate place for this type of discussion, but I'm glad you take the time to read and truly think. Tragically, I don't think there is enough of that in our world and many problems would be resolved if people would consider these things with thoughtfulness and grace.
I can't compare anything to "Q" because it has not been found. While I have read information relating to the reasons people think it exists, it has not been found nor do I think it will be because I don't think it exists.
The dating for John has two very excellent groups of scholars who disagree. From my study of Greek (no Aramaic - sorry!), I understand the word in John 5:2 that refers to the pool that "is" there rather than the pool that "was" there. While John's tense may have been off, this seems a more accurate source than Clement (whom many scholars cite).
I too went through a number of years of searching to (successfully) free myself from the teachings of my childhood. Therefore, I researched the teachings and writings of others. Perhaps not as extensively as you, but I have read other perspectives with respect and a willingness to learn. In my travels to Central America and
NOW back to the group - The reason I joined this group was to learn and discuss the emerging perspective on the church and faith. I'm a little shocked you would state that I am propagating a "fake" Christianity.
Again, I'm glad you have taken the time to study, but - to be 100% honest - it appears that you have reached personal conclusions and your heels are dug in.
Therefore, while I love discussing theology, religion and faith, I will respectfully bow out of this one. While I would love to continue, it appears (with complete respect) that you will simply throw out anything I state from Scripture or any source that is not on your "approved" list. The Bible is the foundation of my faith and practice.
May God bless you in your walk.
Pax,
___________________________________
Hi again John Doe,
I too think we are not going to get very much further in this discussion and think we should discontinue it. But let me say that I am glad there are sincere and good-hearted Christians out there who take their faith seriously. I have encountered many many Christians in my years who simply cannot come to terms with the idea that we can be open to other faiths and still be Christian. In my view, and in the view of much of the emergent movement, it is much more important to be talking about the kind of raised consciousness, sensitivity to injustice and God centered-ness that Jesus talked about rather than spending all our time focusing on him as a person. The notion that he was the suffering servant and redeemer of humanity is taken from ideas also found in Isaiah, written hundreds of years before Jesus and interpolated into the tradition by those who experienced God and their ability to be in the world in a new way with the help of Jesus. Scholars in
you also said "I'm a little shocked you would state that I am propagating a "fake" Christianity." But if you look back at what I wrote you will see that I said that you were saying these things of my version of Jesus' message. I would not say this of your version of things. There is a sizable portion of the American electorate who does think the way you do. They are called the religious right. Unfortunately they support war, claim to be pro-life but actually support capital punishment, and are actually responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths (some pro-life stance there folks. Kudos!). They have also completely forgotten about Jesus' teachings on the poor and on wealth. They have also completely forgotten "blessed are the peacemakers" and "those who live by the sword will die by the sword."I am not totally sure you identify with the religious right. But you appear to. If I am wrong about that I am sorry. But that I feel so strongly that this version of Christianity is a betrayal of Jesus' message is the reason I am so adamant about this. This is a forum for emergent Christianity, no the religious right. Surely you see that my point of view is in line with that paradigm and not that of the religious right, the one you appear to be espousing, but correct me if I am wrong on that..
And as for the existence of Q, I defer to the greatest minds in twentieth century European and American scholarship on that. For these minds it exists, and for the hundreds of thousands of students who have studied under them in the colleges and universities outside of conservative seminaries and colleges, it exists as well. God did not call us to leave our intellects at the door of our houses of worship.
Hello again,
First of all, I started a new discussion thread. I'd like to take a step back and cover the "emerging" versus "emergent" definitions. I think they are two different things.
As I see them defined:
Emerging refers to those who would consider themselves to be (to at least a degree of the traditional definition) evangelical Christians. Perhaps "Biblical" Christians would be a better term? They hold to the "essentials" of the Christian faith, but believe there is a stream (you would probably call them the "religious right") that has taken Christianity away from what was intended. I'm in this camp of those who want to live out a Christian faith based on God's Word - not on politics.
Emergent refers to those who would consider themselves to be "open" to various streams of faith and what they have to offer the global religious perspective. While I don't hold any antagonism against emergent individuals, I don't think they should be defined the same way. Forgive me if I am incorrect, but I believe you are in this camp.
There is a big difference between the two.
I wouldn't call either "fake." They are two completely different things though in my opinion.
And, last but not least (because I can't seem to stop myself),
- If you are mentioning Simon bar Giora mentioned in Josephus, that is a totally different situation from the historical texts. They were literally digging under the wall to escape. If you are referring to someone else, please let me know.
- Q will continue to be debated by many, many "great minds." While I am obviously not one of those great minds, I respect the opinions of both sides. As one who does try to think sometimes, I would put myself in the camp of those who don't put credence in a document that became "factual" by a process of reverse development. Aristotle's law of contradiction is an interesting contemplation here. Q either exists or it doesn't.
Anyway - Please consider responding to the other discussion thread.
Pax, John Doe
_____________________________
Hi John Doe,
I must confess that a lot of what I know about the EC comes from my reading on the internet. I have ordered MacLaren's first book and books by Stanley Haurwaus, Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. Since the internet and new media is such a big part of EC, I think having learned of it there and in blogs and continuing to learn of it in these places is not such a bad thing. It may be the best way in fact. It seems to be the case that the terms "emergent" and "emerging" are interchangeable. What I would like to hear a good explanation of is how the use of these terms relates to the phrase "emergent properties" which we often hear bandied about in Systems Theory and Neuroscience. Is this a useful designation, however cool and interesting it may sound? I believe it is, but I am still coming to terms with it. I do think new forms of christian community and evangelizaton are appearing because of the internet, the cutting edge of technology and the way the globe is being brought together by it, represent something very new and exciting. Keep in mind that I am in Saudi Arabia, one of the strictest Muslim countries on earth, as we debate some of the important things happening in the church. That is not a pat on my back but an indication of how the world is changing.
Getting a bit into a response to the content of your last post, and into the question of where the political dimension lies in the EC "conversation", I just clipped this out of the wikipedia entry on EC. I highly encourage folks to do searches in wiki on emerging church, emergent church, emerging christianity and emergent community. Lots of rich stuff here. but basically there is a core, and which is captured in this:
"The emerging church (sometimes referred to as the emergent church movement) is a Christian movement whose participants seek to live their faith in modern society by emulating Jesus Christ irrespective of Christian religious traditions. Proponents of this movement call it a "conversation" to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature as well as its emphasis on interfaith dialogue rather than one-way evangelism. Members of emerging communities may be disillusioned with the organized and institutional church and often support the deconstruction of modern Christian dogma. The movement often favors the use of simple story and narrative, occasionally incorporating mysticism. Members of the emerging movement place high value on good works or social activism, sometimes including missional living or new monasticism; while Evangelicals may emphasize eternal salvation, many in the emerging movement emphasize the here and now and the need to create a kingdom of heaven on Earth."
I do not want to demonize those who feel comfortable with the label evangelical. This is because I feel EC is basically a "conversation" between the left and right sides of the church. Without both talking to one another, we've got nothing. But the EC movement's energy clearly seems to be coming from those on the side opposite the evangelicals and who embrace post modernism and the hodgepodge of ideas connected to it (and entire thread needs to be devoted to that, what we think it is and how it should be seen and treated).
You will note that the view towards other traditions I was espousing is represented in the quote above. I will concede however, that there is only so far we can go with this and still remain Christian. I am a Christian and do not feel that a Buddhist or a Muslim, no matter how many wonderful hours we spend in ecumenical dialog, can just walk in off the street and partake in the Eucharist. There is a long process of commitment that needs to take place before this, let alone a baptism. So you and I are on the same page to an extent. I am just not concerned over whether or not they are going to the of heaven of Jesus, or some vague notion thereof. I have Buddhists in my family and I have felt too powerfully their sacred and have spent too much time in the Muslim world to think they need to embrace Jesus to go to heaven or think this is the right way to approach our shared lives, our shared religious lives, on this planet.
This is an article on the messiah named Simon that has been recently found. It is previously unknown and is not referred to in Josephus. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
what this all means is another story. But i have given my take on it. but I would not suggest that i am the last word here, by any means.
as for the existence of Q. There are major chunks of text in the three synoptic gospels that are so similar it would suggest that the three writers were either showing each other what they wrote and making a conscious effort to be uniform almost to the very word. But the three texts represent different communities and so this seems unlikely. Or, there were circulating oral traditions and sayings of Jesus that predated the three gospels. Mark may have been part of what circulated too. The gospel of Thomas, which is often unfairly called "Gnostic," as if that is the end of the story, is dated very early by some scholars. Thomas should be called Coptic Christian rather than Gnostic in my view so that it is not so easily dismissed. It circulated in a sayings format that bears remarkable resemblance to the core texts that are found in the synoptics. What we think of the theology of Thomas aside, to me it is a bit mystical and fringe too, to me it looks there was a set of oral tradtions, memory and a set of sayings that predated the synoptics. I call this Q until I am swayed in another direction. Feel free to show me where I am wrong.
thanks for this conversation, M XYZ
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Solitude in Saudi
A couple of months ago as I was reading one of Thomas Merton's final journals before his tragic death, I came across a sentence about his life being about, among other things, the practice of solitude. That was not the first time it had dawned on me the profound interconnection between the life I am leading in Saudi Arabia and that most ex-pats lead here and that of the monastic. In some ways the Islamic world has taken the experience of the monastery and imposed onto enitre countries. For an ex-pat, it can literally drive you mad. But we can also learn to cultivate it too. Here are some remarks about solitude and how to cultivate it that I pulled off of beliefnet that I felt might be of use to me and others.
1. Learn to Befriend Solitude
Solitude has a bad reputation. We tend to think of it as a lonely state. Nothing can be further from the truth. We need the rich soil of solitude to grow into ourselves. Spend a few minutes each day in solitude. Turn off your cell phone and TV and just let yourself be in stillness. Gradually, as you befriend solitude, rather than flee from it, you will begin to hear the voice of your own authentic self.
2. Stay Patient
To be in solitude takes patience. Patience allows us to stay in the present so that we can reflect and change. Most of us are feverishly impatient. We want change and we want it now. Being in solitude takes patience so that we have time to rest, reflect, and restore ourselves. That's when we start to listen to ourselves so that true change can happen.
3. Start Where You Are
In solitude, you start where you are, with whatever feelings you have, not where you want to be. Expect that at first all sorts of raw emotions will come up, like fear, anger, frustration, shame or guilt. They belong to the old voices that tell us how we should be and what we ought to do. Question every should and ought that crosses your path. Know that you are on the right path--your path--when you feel your own voice kicking inside you like a babe in the womb.
4. Begin Your Sorting Process
In fairy tales, the princess is often given the task of sorting before she can begin to weave her new life. Solitude gives us the same opportunity. We sort and separate out the old voices from our own personal voice, the old story from the new story, which is about us, what we desire, and how to get it.
5. Take Time for Self-Blessing
A blessing is an act of reverence that bestows protection, holiness, and love on the benefactor. But the deepest blessing is the one you bestow on yourself. As we enter solitude, we let ourselves breathe deeply and quietly. Then we need to bless ourselves and our journey so that we might gain, or renew, a sense of our own loveliness.
6. Close the "Knowing vs. Living" Gap
We all know many things we want to nurture ourselves. Yet we often don't give those things to ourselves because the 'gap' feels too wide. Know that it is not. In solitude, chose one thing you want to nurture your growth and give it to yourself as your gift.
7. Remember the Small Moments
Wonder and joy are almost always found in the small moments that make up our lives: listening to the sound of a seashell, walking through the woods, knitting a new scarf, baking bread, listening to a bird sing. Solitude teaches us to pay attention to these small moments and realize that they are the jewels of our life.
8. Reconnect to the Sacred
As you take time to be in solitude, you will learn that it is food for the deprived self. We enter solitude for many reasons: to rest, to nurse our grief, to ease the strain of giving others more than we give ourselves, to hear the sound of our own voice, to nurture our creative energies, and for many of us, to honor our search for a spiritual life.
9. Step Into Your Own Life
Stepping out is an act, a self-assertion, a movement beyond whatever steps you have taken before. It means something different to each of us. Solitude, however, is a dynamic state that will in time lead you to where you want to be. Suddenly, without knowing exactly how or why, you will find yourself ready to be, or act, in ways you never could before.
10. Be There for Others
Solitude teaches us that we are both alone and all one. As we grow stronger in ourselves, we find that we have more to give to others-our partners, children, friends, but also the larger community of which we are a part. Spend some time to be with those who have been deprived of love and mentoring and desperately need it.
1. Learn to Befriend Solitude
Solitude has a bad reputation. We tend to think of it as a lonely state. Nothing can be further from the truth. We need the rich soil of solitude to grow into ourselves. Spend a few minutes each day in solitude. Turn off your cell phone and TV and just let yourself be in stillness. Gradually, as you befriend solitude, rather than flee from it, you will begin to hear the voice of your own authentic self.
2. Stay Patient
To be in solitude takes patience. Patience allows us to stay in the present so that we can reflect and change. Most of us are feverishly impatient. We want change and we want it now. Being in solitude takes patience so that we have time to rest, reflect, and restore ourselves. That's when we start to listen to ourselves so that true change can happen.
3. Start Where You Are
In solitude, you start where you are, with whatever feelings you have, not where you want to be. Expect that at first all sorts of raw emotions will come up, like fear, anger, frustration, shame or guilt. They belong to the old voices that tell us how we should be and what we ought to do. Question every should and ought that crosses your path. Know that you are on the right path--your path--when you feel your own voice kicking inside you like a babe in the womb.
4. Begin Your Sorting Process
In fairy tales, the princess is often given the task of sorting before she can begin to weave her new life. Solitude gives us the same opportunity. We sort and separate out the old voices from our own personal voice, the old story from the new story, which is about us, what we desire, and how to get it.
5. Take Time for Self-Blessing
A blessing is an act of reverence that bestows protection, holiness, and love on the benefactor. But the deepest blessing is the one you bestow on yourself. As we enter solitude, we let ourselves breathe deeply and quietly. Then we need to bless ourselves and our journey so that we might gain, or renew, a sense of our own loveliness.
6. Close the "Knowing vs. Living" Gap
We all know many things we want to nurture ourselves. Yet we often don't give those things to ourselves because the 'gap' feels too wide. Know that it is not. In solitude, chose one thing you want to nurture your growth and give it to yourself as your gift.
7. Remember the Small Moments
Wonder and joy are almost always found in the small moments that make up our lives: listening to the sound of a seashell, walking through the woods, knitting a new scarf, baking bread, listening to a bird sing. Solitude teaches us to pay attention to these small moments and realize that they are the jewels of our life.
8. Reconnect to the Sacred
As you take time to be in solitude, you will learn that it is food for the deprived self. We enter solitude for many reasons: to rest, to nurse our grief, to ease the strain of giving others more than we give ourselves, to hear the sound of our own voice, to nurture our creative energies, and for many of us, to honor our search for a spiritual life.
9. Step Into Your Own Life
Stepping out is an act, a self-assertion, a movement beyond whatever steps you have taken before. It means something different to each of us. Solitude, however, is a dynamic state that will in time lead you to where you want to be. Suddenly, without knowing exactly how or why, you will find yourself ready to be, or act, in ways you never could before.
10. Be There for Others
Solitude teaches us that we are both alone and all one. As we grow stronger in ourselves, we find that we have more to give to others-our partners, children, friends, but also the larger community of which we are a part. Spend some time to be with those who have been deprived of love and mentoring and desperately need it.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Emergent Church
On Shelfari there is an Emergent Church discussion group. The person who started the group asked participants, of which I am one, to introduce themselves and say what they liked about the EC movement, which books linked to the movement that they liked, and what any possible dangers they saw connected with the movement. I spent a heck of a lot of time on my response, and so I repost it here.
I live in Saudi Arabia as an English teacher at a college. I consider myself deeply Christian but felt the need to come experience the Muslim world first hand. So I went "straight into the beast" as one friend said. I am a very committed Episcopalian, but now do the daily office (the prayer and sacred reading cycle) in conjunction with the Muslim prayer times. I regularly enter dialog with Muslim clerics and am planning on pod casting some of my recordings. I believe there is something "emergent" about what I am doing, but who really cares about a label that will probably have disappeared in a few decades?
I was very much influenced by the Catholic Worker movement and the call for Social Justice and what is known as personalism in that movement, all of which strikes me as very much in line with the EC movement. I have also read Shane Claibourne's books. I also have been reading Ebo Patel's Acts of Faith, which is spectacular, as is what he is doing. I wish I could get my hands on books by McLaren, Stanley Haurwaus or Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. But it's not easy in Saudi Arabia to find Christian books.
What really gets me excited about what I see in connection with EC movement, and keep in mind that I am a bit out of the loop because of where I live, is two things. One is a movement away from what we see with Evangelicals that the only historical Christianity worthy of our attention is what happened in the first century (or our image of what happened there) and the century in which Luther and Calvin lived. The deeply spiritual medieval period, not just in the Roman Catholic sense but also the Greek, Syrian and Coptic Orthodox churches, which are still alive and thriving today, have something, a lot actually, to teach us folks. Second, and following from the first, is an embrace, because of post modern relativistic (and that can be a good word) epistemology. A Christianity that cannot admit we have very very valuable things in common with Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims is simply not a Christianity that I want any part of. I think I see some thawing of the ice here. This might not be because of the EC movement, but I think the EC movement is feeding off of these currents and is offering a way to find new avenues for more and better interfaith dialog
Dangers stemming from the EC idea? As has said before, we cannot gain the world only to lose our own souls. Interfaith dialog and an embrace of relativistic epistemologies require a spiritual maturity and self awareness that can be very dangerous without knowing who we are first before we attempt to embrace the world. I could make some suggestions, but that might take about nine more paragraphs.
But let me just say that to anyone who has spent time in academia, and especially in the Humanities and social sciences, you will know that the ways of talking and thinking that have come out of Postmodernism and Cultural History have become so prevalent that you can hardly escape them, or in my case and many others', even think without them. In the late 19th century when Hegel was all the rage, every Christian theologian worth his salt had to come up with a version of reality that dealt with Hegel. Hegel, and a few other thinkers, were so prevalent that Christians could hardly think without them anymore. But those days have passed, for the most part. I imagine the same thing will happen with EC. That is not to say this isn't an important part, a crucial part, of the evolution of our faith.
Pax/salam
I live in Saudi Arabia as an English teacher at a college. I consider myself deeply Christian but felt the need to come experience the Muslim world first hand. So I went "straight into the beast" as one friend said. I am a very committed Episcopalian, but now do the daily office (the prayer and sacred reading cycle) in conjunction with the Muslim prayer times. I regularly enter dialog with Muslim clerics and am planning on pod casting some of my recordings. I believe there is something "emergent" about what I am doing, but who really cares about a label that will probably have disappeared in a few decades?
I was very much influenced by the Catholic Worker movement and the call for Social Justice and what is known as personalism in that movement, all of which strikes me as very much in line with the EC movement. I have also read Shane Claibourne's books. I also have been reading Ebo Patel's Acts of Faith, which is spectacular, as is what he is doing. I wish I could get my hands on books by McLaren, Stanley Haurwaus or Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. But it's not easy in Saudi Arabia to find Christian books.
What really gets me excited about what I see in connection with EC movement, and keep in mind that I am a bit out of the loop because of where I live, is two things. One is a movement away from what we see with Evangelicals that the only historical Christianity worthy of our attention is what happened in the first century (or our image of what happened there) and the century in which Luther and Calvin lived. The deeply spiritual medieval period, not just in the Roman Catholic sense but also the Greek, Syrian and Coptic Orthodox churches, which are still alive and thriving today, have something, a lot actually, to teach us folks. Second, and following from the first, is an embrace, because of post modern relativistic (and that can be a good word) epistemology. A Christianity that cannot admit we have very very valuable things in common with Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims is simply not a Christianity that I want any part of. I think I see some thawing of the ice here. This might not be because of the EC movement, but I think the EC movement is feeding off of these currents and is offering a way to find new avenues for more and better interfaith dialog
Dangers stemming from the EC idea? As has said before, we cannot gain the world only to lose our own souls. Interfaith dialog and an embrace of relativistic epistemologies require a spiritual maturity and self awareness that can be very dangerous without knowing who we are first before we attempt to embrace the world. I could make some suggestions, but that might take about nine more paragraphs.
But let me just say that to anyone who has spent time in academia, and especially in the Humanities and social sciences, you will know that the ways of talking and thinking that have come out of Postmodernism and Cultural History have become so prevalent that you can hardly escape them, or in my case and many others', even think without them. In the late 19th century when Hegel was all the rage, every Christian theologian worth his salt had to come up with a version of reality that dealt with Hegel. Hegel, and a few other thinkers, were so prevalent that Christians could hardly think without them anymore. But those days have passed, for the most part. I imagine the same thing will happen with EC. That is not to say this isn't an important part, a crucial part, of the evolution of our faith.
Pax/salam
Friday, May 9, 2008
Karen Armstrong on Muslim and Christian Dialogue
Folks taking a look at what I am interested in here on my blog will note that Christianity's and Christians' relations with two other major traditions: Islam and Buddhism, is important to me. I heard this a few moments ago in an interview Speaking of Faith conducted with Karen Armstrong. I thought it said rather profound things about what we are up against in trying to understand where fundamentalisms come from. Since we may all harbor some of its dross in our bosom and since meaningful inter-religious dialogue cannot begin until we address this head on, it's best to go straight at it, which I believe this anecdote offers us the possibility of doing.
Ms. Tippett: I wonder if you would tell a story that you told when you and I were on a panel together several months ago. It was a simple story, but I haven't been able to stop thinking about it. You described being on another — part of another discussion and a fundamentalist Christian, I believe, beginning to rant and rave. Do you remember this?
Ms. Armstrong: Yes. I was at Oregon State University and it was a conference called "God 2000" and it was a wonderful conference. We had lectures from Jews, a rabbi, a Muslim scholar, and we were all asked to say what we had learned about God, and it was wonderful. People were asking profound questions about the nature of prayer, spirituality, listening to very, very religious ideas. Very pluralistic ideas were coming out that nobody thought that their tradition alone had the right answer, the monopoly of truth.
And then when we were on the final panel, suddenly erupted in the hall a fundamentalist who started to shriek at us incoherently. What I could make out was that he was saying that Jews and Muslims denied Jesus and therefore they were going to hell, and all of those of us who sided with Jews and Muslims were also going to hell, and this was evil. And you couldn't hear much because he was so incoherent with rage and despair. What I could hear, however, was the note of pain in his voice. This was not just some loony. This was somebody who was suffering and in pain, and felt profoundly threatened by what we were saying.
And the point is that we, seven of us on this panel — we're all articulate people, we'd all been talking nonstop to each other and to the audience for the last two days. We were utterly struck dumb. None of us could say a word. We felt utterly winded by this assault. Even me, and I should have known better because I'd just finished my book on fundamentalism. I couldn't think of anything to say. Eventually this man was hustled out, and the moderator said, "Well, I wish we could have talked to him, because he is part of the conference of God, 'Where Is God at 2000?' He's part of this conversation." But somehow we couldn't talk with one another. He was incoherent, we were struck dumb and useless, and this is the problem that we're facing.
Ms. Tippett: It's also — it says something about the limits of words and dialog.
Ms. Armstrong: Yes, it does, and I think what we've got to do is listen to the pain of the other. You could hear the note of pain, and you can hear the distress in it. When we look, say, at fundamentalist doctrine, we've got to see what pain and fear lies at the root of this because, as we've learned to our cost, they're trying to express — often very badly and in noxious ways — anxieties and fears that no society, no government, can safely ignore. And so our future, I think, depends on learning to listen. Now, it's maybe too late because I don't hear a great deal of pain and fear in Osama bin Laden. I think that this has moved on now and has stopped being fear and distress in some parts of the world, only in a tiny minority, but we can see — we saw on September the 11th that it only takes a very few people to commit immense havoc these days.
Ms. Tippett: And you're really back at that virtue of compassion again.
Ms. Armstrong: Yes. It means "to feel with." "To feel with." Not to feel sorry for, but to say, "If I were in his position, maybe I would feel the same."
Ms. Tippett: I wonder if you would tell a story that you told when you and I were on a panel together several months ago. It was a simple story, but I haven't been able to stop thinking about it. You described being on another — part of another discussion and a fundamentalist Christian, I believe, beginning to rant and rave. Do you remember this?
Ms. Armstrong: Yes. I was at Oregon State University and it was a conference called "God 2000" and it was a wonderful conference. We had lectures from Jews, a rabbi, a Muslim scholar, and we were all asked to say what we had learned about God, and it was wonderful. People were asking profound questions about the nature of prayer, spirituality, listening to very, very religious ideas. Very pluralistic ideas were coming out that nobody thought that their tradition alone had the right answer, the monopoly of truth.
And then when we were on the final panel, suddenly erupted in the hall a fundamentalist who started to shriek at us incoherently. What I could make out was that he was saying that Jews and Muslims denied Jesus and therefore they were going to hell, and all of those of us who sided with Jews and Muslims were also going to hell, and this was evil. And you couldn't hear much because he was so incoherent with rage and despair. What I could hear, however, was the note of pain in his voice. This was not just some loony. This was somebody who was suffering and in pain, and felt profoundly threatened by what we were saying.
And the point is that we, seven of us on this panel — we're all articulate people, we'd all been talking nonstop to each other and to the audience for the last two days. We were utterly struck dumb. None of us could say a word. We felt utterly winded by this assault. Even me, and I should have known better because I'd just finished my book on fundamentalism. I couldn't think of anything to say. Eventually this man was hustled out, and the moderator said, "Well, I wish we could have talked to him, because he is part of the conference of God, 'Where Is God at 2000?' He's part of this conversation." But somehow we couldn't talk with one another. He was incoherent, we were struck dumb and useless, and this is the problem that we're facing.
Ms. Tippett: It's also — it says something about the limits of words and dialog.
Ms. Armstrong: Yes, it does, and I think what we've got to do is listen to the pain of the other. You could hear the note of pain, and you can hear the distress in it. When we look, say, at fundamentalist doctrine, we've got to see what pain and fear lies at the root of this because, as we've learned to our cost, they're trying to express — often very badly and in noxious ways — anxieties and fears that no society, no government, can safely ignore. And so our future, I think, depends on learning to listen. Now, it's maybe too late because I don't hear a great deal of pain and fear in Osama bin Laden. I think that this has moved on now and has stopped being fear and distress in some parts of the world, only in a tiny minority, but we can see — we saw on September the 11th that it only takes a very few people to commit immense havoc these days.
Ms. Tippett: And you're really back at that virtue of compassion again.
Ms. Armstrong: Yes. It means "to feel with." "To feel with." Not to feel sorry for, but to say, "If I were in his position, maybe I would feel the same."
Friday, May 2, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Daily Buddhist Wisdom
"People must realize that even with all these comforts, all this money and a GNP that increases every year, they are still not happy. They need to understand that the real culprits are our unceasing desires. Our wants have no end."
-His Holiness the Dalai Lama, "Imagine All the People"
-His Holiness the Dalai Lama, "Imagine All the People"
Monday, April 28, 2008
Christian-Dharma
Um, check this out people.
γρηγορειτε και προσεθχεσθε, ινα μη ελθητε εις πειρασμον, το μεν πνευμα προθυμον η δε σαρξ ασθενης.
γρηγορειτε και προσεθχεσθε, ινα μη ελθητε εις πειρασμον, το μεν πνευμα προθυμον η δε σαρξ ασθενης.
This is Mark 14:38. It says "watch and pray, so that you do not fall into trouble: on the one hand the spirit is ready, but the flesh weak." Some of us out here are concerned with the possibility of bringing Buddhism and Christianity together. And so just a quick note here on one little verse that jumped out at me as I was doing my Greek homework. Keeping watch, as it says here, is practiced in most of the Buddhist sects I know. Zen made much, and continues to make much if it is authentic Zen, of simply sitting and observing and learning how create distance between what is happening to you and with you. This distance, as neurologists and brain researchers are now figuring out, takes place in your frontal lobe where the brain does its long range planning and finds control for all of its operations. Questions about possible conflicts over what it means to pray and what it means to meditate are nullified here. Watch AND pray! Just do it and forget about whether its Christian of Buddhist. Your brain needs it. You need it.
"the flesh is weak but the spirit willing" to me sounds like one of the four noble truths. Suffering exists, it is all pervasive in fact. But it can be overcome. That little running-back back there behind the line of scrimmage just needs one good block and he's gone. That was an idiot analogy. Yes. But a potentially life transforming opetation, provided we watch and pray long enough and jump into it with both feet.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Jubail "Church"
You'd be forgiven if you thought my blog had been lame of late. Reason? I got nuttin'. Well, I love the Buddhist quotes Beliefnet sends me, and at times they have to go up here simply so I can ponder them more and pass them on like the need to be passed on. But, yes, I have been sucky lackluster recently.
So here is where is where it picks up, sort of. There is this supposed church near Jubail Saudi Arabia. Story goes that some guy ran across it in the 1980s when his car got stuck in the sand next to it. Story is that he got put in jail for this: nothing worse than a Saudi exposing Saudi's non-muslim past. But I am not willing to believe this happed either. So the chruch supposedly dates from the period before Islam. How do we know this? Because story is that there were crosses around the structure, whch soon disappeared when the government got wind of what had happend.
Well, thing is, I have not seen the crosses. I have not seen any coins or pottery shards that date the place. I went the other day and took a look for myself. The structure overall is pretty unimpressive. There are these kind of Hellensitic/Roman looking decorations on either side of one of the tiny rooms. But does this mean this is a Nestorian structure? Dunno! Maybe it was built by portugues traders in the 16th or 16th century, or by non-Muslim Arabs, or even by Muslim Arabs a few hundred years ago.
It is too bad that the Saudi government is not interested in history and deny that was any history here before Islam. The fact that they do not seem to want to acknowledge this place exists tempts the mind in the direction that the place may have some non-Muslim connections. But the fact that it has not been demolished tempts in the either direction as well. So for now, we do not know who built this and if we can really call it a church. I am not taking the risk of getting shot by the Bedouins who live next door to find out either.
Saudi Blogger freed from Jail
(CNN) -- A Saudi Arabian blogger detained in December, ostensibly because he supported reform advocates accused by the Saudi government of backing terrorism, has been released, a fellow blogger posted Saturday.
Web sites like this one pushed for Fouad al-Farhan's release.
Ahmed al-Omran said on his blog, saudijeans.org, and later told CNN that he was awakened by a text message from the wife of Fouad al-Farhan, saying he had been released and was at home with his family.
"That's great news, and this is just how I wanted to start my morning," al-Omran wrote.
He said he later spoke with al-Farhan for several minutes on the telephone.
"He sounded fine; he seems to be in good spirits," al-Omran said. "He said he would have more to talk about later but not at this point. He said now he'd like to take some time to spend with his family, with his children that he hasn't seen for so long." Watch al-Omran describe his conversation with al-Farhan »
A Web site set up to call for al-Farhan's release said, "Fouad is free. He is back home in Jeddah after 137 days in custody."
The Saudi Interior Ministry said it had no immediate comment on the reports.
In January, a ministry spokesman said al-Farhan was arrested December 10 "because he violated the regulations of the kingdom."
But in an e-mail posted on al-Farhan's Web site after his arrest, he told friends that he faced arrest for supporting 10 reform advocates the Saudi government accused of backing terrorism. In the e-mail, al-Farhan said a senior Interior Ministry official promised that he would remain in custody for three days at most if he agreed to sign a letter of apology.
"I'm not sure if I'm ready to do that," he wrote. "An apology for what? Apologizing because I said the government is [a] liar when they accused those guys of supporting terrorism?"
Al-Farhan, who blogs at alfarhan.org, is one of the few Saudi Web commentators to use his own name, according to the U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists.
In January, the Bush administration expressed its concerns to the Saudi government regarding al-Farhan's detention at "a relatively senior level," U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
"The U.S. stands for freedom of expression," McCormack said at the time. "Wherever people are seeking to express themselves, via the Internet or via other areas, whether in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere in the world, we stand with that freedom of expression, and that was our message to the Saudi government."
The American Islamic Congress, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization, launched an online letter-writing campaign aimed at freeing al-Farhan, whom it called "the godfather of Saudi blogging."
"All he did was express his opinions in a very obvious way, and he didn't threaten anyone," al-Omran said. "He was advocating against violence and terrorism."
Al-Omran said al-Farhan had stopped blogging for a few months in late 2006, after the Interior Ministry ordered him to take down a blog he was operating, but he began again at a new site.
He said al-Farhan told him he was treated well in jail. He also called al-Farhan's release a turning point for the blogging community in Saudi Arabia.
"It showed the community of bloggers in Saudi Arabia can come together and support this cause -- support his freedom of speech -- even those who didn't agree with some of the things he wrote," he said
Web sites like this one pushed for Fouad al-Farhan's release.
Ahmed al-Omran said on his blog, saudijeans.org, and later told CNN that he was awakened by a text message from the wife of Fouad al-Farhan, saying he had been released and was at home with his family.
"That's great news, and this is just how I wanted to start my morning," al-Omran wrote.
He said he later spoke with al-Farhan for several minutes on the telephone.
"He sounded fine; he seems to be in good spirits," al-Omran said. "He said he would have more to talk about later but not at this point. He said now he'd like to take some time to spend with his family, with his children that he hasn't seen for so long." Watch al-Omran describe his conversation with al-Farhan »
A Web site set up to call for al-Farhan's release said, "Fouad is free. He is back home in Jeddah after 137 days in custody."
The Saudi Interior Ministry said it had no immediate comment on the reports.
In January, a ministry spokesman said al-Farhan was arrested December 10 "because he violated the regulations of the kingdom."
But in an e-mail posted on al-Farhan's Web site after his arrest, he told friends that he faced arrest for supporting 10 reform advocates the Saudi government accused of backing terrorism. In the e-mail, al-Farhan said a senior Interior Ministry official promised that he would remain in custody for three days at most if he agreed to sign a letter of apology.
"I'm not sure if I'm ready to do that," he wrote. "An apology for what? Apologizing because I said the government is [a] liar when they accused those guys of supporting terrorism?"
Al-Farhan, who blogs at alfarhan.org, is one of the few Saudi Web commentators to use his own name, according to the U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists.
In January, the Bush administration expressed its concerns to the Saudi government regarding al-Farhan's detention at "a relatively senior level," U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
"The U.S. stands for freedom of expression," McCormack said at the time. "Wherever people are seeking to express themselves, via the Internet or via other areas, whether in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere in the world, we stand with that freedom of expression, and that was our message to the Saudi government."
The American Islamic Congress, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization, launched an online letter-writing campaign aimed at freeing al-Farhan, whom it called "the godfather of Saudi blogging."
"All he did was express his opinions in a very obvious way, and he didn't threaten anyone," al-Omran said. "He was advocating against violence and terrorism."
Al-Omran said al-Farhan had stopped blogging for a few months in late 2006, after the Interior Ministry ordered him to take down a blog he was operating, but he began again at a new site.
He said al-Farhan told him he was treated well in jail. He also called al-Farhan's release a turning point for the blogging community in Saudi Arabia.
"It showed the community of bloggers in Saudi Arabia can come together and support this cause -- support his freedom of speech -- even those who didn't agree with some of the things he wrote," he said
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Emyo
"If you wish to understand yourself, you must succeed in doing so in the midst of all kinds of confusions and upsets. Don't make the mistake of sitting dead in the cold ashes of a withered tree.
-Emyo
-Emyo
Friday, April 25, 2008
Why Bonaventure Rocks!
"But if you wish to know how things come about, desire not understanding: ask for grace instead of instruction, the groaning of prayer not reading, the Spouse not the teacher, God not man, darkness not clarity, not light but fire"
St. Bonaventure, The Soul's Journey to God
St. Bonaventure, The Soul's Journey to God
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Knowing Hearts
your heart still beats
and so does mine
and so as long as that is the case
and we draw breath
we are obligated
to do all we can
to pay back this precious gift:
heart must be repaid with heart
so wherever you go
go there with all your heart
and so does mine
and so as long as that is the case
and we draw breath
we are obligated
to do all we can
to pay back this precious gift:
heart must be repaid with heart
so wherever you go
go there with all your heart
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Deserted Poem #2
"Go off into a deserted place and rest awhile" said Jesus.*
so I took the long way home again today
down by the beach
during another sandstorm
where Persian winds
shake Arab sands
and where visibility
although limited
solitude
sees far and is far from lonely
*Mark 6:31
so I took the long way home again today
down by the beach
during another sandstorm
where Persian winds
shake Arab sands
and where visibility
although limited
solitude
sees far and is far from lonely
*Mark 6:31
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Classroom Research on Polygamy
In some ways my job is fascinating. In others, it sucks. I suppose most of us could say the same thing about what we are doing with the rare exception of a few of us out there.
I have been sitting on this one for a while, but since today is my birthday I suppose I should get around to posting this really interesting classroom research I did a couple of weeks ago on polygamy. I asked my class of male students (I am not allowed to teach female students here in "the Kingdom") this series of questions and had them write on them.
Q1: In your view, what percentage of marriages in Saudi Arabia are polygamous?
Q2: In your view, what decides whether or not a man will take more than one wife? i.e. why would he decide to do it or not do it?
Q3: When you are able to get married, do you think you will have more than one wife? why or why not?
Q4: Some people criticize the idea of polygamous marriage, what would you say to these people?
I will expand this a bit more later, but a quick look at the data showed me this.
Q1: most said about 5%
Q2: whether or not he has the money to do it and can treat both (or more) wives fairly (howo would this be checked by anyone besides him? you may ask)
Q3: I was surprised by the number of students who said they would not do this because it would be unfair to the wives. more later
Q4: Several students actually said they agreed with the criticism. others said they did not care what others think because this is condoned in the Qur'an. more later.
I have been sitting on this one for a while, but since today is my birthday I suppose I should get around to posting this really interesting classroom research I did a couple of weeks ago on polygamy. I asked my class of male students (I am not allowed to teach female students here in "the Kingdom") this series of questions and had them write on them.
Q1: In your view, what percentage of marriages in Saudi Arabia are polygamous?
Q2: In your view, what decides whether or not a man will take more than one wife? i.e. why would he decide to do it or not do it?
Q3: When you are able to get married, do you think you will have more than one wife? why or why not?
Q4: Some people criticize the idea of polygamous marriage, what would you say to these people?
I will expand this a bit more later, but a quick look at the data showed me this.
Q1: most said about 5%
Q2: whether or not he has the money to do it and can treat both (or more) wives fairly (howo would this be checked by anyone besides him? you may ask)
Q3: I was surprised by the number of students who said they would not do this because it would be unfair to the wives. more later
Q4: Several students actually said they agreed with the criticism. others said they did not care what others think because this is condoned in the Qur'an. more later.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Live Red, Live Proud!
from http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/12/saudi.valentine/index.html
(CNN) -- Saudi Arabia has asked florists and gift shops to remove all red items until after Valentine's Day, calling the celebration of such a holiday a sin, local media reported Monday.
With a ban on red gift items over Valentine's Day in Saudi Arabia, a black market in red roses has flowered.
"As Muslims we shouldn't celebrate a non-Muslim celebration, especially this one that encourages immoral relations between unmarried men and women, " Sheikh Khaled Al-Dossari, a scholar in Islamic studies, told the Saudi Gazette, an English-language newspaper.
Every year, officials with the conservative Muslim kingdom's Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice clamp down on shops a few days before February 14, instructing them to remove red roses, red wrapping paper, gift boxes and teddy bears. On the eve of the holiday, they raid stores and seize symbols of love.
The virtue and vice squad is a police force of several thousand charged with, among other things, enforcing dress codes and segregating the sexes. Saudi Arabia, which follows a strict interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism, punishes unrelated women and men who mingle in public.
Ahmed Al-Omran, a university student in Riyadh, told CNN that the government decision will give the international media another reason to make fun of the Saudis "but I think that we got used to that by now."
"I think what they are doing is ridiculous," said Al-Omran, who maintains the blog 'Saudi Jeans.' "What the conservatives in this country need to learn is something called 'tolerance.' If they don't see the permissibility of celebrating such an occasion, then fine -- they should not celebrate it. But they have to know they have no right to impose their point of view on others."
Because of the ban on red roses, a black market has flowered ahead of Valentine's Day. Roses that normally go for five Saudi riyal ($1.30) fetch up to 30 riyal ($8) on February 14, the Saudi Gazette said.
"Sometimes we deliver the bouquets in the middle of the night or early morning, to avoid suspicion," one florist told the paper.
(CNN) -- Saudi Arabia has asked florists and gift shops to remove all red items until after Valentine's Day, calling the celebration of such a holiday a sin, local media reported Monday.
With a ban on red gift items over Valentine's Day in Saudi Arabia, a black market in red roses has flowered.
"As Muslims we shouldn't celebrate a non-Muslim celebration, especially this one that encourages immoral relations between unmarried men and women, " Sheikh Khaled Al-Dossari, a scholar in Islamic studies, told the Saudi Gazette, an English-language newspaper.
Every year, officials with the conservative Muslim kingdom's Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice clamp down on shops a few days before February 14, instructing them to remove red roses, red wrapping paper, gift boxes and teddy bears. On the eve of the holiday, they raid stores and seize symbols of love.
The virtue and vice squad is a police force of several thousand charged with, among other things, enforcing dress codes and segregating the sexes. Saudi Arabia, which follows a strict interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism, punishes unrelated women and men who mingle in public.
Ahmed Al-Omran, a university student in Riyadh, told CNN that the government decision will give the international media another reason to make fun of the Saudis "but I think that we got used to that by now."
"I think what they are doing is ridiculous," said Al-Omran, who maintains the blog 'Saudi Jeans.' "What the conservatives in this country need to learn is something called 'tolerance.' If they don't see the permissibility of celebrating such an occasion, then fine -- they should not celebrate it. But they have to know they have no right to impose their point of view on others."
Because of the ban on red roses, a black market has flowered ahead of Valentine's Day. Roses that normally go for five Saudi riyal ($1.30) fetch up to 30 riyal ($8) on February 14, the Saudi Gazette said.
"Sometimes we deliver the bouquets in the middle of the night or early morning, to avoid suspicion," one florist told the paper.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Aeolian Harpsichord
continually wrested
from laziness and complaceny
spring winds
furious and alive
drive sands over the roads and sidewalks
and waves move parallel to
rather than straight at
the beach
all is alive and renewed
with God's breath
from laziness and complaceny
spring winds
furious and alive
drive sands over the roads and sidewalks
and waves move parallel to
rather than straight at
the beach
all is alive and renewed
with God's breath
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Evangelicals Are Starting to Get it!
I stole this from here. But feel stealing is certainly justified in this case.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/03/the_unexpected_monks/
Members of the Rutba House in Durham, N.C., gather for meals and morning and evening prayer. (Globe / Davis Turner)
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/03/the_unexpected_monks/
The unexpected monks
Some evangelicals turn to monasticism, suggesting unease with megachurch religion - and the stirrings of rapprochement with the Roman Catholic Church.
Members of the Rutba House in Durham, N.C., gather for meals and morning and evening prayer. (Globe / Davis Turner)S.G. PRESTON IS a Knight of Prayer. Each morning at his Vancouver, Wash., home, he wakes up and prays one of the 50-odd psalms he has committed to memory, sometimes donning a Kelly green monk's habit. In Durham, N.C., Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove and fellow members of Rutba House gather for common meals as well as morning and evening prayer based on the Benedictine divine office. Zach Roberts, founder of the Dogwood Abbey in Winston-Salem, meets regularly with a Trappist monk to talk about how to contemplate God. Roman Catholic monastic traditions loom large in their daily routines - yet all three men are evangelical Protestants.
The image of the Catholic monk - devoted to a cloistered life of fasting and prayer, his tonsured scalp hidden by a woolen cowl - has long provoked the disdain of Protestants. Their theological forefathers denounced the monastic life: True Christians, the 16th-century Reformers said, lived wholly in the world, spent their time reading the Bible rather than chanting in Latin, and accepted that God saved them by his grace alone, not as reward for prayers, fasting, or good works. Martin Luther called monks and wandering friars "lice placed by the devil on God Almighty's fur coat." Of all Protestants, American evangelicals in particular - activist, family-oriented, and far more concerned with evangelism than solitary study or meditative prayer - have historically viewed monks as an alien species, and a vaguely demonic one at that.
Yet some evangelicals are starting to wonder if Luther's judgment was too hasty. There is now a growing movement to revive evangelicalism by reclaiming parts of Roman Catholic tradition - including monasticism. Some 100 groups that describe themselves as both evangelical and monastic have sprung up in North America, according to Rutba House's Wilson-Hartgrove. Many have appeared within the past five years. Increasing numbers of evangelical congregations have struck up friendships with Catholic monasteries, sending church members to join the monks for spiritual retreats. St. John's Abbey, a Benedictine monastery in Minnesota, now makes a point of including interested evangelicals in its summer Monastic Institute.
"I grew up in a tradition that believes Catholics are pagans," said Roberts, who was raised Southern Baptist and serves as a pastor in a Baptist church. "I never really understood that. Now I'd argue against that wholeheartedly."
In an era in which televangelists and megachurches dominate the face of American evangelicalism, offering a version of Christianity inflected by populist aesthetics and the gospel of prosperity, the rise of the New Monastics suggests that mainstream worship is leaving some people cold. Already, they are transforming evangelical religious life in surprising ways. They are post-Protestants, breaking old liturgical and theological taboos by borrowing liberally from Catholic traditions of monastic prayer, looking to St. Francis instead of Jerry Falwell for their social values, and stocking their bookshelves with the writings of medieval mystics rather than the latest from televangelist Joel Osteen.Continued...
The New Monastics come from a variety of religious backgrounds, from Presbyterian to Pentecostal. All share a common frustration with what they see as the overcommercialized and socially apathetic culture of mainstream evangelicalism. They perceive a "spiritual flabbiness in the broader church and a tendency to assimilate into a corrupt, power-hungry world," writes New Monastic author Scott Bessenecker in his recent book "The New Friars."
New Monasticism is part of a broader movement stirring at the margins of American evangelicalism: Evangelicals disillusioned with a church they view as captive to consumerism, sectarian theological debates, and social conservatism. Calling themselves the "emerging church" or "post-evangelicals," these Christians represent only a small proportion of the approximate 60 million evangelical Americans. Yet their criticisms may resonate with more mainstream believers. A recent study by Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois - one of the most influential megachurches in the nation - discovered that many churchgoers felt stalled in their faith, alienated by slick, program-driven pastors who focus more on niche marketing than cultivating contemplation. The study suggested that megachurch members know how to belt out jazzy pop hymns from their stadium seats, but they don't always know how to talk to God alone.
Many New Monastics live and worship together, and their practices sometimes resemble the communes and house churches associated with the Jesus Movement of the 1970s. Like the hippies who were "high on Jesus," New Monastics tend to favor simple living, left-leaning politics, and social activism. However, they are quick to cite the intellectual seriousness and monastic forms of prayer and study that set them apart. "I doubt most of the Jesus Movement people were reading the philosophers of their day in the way I have friends reading Zizek and Derrida," said Mark Van Steenwyk, founder of Missio Dei, a New Monastic community in Minneapolis. Van Steenwyk's group has also compiled its own breviary, a book of scriptural texts that guides the group's abbreviated version of the divine office sung in monasteries.
"The real radicals aren't quoting Che Guevara or listening to Rage Against the Machine on their iPods," writes Wilson-Hartgrove in a forthcoming book, "New Monasticism: What It Has to Say to Today's Church." "The true revolutionaries are learning to pray."
I their countercultural orientation, the New Monastics are true to the oldest monastic precedent. The founding father of monasticism, fourth-century Egyptian St. Anthony, gave away his worldly possessions and fled the temptations of the Roman Empire for desert solitude. Monasticism's subsequent history is a complicated story of both extreme asceticism and descent into decadence, of the Vatican's alternate promotion and suppression of charismatic holy men and women who criticized and compromised with the church hierarchy. Though by the 16th century there was much truth in the Reformers' charges of monastic depravity and corruption, the religious orders made up a diverse culture still home to rebels and critics: Martin Luther himself was an Augustinian friar.
Though New Monasticism is not entirely a product of the evangelical left - the Knights of Prayer, for example, are not interested in liberalizing movements within the church - most New Monastics are trying to create an alternative to conservative mainstream evangelicalism. They embrace ecumenism over doctrinal debate, encourage female leadership, and care far more about social justice and the environment than about the culture wars. Shane Claiborne, founder of one of the best-known New Monastic communities, the Simple Way of Philadelphia, asks that churches that invite him to speak offset the carbon emissions produced by his visit by "fasting" from fuel.
More fundamentally, New Monastics consider themselves "monks in the world." They are not interested in extreme isolation or asceticism (though there are stories about the occasional Protestant "hermit" living in the Mountain West). Nearly all have regular jobs and social lives. From the traditionalist perspective, many break the most essential monastic rule: they are married. Most groups support those who choose a celibate lifestyle, and a few have a member or two who do so, but it happens rarely.
Five centuries of Protestant heritage have alienated most New Monastics from the notion of religiously motivated celibacy. More importantly, these groups do not aim to separate themselves from society - on the contrary, they see New Monasticism as a means to better integrate core Christian values into their lives as average citizens. This is the fundamental difference between old monks and the new. New Monastics often quote one of their heroes, Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who captured the ambitions - and the ecumenical limits - of the movement when he wrote in 1935, "the restoration of the church will surely come only from a new kind of monasticism which will have nothing in common with the old but a life of uncompromising adherence to the Sermon on the Mount in imitation of Christ."
Missio Dei is one of many groups that have deliberately made their homes in struggling urban neighborhoods. In addition to their routine of prayer and worship, they serve vegan meals to people on the street and offer hospitality to those who need it. Van Steenwyk sees hypocrisy in churches that preach social justice from the pulpit, but ignore their struggling neighbors for the rest of the week. "You can be involved with your church, but never really experience brokenness in another human being. Jesus lived with other people," he said. "So we ask, what are the resources throughout church history that can equip us to live life that way?"
Serving the poor is not a new impulse among evangelicals, but serious contemplation is. American culture has never placed a high priority on solitude, and historically, self-denial has gone hand in hand with bustling capitalist productivity, not contemplation (though the Puritans did balance their active lives with a heavy dose of journaling and soul-searching). America has produced a few geniuses of contemplative life - Henry Thoreau and Emily Dickinson come to mind - but we have no indigenous contemplative tradition comparable to that of Catholic Europe or Buddhist Japan. Yet contemplation is the heart of what it means to be a monk: the root of the word, monos, means "alone" in Greek.
Evangelicals have been tentatively exploring that side of Christian tradition since at least the 1978 publication of "Celebration of Discipline" by Richard Foster, a Quaker theologian who recast fasting and meditative prayer for an evangelical audience. His book sold nearly 2.5 million copies and launched a cottage industry of evangelical contemplative literature - a phrase that, 30 years ago, was a contradiction in terms. Some evangelicals made pilgrimages to the handful of older ecumenical monastic communities abroad, such as the Taizé Community (founded in Burgundy, France, in 1940), and the Iona Community, founded in 1938 at St. Columba's landing place in the Inner Hebrides. They brought back what they learned, and have tried to make it their own.
N
ot all of their co-religionists, however, are pleased with these new spiritual ventures. Van Steenwyk received e-mails from friends concerned about his "fringe activities," including accusations that he'd "gotten into bed with the apostate Catholic Church." Deborah Dombrowski, along with her husband, David, founded Lighthouse Trails Publishing and Research Project in 2002 to counteract the "infiltration" of evangelicalism by "mystical spirituality." She fears that New Monastics' contemplative prayer is no different from Eastern meditation, and their openness to Roman Catholicism is only the beginning: "where it's going is an interspiritual, interfaith, one-world religion, where it all blends together."
Though many Roman Catholics have mixed feelings about evangelicals who adopt a hodgepodge of watered-down monastic practices and call themselves "monks," some are supportive of New Monasticism. They view the movement as part of a wider rapprochement between Protestant evangelicals and Rome. A half-century of theological shifts on both sides of the divide - Vatican II's liberalizing impact on the Catholic Church, and the waning of Protestant fundamentalism - as well as the decline of traditional ethnic resentments and an emerging pattern of political cooperation have all prepared the way. Father Jay Scott Newman, a priest in South Carolina, said that the New Monastic movement suggests a profound shift in evangelical identity.
"Until very recently, an evangelical of whatever stripe included in his self-definition not just opposition to, but violent rejection of everything Catholic," he said. "That's no longer true{hellip}that's dramatic, revolutionary, and, I think, lasting."
To some Catholic observers, it is no shock that evangelicals have begun to feel the lack of organized contemplative life and yearn for a bond with religious tradition - they're only surprised that it took them so long. "Monasticism has been such a powerful thing in the West and the East for so long that it would be very peculiar if it didn't, at one point or another, erupt in evangelical circles," said William Shea, director of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Culture at the College of the Holy Cross.
"It's just too long, too deep, too creative a tradition{hellip}You could call this movement ersatz monasticism, but I would hold back and ask, where might this lead?"
Molly Worthen, a New Haven-based writer, is working on a book about evangelical intellectual life.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Why Ahmad Deedat is an Idiot
Ahmad Deedat is a South African who is well known for his "debates" with Christians. He is no longer with us and passed away just a couple of years ago, but Saudis and others in the Muslim world remember him well, think well of him, and often hand his materials to us English teachers and refer to him in our classes.
Well, the guy is an idiot. Sorry to put it so bluntly and crudely. But he is not a creator of dialog by any means. He comes at Muslim-Christian discussion in a very disrespectful way, in something of the way that Christian creationists "debate" evolutionary biologists. I just watched some of a six-part DVD series of his talks and I found him saying one stupid thing after another but things the Muslims in the audiences were all agreeing with.
This kind of guy is also dangerous. Here is only some of why. He starts off the DVD series with a tall called "The Qur'an: Miracle of Miracles. It is basically a slam against the Christian and Jewish "corrupted" and "multi-authored" texts as opposed to the singly authored Qur'an. The problem is that Deedat is unfortunately not willing to admit, as do the majority of Muslims, that the text of the Qur'an has a history and that the so-called miracle of an illiterate trader reciting a book in the most refined Arabic of the day and showing the most sophisticated theology of the day is, while perhaps not a total fiction, not as pure and straightforward as Muslims hold. There were other texts of the early Qur'an. And Mohammad was surrounded by people steeped in sophisticated versions of Jewish and Christian theology and who aided the redaction of the text. The text also has a political and economic context that shaped the text that is rendered out of the picture by Muslims as well. As Gerd-R. Puin puts it
"My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad...Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants."
Well, the guy is an idiot. Sorry to put it so bluntly and crudely. But he is not a creator of dialog by any means. He comes at Muslim-Christian discussion in a very disrespectful way, in something of the way that Christian creationists "debate" evolutionary biologists. I just watched some of a six-part DVD series of his talks and I found him saying one stupid thing after another but things the Muslims in the audiences were all agreeing with.
This kind of guy is also dangerous. Here is only some of why. He starts off the DVD series with a tall called "The Qur'an: Miracle of Miracles. It is basically a slam against the Christian and Jewish "corrupted" and "multi-authored" texts as opposed to the singly authored Qur'an. The problem is that Deedat is unfortunately not willing to admit, as do the majority of Muslims, that the text of the Qur'an has a history and that the so-called miracle of an illiterate trader reciting a book in the most refined Arabic of the day and showing the most sophisticated theology of the day is, while perhaps not a total fiction, not as pure and straightforward as Muslims hold. There were other texts of the early Qur'an. And Mohammad was surrounded by people steeped in sophisticated versions of Jewish and Christian theology and who aided the redaction of the text. The text also has a political and economic context that shaped the text that is rendered out of the picture by Muslims as well. As Gerd-R. Puin puts it
"My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad...Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants."
Patricia Crone adds: "The Koran is a scripture with a history like any other—except that we don't know this history and tend to provoke howls of protest when we study it. Nobody would mind the howls if they came from Westerners, but Westerners feel deferential when the howls come from other people: who are you to tamper with their legacy? But we Islamicists are not trying to destroy anyone's faith." (see http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199901/koran)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
