Ninth Sunday after Pentecost

As we prepare for our upcoming essays on John Calvin, we will also join in this prayer traditionally attributed to Calvin. 

"Lord, save us from being self-centred in our prayers and teach us to remember to pray for others. May we be so bound up in love with those for whom we pray that we may feel their needs as acutely as our own and intercede for them with sensitivity, with understanding, and with imagination."

Eighth Sunday after Pentecost

In view of our essays this week on silence, contemplation, and maintaining our humanity in an age of distraction, it is fitting to pray this prayer with the great twentieth-century contemplative Thomas Merton. Fr. James Martin calls this "the prayer that anyone can pray."

"My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me.I cannot know for certain where it will end.Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you.And I hope that I have that desire in all that I am doing.I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire.And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road, though I may know nothing about it.Therefore I will trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death.I will not fear for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone."

(Thomas Merton, A Book of Hours, 132)

A Response from Silence

I believe Joe Miller has done an excellent job showing a disease in American culture. Indeed, there isn’t much for me to add. However, I will quickly extend a related examination of our paradoxical human nature. That is, a look at our original sin and our original blessing. But first, a quick look at the culture.

Consumerism takes many shapes and forms. The need to have individual technology is rooted in the need to always be entertained. The need to be entertained is rooted in a feeling of lack. As so many mystics in many traditions have posited, we try to use things and ideas to fill a God-sized hole, but in the end the only way to fill this hole is with God. We won’t be whole until we fill that hole with God. God doesn’t make us with this need for him because he is a needy child who can’t dream of having people be independent of himself. Rather, all love comes from God and an all loving being who designs creatures for love can’t give them this love apart from himself.

Original sin is our inability to automatically feel, remember, and know this love. The job of religion, and spiritual practices is to help remind people of the presence of God in their lives which is always there! This is our original blessing—God’s desire to live in communion and harmony with his creation—is what Richard Rohr has tried to share.

Rohr has noted that Meister Eckhart (And I would add the Jesuit’s founder St. Ignatius) is the mystic for those who are busy. It is alright to have a busy life with busy technology. The point is that technology should act as a tool for one to help share love to a world which needs to be reminded of its special place in God’s present in-breaking kingdom. 

Western Culture: What We've Lost

"Hi, there! Welcome to America!

Okay, the first thing you're going to need is a smartphone. It's actually rather necessary, most would rather be late to an appointment then leave without it.

Here you can use it to access the Internet. Here is how you can download games for if you're bored. If games aren't your thing, you can also download books. News, blogs, videos, pictures, information - it's all here at the touch of your finger.

What's that you said? Does it have a phone? Yes, but that's only about one-thirtieth of its capacity. I'd learn how to text first, here's how you do that.

Please also consider our television. Most are Internet-based nowadays. Why's that, you ask? Well, because cable is boring and offers little choices, and satellite, while offering more choice, still only lets you watch shows as they come out. If you MUST have satellite, you need to get a box-thing that lets you record. That way you have some limited ability to watch what you want whenever you want as many times as you want! What? Why do we do this? Well, because our schedules are complicated, and you can't expect what you want and what you need to do to align very much. So rather than go without we created workarounds. Talk about ingenious, am I right?

Since we're talking about TV, here's our news. You can watch news channels, read news articles online, or do both. The purpose is to be as educated as possible about what's going on around the world, to try and be more socially aware. I find I agree most with Paul Bresche, a blogger with with this network, and I don't really read much else. But I have some friends who only watch this channel on TV, but that's because they're liberals don'tcha know. Huh? Why is there so much? So much what? News? Well, there's a lot happening! And more importantly, lots of people have a lot of opinions about it all!

Now, as you go about your day, there will be times where you won't be around your TV or your phone might be dead. Not to worry, we've thought of that too! There are magazines for your viewing pleasure when you're stuck in lines, countless radio stations if you have satellite radio, and practically unlimited amounts of music and podcasts for free. Even our gas pumps are starting to have TV's on them! Isn't that great? I'm like, 'why didn't we think of that sooner,' you know?

We pride ourselves on being the most informed, most connected, most aware culture out there. This must be so much better than whatever you're coming from, right? Ugh, I went overseas this one time, and I couldn't believe how boring it was. Sure we did cool stuff and it was pretty and all, but after a while I really missed my American TV and radio. And there was so much less wifi, I thought I would die. Thankfully I had my friends to text, they felt really sorry for me.

Anyway, I'm rambling. All that should get you started, but the best part is that there's so much more! New gizmos are being invented all the time, I'm a member of at least ten social networks, there are always articles with new ideas and ways of doing things, and I've laid out my dream life on Pinterest. Welcome home!"

While a tad over-the-top, does all of that not ring somewhat true? Of course it does. Taking out the sarcasm and satire, I basically only described a few facets of Western culture.

Western culture is wonderful. So much good has been born of it. If you need convincing of that, take a walk through any modern city. The skyscrapers, business models, order, technology - all that and more possesses strong roots in Western culture.

But it's not perfect. Our culture is very sick. Among other diseases, we are strongly afflicted with what Larry Dossey calls "time-sickness," an obsessive belief that "time is getting away, there isn't enough of it, and you must pedal faster and faster to keep up." Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, puts it this way: "We are moving from a world in which the big eat the small to one in which the fast eat the slow."

This mindset, while beneficial in its own way, has deprived us of some very important ideas that are necessary if we are to have a healthy, successful life (depending on your definition of a "healthy, successful life"). We've lost appreciation for things like slowing down, deep relationship, and especially silence.

I trust this isn't the first time you've heard this. I also trust that by now you're starting to consider the reality of it. The cogs are turning, the metaphorical ball that does the rolling is indeed rolling somewhere.

What does this mean for you? I don't know. I'm 21, I just graduated, I'm just as (if not more) saturated in the unhealthy aspects of our culture as you. I'm only in the middle of realizing all this. I'm very thankful for the community that this blog is, and I imagine their responses with be elaborations, taking some of these ideas and implications further. I'm no scientist or academic, I don't have any book or theories. I just am in the middle of all this, and all I can hope is that the questions have been planted, and that you will water them inside yourself. When they bloom, don't just ignore them. When you find yourself asking "Why do I use my phone so much?", take the time to consider it. Don't just shove it down. This is important.

Seventh Sunday after Pentecost

Inspired by Groupthink's recent material on spirituality and mysticism, our prayer for the week comes from philosopher, scientist, and priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ (1881-1885).

"Glorious Lord Christ: the divine influence secretly diffused and active in the depths of matter, and the dazzling centre where all the innumerable fibres of the manifold meet; power as implacable as the world and as warm as life; you whose forehead is of the whiteness of snow, whose eyes are of fire, and whose feet are brighter than molten gold; you whose hands imprison the stars; you who are the first and the last, the living and the dead and the risen again; you who gather into your exuberant unity every mode of existence; it is you to whom my being cries out with a desire as vast the universe, 'In truth you are my Lord and my God'."

--(The Oxford Book of Prayer, 6) 

Questioning

I like to think that in the last few years I have learned a lot. I mean, a WHOLE lot. When they say college changes you, they mean it. I think, however, it wasn’t college that changed me, it was the people I surrounded myself with. I think that is always what changes a person. I would perhaps say that we can only be changed by people. We are not shaped by our own selves, we are shaped by others.

The immense amount of growing and learning that I have done has come about just the way my mom told me it would in elementary school, high school, at home… It came about by asking questions. The few years I participated in public school as a child, I was much too timid to ever raise my hand and ask a question about something I didn’t understand. What was the outcome? I didn’t learn. In high school nothing had changed, I was far too uncomfortable to make myself so vulnerable as to do the unspeakable and actually ask a question. What was the outcome? I didn’t learn. Now it didn’t help that I didn’t and still don’t care about my education when it comes to mathematics, U.S. history, grammar, though I did manage to scrape some interest in science out of the recesses of my head.

It was only later in college when I was finally able to put myself out there. I found the one thing I had never had before in an atmosphere of growth. Comfort. Don’t get me wrong, I still never raised my hand in class, I guess I still didn’t care enough. But I was introduced to something that I cared enough about to feel a desire to learn more of: the person of Jesus. I immersed myself in a group of the best friends a person could ask for and they intentionally and unintentionally placed dump-truck loads worth of questions in me.

These questions were scary and uncomfortable, as are most new things to a person like me. But I was influenced to ask them anyway.

The point of this post isn’t to describe the questions themselves, but the very idea of questioning. Especially questioning things, ideas, beliefs, presumptions we have held dear for years. I see the importance of questioning in all areas of life, but primarily I want to focus on questioning when it comes to our faith. Whatever that faith is in, whatever you most closely identify as: be that a Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Jehovah Witness, Agnostic, anything! In my experience, one of the few things I know with absolute certainty is that you will never get anywhere without asking questions. Even if you think you are already where you are supposed to be, you must keep asking, keep exploring. Circumstances change, people change, you change, whether you want to or not, you change. In the midst of constant change, we must be willing to grow with the change that the world forces upon us, as opposed to sitting stagnant and falling out of touch with the changing world.

I can guarantee you that if I compared everything I believed about life, God, the supernatural, people, the afterlife, and myself four years ago to now, one thing would be the same. God exists. That is all that is the same, and even though I’m pretty content with all the beliefs and ideas I have come to terms with up until this moment, I can say with certainty that four years from now, I’ll reject many of the things I now hold dear, embracing others, be they extremely different or only a little. And I’m fine with that. It took a long time to come to this place of comfort, and I’m still getting here, but it is wonderful here. It’s peaceful.

Now this is in fact primarily a theology blog, so it is no secret that what I’m really talking about is God. I cannot stress the importance of questioning God. If anyone has ever told you that to question God and his ways is wrong and that doubt is evil, maybe you should question that. Think of one thing you believe about God and then ask yourself: Is that true? Could it be another way? What if God were like this? How would I feel about that? How would that change the way I live my life? How would that change the way I interact with the people around me? I’m not asking you to reject everything you now believe and embrace something completely foreign to you just for kicks. I’m asking you to analyze yourself. I am asking you to let yourself grow.

Nothing would change without its previous state being challenged. People used to think the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. That’s not entirely relevant, but you get my point. If we want to grow as human beings we must be willing to ask questions, and not stop there but ask questions knowing we could be wrong. We must be willing to listen to the questions that others ask. If we want to learn more about God, we must be willing to ask questions of his character, his alleged actions, the stories told of him. In the Old Testament, God’s own people thought that God was interested in conquering the world with violence, and then Jesus came and proclaimed a God of love and nonviolence. He stirred up what people believed with new questions, new ideas.

Questions are of great importance no matter what we are seeking. Next time someone asks you a question that you find offensive and ridiculous, stop and let the question be asked before you reject it or ignore it. Let the question sink in, pull your experiences, your knowledge, your desires into the picture and at least consider the question. Don’t answer right away, mull it over in your head for a while. Let yourself grow as a person in the answering of the question. You will grow not by agreeing or disagreeing with someone, but by considering their position.

Sometimes questions come from outside, sometimes from inside, no matter where they come from, don’t push them away, see them as an opportunity to grow and add something to the unique and different person you are.

Hearing Christ's Voice: A Response to Reed Dressler

In our Wednesday Groupthink essay, my friend Reed Dressler takes on an important contemporary topic, one that is close to my own heart and that is difficult to talk about at our denominational conferences and church coffee hours: hearing the voice of God. Dressler points to the importance of remembering God’s continuing presence in God’s creation, a remembering which breaks down traditional barriers between the sacred and the profane.

I sincerely appreciate Dressler’s writing on the topic, but I am often nervous about discussing contemplative theology. Such discussions can quickly become overly abstract and self-absorbed, focusing (no less than evangelical pop theology) on the individual’s relationship with God to the neglect of a larger narrative of God’s action in history.

The best way, I think, to avoid the problem of atomizing individualism in the spiritual life is to hold the truths Dressler points us to in tandem with a spirituality that centers our union with the crucified and risen Christ within the community of his Body, the Church. Private contemplative practice will lead us astray if we pursue it overzealously and without equal commitment to our “common prayer” and service with others who commit their lives to the Way.

Authentic spirituality, for Christians, should always begin with the One we consider the ultimate expression of God’s being and character, “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15).

I don’t say this to denigrate anyone else’s religious traditions or to imply that only Christians can pray or meditate or know God. I do believe, though, that as people of faith, we best honor the traditions of others by living faithfully the best of our own, not by appropriating and generalizing until nothing is left but abstracted “spiritual but not religious” feelings of goodwill. Poet Christian Wiman likes to quote George Lindbeck: “You can no more be religious in general than you can speak language in general.” In Wiman’s own words, “the only way to deepen your knowledge and experience of ultimate divinity is to deepen your knowledge and experience of the all too temporal symbols and language of a particular religion” (My Bright Abyss 141). For Christians, those symbols and that language must center on Jesus Christ.

Many of the early Church Mothers and Fathers spoke at great length about Christ as Logos, the Word by which God made and sustains the world, the divine creative principle of the universe. The poet Gerard Manley Hopkins had just this conception of Christ in mind when he formulated his vision of every molecule of creation giving praise to God simply by being what it is truly is:

"As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame;
As tumbled over rim in roundy wells
Stones ring; like each tucked string tells, each hung bell's
Bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad its name;
Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
Selves — goes itself; myself it speaks and spells,
Crying Whát I dó is me: for that I came. 

"I say móre: the just man justices;
Keeps grace: thát keeps all his goings graces;
Acts in God's eye what in God's eye he is —
Chríst — for Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men's faces"

For Hopkins, and for many of us who see the beauty of his vision even if we have trouble with his metaphysics, it is not only the First Person of the Trinity we experience in creation and providence, but Jesus Christ as well.

I used to dismiss this talk of the Logos as so much overbaked Platonism, an aberration of the original concrete and social vision of Jesus.

It is true that, when overemphasized, a theology centered on the Logos can be used as a way of avoiding the most difficult teachings of Jesus found in the gospels.

However, a healthy understanding of the Logos in creation helps us to move beyond abstraction and see Christ’s face in this action, this experience, this experience this person. We need the actions, experiences, and presence of others to understand fully what Christ is doing among us. I think that is what our Orthodox siblings mean they greet each other, not with the familiar “The Lord be with you” “And also with you” found in my church, but with “Christ is in our midst” “He is and shall be.”

Jesus chose a meal with his friends, not solitary meditation,
as the main way we are to remember him.

One great way to begin cultivating a Christ-centered and communal spirituality is by reflecting on the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. Baptism, and the remembrance of our baptism, is a way of partaking in Christ's death and resurrection. In baptism, we are initiated into Christ's new creation, the world as God intended us to see it, with Christ the Logos visible, if only faintly, in all things. Whether we were baptized as infants or as adults, it remains true that none of us baptized himself or herself. It's a gift that only comes to us through the actions of other Christians.

Similarly, in the Eucharist, we remember our place as "living members of [God's] Son, our Savior Jesus Christ," in the words of the Book of Common Prayer. Here, St. Augustine says it best:

"If you are the body of Christ and his members, your mystery has been placed on the Lord's table, you receive your mystery. You reply 'Amen' to that which you are, and by replying you consent. For you hear 'The body of Christ,' and you reply 'Amen.' Be a member of the body of Christ so that your 'Amen' may be true. ... Be what you see, and receive what you are" (Sermon 272).

Spirituality is, as evangelicals are fond of saying, about one's "relationship with God," but it is also about our relationship with God. It's about who we are discovering Christ to be and ourselves to be in Christ as we gather in his name.

Christ is in our midst. He is and shall be. Amen.

Hearing God's Voice

God speaks to us far more than we realize.

How can I make this assertion when no matter where we look we don’t ‘see’ or ‘hear’ God anywhere? Clearly I have to answer this question before I can even begin to explain how we can hear God. Philosophy has a name for this problem. It is known as the problem of Divine Hiddenness and it has certainly kept many people awake at night. 

I think God wanted it to be a ‘problem’. He honestly wants it to be hard to see him, at least initially. Philosophy’s answer goes something like this: ‘If humans could see God they would always do the right thing. However, they would do the right thing for the wrong reason which is out of fear of punishment. Therefore, humans under this view must freely choose to do what is right and this requires God not be entirely obvious to our senses.’ 

This is not a bad answer. Indeed it gets very close to the heart of the matter. Yet, there is an even deeper truth. The truth that only the sufferers and mystical seekers dare to know. God is not hidden. Rather he screams his presence in silence, and glows brightly in physical shadows. He resides in the depths of darkness and lives at the heights of light. 

The Psalmist practically laments his inability to escape God’s presence in Psalms 139. This Psalmist (who may have been David) realized something which few have internalized deep down beyond intellectual assent. God really is everywhere, and everything expresses his glory and presence. Humanity’s ‘original sin’ was losing the ability to see and hear him in everything. God speaks through his creation, but many times in ways we either ignore or refuse to accept. The path of prayer could be said to be the path of relearning this truth.
 

Over the centuries, Christians and Jews have found solace
in the story of the prophet Elijah, who met God not in the
wind, the earthquake, or the fire, but in a "still, small voice."

This relearning may not always be easy and can even require one to “pick up their cross” and follow Jesus’ example of accepting suffering. So how do we hear God’s voice? Well there are plenty of examples in the Bible that show God loudly announcing his presence. The God of the Old Testament is definitely into flare and pyrotechnics! Bushes that don’t burn, axes that float, cities that are destroyed, loud swirling whirl winds! Yet, in our own lives very few of us can claim to have experienced such magnificent spectacles. Indeed, when we read the Bible, we find ourselves begging God to give something to prove he is out there. And it seems that for the mass majority of us, God is nowhere to be found. 

The New Testament has less of the flare but still holds enough miracles to keep our attention. Jesus is healing people left and right. Why do we see so few of those? The answer is twofold. We are too closed off to see them and we forgot who to imitate. The popular and perceptive New Testament scholar N.T. Wright gives us an answer to the first. He explains in his book Surprised by Scripture that our understanding of miracles has been influenced by a pagan understanding of God created by the philosopher Epicurus. 

Epicurus claimed that no gods exist and that even if there are some they are certainly far removed from human experiences. Wright believes that this corrupted all of modern philosophy. He also asserts that it has confused us on the nature of miracles. Currently many people believe miracles are moments of radical insertions of God’s power. In this view God does not interact with the world until he wants a miracle. Immediately after the miracle, he is gone again. This, Wright believes, misses the Christian understanding of what a miracle is. Miracles are God’s working in the world and helping to shape this world. It is not something which simply happens randomly and then is gone. In a sense God is always working in the world so miracles are occurring all the time! 

This is a truth which many mystics have come to learn. God created this world, and he isn’t going to leave it alone. Richard Rohr, a modern Catholic mystic, sums up this point beautifully when he states that there is no sacred versus profane. Rather, one could say that there is only realization and ignorance. The Christian process of becoming holy, sometimes known as sanctification, isn’t about becoming better at doing the right things. It is about realizing the amazing and wonderful truth that God is always loving and welcoming. Once we start on this path of becoming more and more aware of God’s constant presence in the world and all loving nature, we automatically come to have deeper and deeper trust and faith in his will and find ourselves doing the right thing even in spite of themselves. 

So what does all of this have to do with hearing God? Once you realize these truths, the next step is to stop asking God to speak and start listening. One of the best ways to do this is to go into solitude. Quiet the mind which is constantly forgetting God’s goodness anyway. Enter into a deep peace. 

After this point I can’t say how God will speak to you. The Bible is ripe with different ways God gives his message. But before you can hear God over your own egotistical thoughts follow the Bibles advice in the Psalms. “Be still and know that I am God.” (Psalm 46:10) and enter into “the Peace which surpasses all understanding.” (Philippians 4:7). 

In this state of remembrance and peace you will be more likely to actually hear what it is that God has been saying to you. You might hear the advice God has been trying to get through to you all along. Then you too will know.

God speaks to us far more than we ever realize.

On Technology, Culture, and Faith: The Hollywood Fix

We exited the theater, the light painfully pushing past our squinted eyelids while the rush of reentering reality gives us pause.

We reflect on the experience, laughing at its jokes, marveling at its intricacies, taking a poker to its shortcomings so we know we are still the dominant one.

We pull away, awash in conversation; I, however, silent.

My surroundings full of activity and engagement, I feel an inexplicable solitude. I feel lack.

I self-check, examining the paths of thought and tide of emotions I've encountered recently to gather evidence to the way I feel.

Nothing. Logic stat-

I respond to a question. Life around me continues.

Logic states I start at my last exposure and work backwards, searching for a source.

Answer. Question. Conversation around me. Car ride. Leaving theater. Movie.

Movie.

I wish I was that hero, the very likeness of goodness, charging headfirst into the hordes of evil and what is sure to be my doom.

I wish I was that man, the man who ran barefoot through hell and swam through high water for the woman he loves.

I wish I were able to answer the beckoning of distant lands and strange experiences, returning one day a mystery and legend.

I wish it were me in that movie. Experiencing those things.

I briefly examine my life, fitting it into scripts, plot, lighting cues, and camera angles, and I'm struck at its unavoidable boringness.

I still feel lack, the solitude of an empty heart. Ah well, those things only happen in movies.

I merge into the conversation around me like the car we share onto the interstate home. We don't speak of it, but we all feel the same.

The conversation turns to the next promising blockbuster, and our blood pressure spikes like that of an addict when he sees his drug of choice.

Awash in conversation, I forget my lack, though I only manage to cover it's emptiness with rotting boards destined to break again.

We reflect on the experience, laughing at its jokes, marveling at its intricacies, taking a poker to its shortcomings so we know we are still the dominant one.
                                    --------------------

I'm going to be straight with you. Try as I might (and believe me, I did), I cannot write anything to convince you to drop Netflix, sell your TV, or stop watching movies so much. The primary reason being that there's nothing inherently wrong with any of those things, the second reason being I am not that kind of writer. 

I am not able to write about just anything. My passions and experiences are the flesh and bones of my scribbles, opinions may as well be water in my scribbling engine. All that said, I can only tell you of my experiences.

As I'm sure you may have guessed, the whatever-that-is in the italics above is a reflection of myself. I was the guy who left movies wishing he were the protagonist. I found myself daydreaming about the other worlds presented in television shows, envisioning how tales of my adventures would weave into its history.

I actually grew up without a television. We watched DVD's from blockbuster or the library on our computer, but we never had any kind of satellite or cable service. I always found myself being jealous of the kids who did, those able to sit in front of that screen watching the coolest stuff for hours on end.

When I got to college and discovered Neflix, it was like a horse had just stumbled into a sugar factory. I dove, and I dove hard. BBC's Sherlock lasted all of a few days, if that tells you anything. Show after show, movie after movie, I was hooked deep. 

I started wondering if this was healthy, but quickly realized everyone around me had normalized this obsession, calling it "binge-watching" (which is odd since any other action with "binge" before it is considered wildly unhealthy). I justified my actions by claiming that I loved stories. Which, to an extent, is true. But it was also an excuse.

A few months passed before I started feeling strange. Sure, I had gone through a rough breakup, classes were tougher than ever, and I suddenly had to decide what I wanted to be when I grew up (graduation) - but it was more than that. Deep down I was really, really unhappy with my life.

I was doing two things: comparing my life to what I was seeing on the screen and medicating the resulting pain by watching the screen more. I was forfeiting relationships, school work, and social activities because I didn't want to make the hard decision to deal with my pain and choose interaction over isolation. Looking back now, I see that I honestly wasn't watching TV any more than your average family, and that really scares me.

During that time I only saw my life for what it wasn't. It wasn't some grand adventure across new lands. It wasn't some bizarrely intricate dramatic-yet-cheesy plan to get some girl. It wasn't heroic even in the least. Compared to what I was seeing, I was incredibly boring.

It took some time, but this has passed for me (praise Jesus). Why did you read all that? Well, hopefully we can talk about it a little and perhaps you might gain some insight into your practices and lifestyle involving the tele.

Hollywood is a business, guys, and like any business its goal is to make money. You're the user group, you're the one it needs to keep selling product to, and it does that by hooking you so you will keep coming back. 

Hollywood's entire business platform is this simple statement: reality is boring. If that weren't true, any market for video entertainment would collapse instantly. Did you know that even the truest movies are at least 90% embellishment? Think about it - if you were watching those events play out exactly how they probably did, would you have paid money to see it? Of course not, it would mostly be incredibly boring!

We're not being sold movies and TV shows. We're being sold experiences. Or, more accurately, experiences we won't have because we think we can't. Are traveling to Iceland and seeing a few shots of it in a movie even slightly comparable? Then why do we sit around on couches wondering what far-off lands look like when we catch glimpses of them on screens?

Is pursuing and fighting for someones affection the same as watching a mushy-yet-clever movie? Is the satisfaction of getting involved in something bigger than yourself equivalent to seeing someone else do it on TV?

I realize you're reading this and thinking, "That's nice and probably true, but I'm fine. I'm not addicted or anything, watching stuff isn't bad." Like I said earlier, I can't write anything to convince you otherwise. I see movies and TV like I see alcohol - only damaging when you use it to be. What I'm starting to think, though, is that our culture has accepted as normal what is actually damaging.

I see a lot of families spending hours watching television, yet starving for minutes of interaction and daily investment in each other's lives. I see (and have been a part of) couples who slowly start to spend most of their time together watching movies and television rather than experiencing new things, making memories, or even getting to know each other better. I see a deep relationship famine in our culture, and a very cost-effective and doable solution is to drop the TV and movies.

I will leave you with this. Go out and experience stuff. Don't let TV or movies be a drug-like adventure fix for you the way it was for me. Yes, "adventure is out there," but you can't have experiences you don't choose to have. Choose relationships. Choose interaction. Choose the unknown, the unsafe. It doesn't have to be huge. Start with small, unexpected decisions. It'll grow from there.

Can you live without TV or movies? I really think so. Actually, I think you'll experience an unexpected amount of life and fulfillment without them.

"Take wrong turns. Talk to strangers. Open unmarked doors. And if you see a group of people in a field, go find out what they're doing. Do things without always knowing how they'll turn out... There are so many adventures that you miss because you are waiting to think of a plan. To find them, look for tiny interesting choices. And remember that you are always making up the future as you go" - XKCD

Mondays with Marilynne: "Let the Poore be Mainteined"

President Obama presented Marilynne Robinson with the National Humanities Medal in 2013.

“Well, what is a Christian, after all? Can we say that most of us are defined by the belief that Jesus Christ made the most gracious gift of his life and death for our redemption? Then what does he deserve from us? He said we are to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek. Granted, these are difficult teachings. But does our most gracious Lord deserve to have his name associated with concealed weapons and stand-your-ground laws, things that fly in the face of his teaching and example? Does he say anywhere that we exist primarily to drive an economy and flourish in it? He says precisely the opposite. Surely we all know this. I suspect that the association of Christianity with positions that would not survive a glance at the Gospels or the Epistles is opportunistic, and that if the actual Christians raised these questions those whose real commitments are to money and hostility and potential violence would drop the pretense and walk away.” --Marilynne Robinson, qtd. by Robert Long, The American Conservative, 10/15/2013

Last week on Groupthink, we introduced a new series, “Mondays with Marilynne.” In the series introduction, we took a quick look at Robinson’s faith, literature values, and cultural impact. I referred a few times, in fact, to Robinson’s most famous fan, the President of the United States. 

When President Obama presented the National Humanities Medal in 2013, he addressed the recipients: “Your writings have changed me--I think for the better.” Then, turning directly to Robinson, he said, “I believe that Marilynne.” Since then, Obama has quoted Robinson in his weekly addresses and, most movingly, in his eulogy for the Reverend Clementa Pinckney (an important and deeply Christian sermon in itself).

While Robinson’s novels are not political manifestos, and people of all political persuasions have found great beauty and meaning in her words, it is worth spending some time this week looking over her political convictions and their relationship to her Christian faith.

Marilynne Robinson is nothing if not politically vocal. While she is well known in the world of American literature, fewer people know that, as political philosopher Peter Lawler so rightly notes, “Robinson is quite the theologian, historian and essayist, and she has devoted herself to recovering--pretty much on her own and against every grain--our authentic Puritan/Calvinist tradition [in American civic discourse].”* 

Robinson’s unique political vision is rooted in a sophisticated reading of the Bible, Calvinist theology, and the Protestant heritage of the United States. She does not hesitate to draw from the Christian gospel implications for policy on social services, income disparity, racial justice, gun control, and military spending, to name a few of the issues she has weighed in on over the years.

Robert Long of The American Conservative (whose coverage of Robinson’s work I highly recommend in spite of any ideological disagreements we might have), traces the roots of Robinson’s social thought to Calvin’s statement in The Institutes of the Christian Religion that “the image of God by which [your neighbor] is recommended to you deserves your surrender of yourself and all you possess.” In fact, she even traces the origins of liberal democracy to what many today consider an unlikely source: the Pentateuch.

“Only the tradition of Moses integrated civil law into the religious mythos, the sacred narrative,” she writes in her essay “Open Thy Hand Wide: Moses and the Origins of American Liberalism”. “For this reason it has the singular inflection of an attentive, passionate--and singular--divine voice. In what other body of law could compliance be urged with the phrase ‘for you know the heart of the stranger’?” (When I Was a Child I Read Books, 71).

Robinson is no biblical literalist. She shows a perfectly rational awareness of the many shortcomings of our forebears in faith. She does not “think we should stone witches.” But, in Robinson’s own words again, “if you choose to value one or two verses in Leviticus over the enormous, passionate calls for social justice that you find right through the Old Testament, that’s primitive.” 

(Here, Robinson addresses the true motives of those on the far right who believe they can safely ignore the biblical imperative to care for the orphan and widow while tossing about a few favorite verses in argument against abortion or gay marriage, but her words should be equally stinging to that portion of the progressive community that dismisses out of hand the possibility that religion could have anything to contribute to the common good.)

For Robinson, the centrality of law in Israel’s traditions and the development of a “rule of law” in Western culture are both results of a “high valuation of life in the world and in community,” a valuation we may acquire from a faithful reading of our religious traditions. Such a valuation will lead most naturally to a policy of liberalism in the oldest sense of the word--open-handedness, the willingness to “Give to everyone who begs from you, and … not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you” (Matthew 5:42).

Since she enjoys an enormous audience, which includes a fair number of conservative Christians, Robinson often receives criticism for her political statements. For instance, one of my colleagues who attended Calvin College's Festival of Faith and Writing a few years ago tells me she had to field a question from an audience member who said her speech "could have been ghost-written by Bill Moyers and aired on PBS," a fact which apparently destroyed her credibility with much of the assembled audience.

Robinson reportedly answered, "I don't recognize any other obligation than to say what it is true."

*Peter Lawler, "Tocqueville and Robinson in Defense of the Puritans' Sunday," Society 45.2 (September 2009), 445.

Sixth Sunday After Pentecost

Yesterday, Christians in the United States celebrated our nation's independence (most of us by blowing things up and eating too much barbecue). While we at Groupthink do not hold to the notion that America is somehow favored above other nations in the eyes of God, we do think it appropriate to offer prayers for the welfare of our nation, like this one from The Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA):

Lord God Almighty, you have made all peoples of the earth for your glory, to serve you in freedom and in peace. Give to the people of our country a zeal for justice and the strength of forbearance, that we may use our liberty in accordance with your gracious will; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever. Amen.

What Do These Mystics Know?: A Review of Richard Rohr

When I discovered one of Richard Rohr’s newest book What the Mystics Know at Barnes and Noble, I was ecstatic! I jokingly asked my girlfriend what she thought the mystics know, to which she sarcastically responded, "Not much.”

“Not much.” If you just take a look at all the books Rohr has written, it would be easy to declare such a comment as absurd, yet it has more truth than I think she even realized.

"Not much.” While contemplating what to say about his book, I looked over at my dog and asked her what the mystics knew. Obviously she just stared up at me without comment.

While reading the book, I was shocked by how much Rohr has improved in his ability to communicate effectively and elaborate his message. I have read many of his books and loved each one, yet this book is unique in its ability to make sense of the contemplative traditions Rohr has spent his career exploring and popularizing. He constructs short but informative sections which can be read in no time at all. If you want a deeply reflective devotional, this is the book for you.

I had trouble to believe I could love this book even more than Rohr's last offering, Eager to Love, which is about the transformative love of St. Francis. I truly did not believe he could top that captivating work, yet here I am reflecting on the new masterpiece in front of me.

One of the most powerful lines from the book is found in the heading “Beyond an all-or-nothing outlook,” where he states:

More than with any other personality trait in my life, all-or-nothing thinking has caused me to make huge mistakes and bad judgments, hurt people and myself, withhold love, and misinterpret situations.

Let this sink in for a second. True mysticism does not give one more conceptual certainty. Indeed, this type of extreme certainty can lead to less love, which is not what Christians should want. Rather, mysticism requires a level of openness. 

Really, what Rohr and other mystics have known for thousands of years is just now being discovered in academia. This is shown through the recent emphasis on epistemological humility--the possibility that one could be wrong and should act as such. This does not mean one becomes less certain of God or his or her religious doctrines. Instead, these doctrines begin to take on new life at a deeper level, a level beyond the conceptual, which opens up the heart to what God has to offer.

Stop believing so much and start knowing! Knowing is not always easy. It will always be easier for the self-serving nature to create beliefs it can defend rather than go through trusting God’s judgments. Nothing is harder than letting go, yet nothing is as freeing.

When my dog looked at me I felt a flood of love. She usually brings this to my life. She is extremely loyal and follows me around everywhere. She doesn’t have judgments on who I am. She accepts reality as it is and seems to be at peace with the world. This is something I often wish I could achieve. This is the peace I think the apostle Paul refers to when he speaks of "the peace which transcends all understanding." Maybe it explains why so many mystics love nature. The animals in this world never forgot who they were in God. 

So what does my dog know which the mystics strive for? “Not much.”

Marriage and the Church: A Mainline Response

This post is part of Groupthink’s conversation on the questions Obergefell v. Hodges. The first essay in this series was written by Logann Merritt. The second, a moderate evangelical response by Marshall Johns, may be found here. Christoph’s essay below responds from a mainline Protestant point of view.

As a life-long resident of rural Missouri, last week was not a good week to be on Facebook. For days on end, I found my newsfeed flooded with links to vitriolic conservative articles with titles like “The Roots of Marriage’s Redefinition,” “The Supreme Court and Religious Liberty: Reason for Concern,” and “Why Homosexuality is Not a Sin Like Any Other.” These responses from my conservative coreligionists were disheartening, but predictable.

Equally predictable were the debates that followed in the comment threads for these posts. The conservative line usually boiled down to some variation of the old bumper sticker cliche: “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” The progressive response was essentially, “Yes, but isn’t religion supposed to be about acceptance and love and not judging others?”

Groupthink’s own Logann Merritt used one variation of the latter argument in his own response, “Same Sex Marriage and the Christian Church.” Merritt quite correctly points out the hypocrisy of those who insist we must toe the line on Scripture’s statements on homosexuality, but not on other matters of marriage and sexuality addressed in sacred writ.** He points to the need for a hermeneutic that reads Scripture through Jesus-lenses, Jesus “the embodiment of the God of love.”

While I find myself in substantial agreement with Merritt’s main principles, I believe he is mistaken to assume that biblical interpretation is the only pertinent factor informing conservative Christians’ view of gay marriage and same-sex sexual activity in general. The same assumption is present in Matthew Vines’ best-seller, God and the Gay Christian. In spite of Vines’ excellent treatment of the six biblical passages referencing same-sex sexual behavior, he still fails to move beyond the questions of hermeneutics to a thoroughgoing examination of the history, culture, and socialization process which informs American Christians’ views of sex and sexuality.

Merritt takes an important step in the right direction, though, when he states that he doesn’t believe same-sex relationships are sinful “unless these relationships bring harm and destruction to the people in them, which could just as easily be said of heterosexual relationships.”

In most moderate to progressive evangelical discourse, examination of Scripture gives way to the conclusion that gay and lesbian relationships are acceptable to God provided they are committed, monogamous relationships based on Christian love and mutuality. This is a step in the right direction, but, in my view, does not go far enough in developing a coherent and authentically Christ-like sexual ethics.

The most important step for Christians right now is to move beyond a monogamy-promiscuity model of thinking about sexuality (with all the debates about “sexual purity” that come with it) and toward a model which prioritizes the health and wellbeing of individuals and relationships. I believe that monogamous marriage and celibacy (for those who are called to it and accept it willingly) are beautiful expressions of sexuality in the Church, but I am not willing to label all sexual acts or sexualities outside those contexts as sinful a priori. I would also stress that wedding bands do not in themselves give all sexual acts between those who wear them God’s stamp of approval. Charity, consent, and reverence for the image of God in the other person are all essential elements of authentically Christian sexual acts. The sacrament of marriage affirms, but does not magically confer those elements.

If Christianity hopes to survive in a culture that is growing increasingly aware of humanity’s amazing diversity of sexual expressions and gender identities, then the first step for Christians is to reexamine not simply the “rules” governing sex to which we have historically held, but the very principles at the heart of our ethics, principles I am sure Logann alludes to when he urges a hermeneutic with Jesus at the center.

So what does Obergefell v. Hodges mean for progressive Christians? Perhaps that our culture is heading in the right direction, but still falls far short of full-bodied Christian charity.

**As an aside, I found myself a bit irritated that Merritt repeatedly uses the inclusive abbreviation "LGBTQ*" when he really only discusses matters addressing the "LG" part of the equation.

This is My Father's World: The Church in Light of Obergefell v. Hodges

This post is part of Groupthink's coverage of the June 26 Supreme Court ruling. In our first post on this topic, Logann Merritt argued in favor of full acceptance of the LGBTQ* community on the basis of Jesus' radical inclusivity. In this follow-up, Marshall Johns represents a more moderate view with a poignant reminder of the radical difference between the kingdom of this world and the Kingdom of God.

A quick preface: this post is heavily influenced by the applied realism of Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You. This is one of the most influential works I have read, and would encourage anyone with a desire to learn about nonviolence and the Church as separated from the State in a fairly Augustinian manner to check this book out. Much of Tolstoy's theological work is not without contention; then again whose is, especially if read critically?

By now, it will have been impossible for anyone to have found this page on the internet without knowing about the Supreme Court's ruling on June 26 to legalize gay marriage in the United States of America. Having read some of the statements from the Justices of our High Court that the New York Times posted shortly after this decision was publicized, as long as the Court thinks they were within their legal bounds set by the United States Code and Constitution, I say good for them. 

I will say that again: I am happy for the United States Government to end a form of discrimination denying the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to millions of Americans.

This may sound shocking coming from a person who is, in all honesty, still humbly trying to work through the theological and biblical implications of the new orthodoxy in sexual ethics. It may sound to some like I am straddling the fence, wanting to stay grounded in "traditionalism" yet appear "relevant."
That is just fine by me since all Christians are straddling a fence: considering the challenges of our "dual citizenship" in our current geo-political setting and in God's current Kingdom on earth, such tensions are almost inevitable. In Paul's letter to the Philippian church, he sends them an encouraging word about where their citizenship resides. Although they were quite obviously a part of the Roman empire (an outpost where retired Roman military officers lived, in fact), Paul says to them in 3:20 "But our citizenship[or commonwealth] is in heaven..." He beseeches this church to remember that their ultimate calling is to the Kingdom of God, not to their current political regime. 

This sentiment is reiterated in Romans 13:1, where Paul calls for the church in Roman to "be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God..." Let's not forget that Paul wrote this letter to the church in Rome during a time when followers of The Way were beginning to face heavy persecution from Roman authority. Yet Paul tells these people to not resist the government. Why? God's authority over His Kingdom is the authority we need to be concerned about, which means our current government should not hinder us from being a beacon of His hope and love to those around us. 

(If you read the rest of chapter 13, you see that Paul thinks God is ultimately doing what He wants with governmental powers. Yeah, its confusing stuff sometimes).

Certain groups of believers in the United States have forgotten that our government, in all its potential for good through democracy and representation, is ultimately a representative of its political groups, not God. God's Kingdom and the kingdom of the Stars and Stripes are not synonymous, and that is alright; I would go so far as to argue that it is better for the integrity of the Church. We should not conflate politicians and prophets. 

What I am saying does have a bit of Anabaptist flare to it. On some days, I do agree with Menno Simons that Christians have no duty in politics, and I understand that I could be charged with promoting an idealism leading to inaction and complacency in the Church, a sort of "let's just let this thing go since there is nothing we can do for it" approach. But maybe there is a wisdom in letting go of some things that we think are inalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, and I would encourage any believer who thinks that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are our highest calling to reread Philippians and 1 John. 

What we need to see as the Church in this decision is not "what Constitutional rights were taken from us" or "how this country is godless and/or going to Hell." 

What we need to see in this matter is how the idea of loving our neighbor (institutionally) has changed in light of this. We need to see the new cultural situation as a new chance for us to show God's love for the world, not as an opportunity to take pot shots at viewpoints that are different from ours. Our world may never feel the same again in light of this decision, but that is just fine. I pray that, in the days to come, we will find encouragement in the words of the old hymn:

1. This is my Father's world,
and to my listening ears
all nature sings, and round me rings
the music of the spheres.
This is my Father's world:
I rest me in the thought
of rocks and trees, of skies and seas;
his hand the wonders wrought.

2. This is my Father's world,
the birds their carols raise,
the morning light, the lily white,
declare their maker's praise.
This is my Father's world:
he shines in all that's fair;
in the rustling grass I hear him pass;
he speaks to me everywhere.

3. This is my Father's world.
O let me ne'er forget
that though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the ruler yet.
This is my Father's world:
why should my heart be sad?
The Lord is King; let the heavens ring!
God reigns; let the earth be glad!

Same-Sex Marriage and the Christian Church

First, let me start off by reminding everyone that every blog post ever written is really just an opinion formed by experience, study, and personal values. At least, that’s my opinion. Therefore, please do not read this and think that I am presenting the official position of some church/denomination or other institution. I am simply writing on a subject that was handed to me and I have thoughts on. You are free to agree or disagree.

In light of the recent SCOTUS decision, I will be yet another blogger who presents his thoughts on the issue. In my opinion, it should be a non-issue, but I’ll get to that later.

Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states. Some people are thrilled, and some are very disturbed. I fall into the former category. My understanding of what this legalization entails is simply that gay and lesbian Americans are legally allowed to obtain marriage licenses in all 50 states. It is not my understanding that churches are required by law to perform ceremonies for those couples against the church’s will. Churches can already refuse to marry couples whether gay or straight, and I don’t believe that is changing. The “rights” of the church are not being encroached upon as far as I am concerned, so why is everybody getting so upset?

All of that being said, how should the Christian church respond to this new ruling? Well, I’ll put it simply: how about with love? Shouldn’t that be our first reaction to anyone if we are truly eager to imitate the person of Jesus? It is no secret that the ones primarily calling out against this decision are Christians.

The Bible seems as good a place to start as any. I will share one brief thought on the hermeneutic I use to read the Bible. I read every word in the Bible through the lens of Jesus. Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible. Perhaps I will write another post on this subject in the future.

The Bible is just about the only thing that causes Christians to think and act the way they towards the LGBTQ* community. The Bible addresses this subject very vaguely in six places. Let me say that again: the Bible addresses homosexuality very vaguely—in its 66 books—exactly six times. That’s it. Now let me contrast that with the literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of references to things like caring for the poor and the downtrodden, people groups in our country that are largely ignored by the Christian community. It is worth it to add that Jesus—our prime model as Christians—never mentions the subject of homosexuality. Never. Now, of these few references we do have in our Bible, every single one of them refers to the act of intercourse between two people of the same sex. None of them reference any sort of relationship or background.

Seeing as these few places in the Bible are the entire foundation on which Christians against this issue stand, the fact these verses describe and prohibit only the act of sex should be somewhat enlightening. In essence, what Christians are doing when they cry out against the LGBTQ* community, calling them sinful, is taking their humanity out of the picture. Christians reduce a gay man or woman solely to the act of sex. Does sex define a relationship? A marriage? Would you say that about your own marriage? Your parents’ marriage? I sincerely doubt that. So the way I see it is that Christians are taking a small handful of references in a collection of books that is over two millennia old, and twisting them and enhancing them in order to use them for something they were never intended for in the first place.

It is just plain hypocritical to argue for a Biblical law based stance on marriage when our culture has progressed past an enormous number of other laws clearly laid out in the Bible. This includes other laws for marriage that were to be followed. In numerous places in the Pentateuch, these are some examples of laws of marriage: a woman whose husband has died and has not yet borne a son is required to marry her husband’s brother under law; a slave owner could unite a male and female slave and the female slave would then be required by law to submit sexually to her new forced husband; a male soldier could take a foreign woman for his wife if she was a virgin, and this woman would be required by law to submit sexually to her new husband; finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, a virgin who is raped was required by law to marry her rapist. These were all laws at some point in time in the Bible, if we are going to adhere to one prohibiting two males from marrying, let us joyfully adhere to these others as well.

Moving on, let us look at Jesus. I have already mentioned that Jesus never brings the issue up, so the people who read the Bible as a collection of timeless truths on display for all humanity to see and follow are already coming up short.

Jesus is the embodiment of the God of love; Christians of all shapes and sizes typically agree on that. In the Gospels, we read story after story of Jesus showing love, mercy, and compassion to those around him. We see him seeking out the outcasts of society. We see him surrounding himself with prostitutes, with the diseased, with the homeless, and with many other kinds of sinners. We also see Jesus loving those people with abandon. Does Jesus look at the prostitute and think: I am so thrilled with the healthy and loving way you are living your life? No, probably not. Yet those are the ones he seeks out. Never does he call attention to this “sinful lifestyle” they are living. That would be rude, dehumanizing, and unnecessary. That thought process is what caused me to reject “hate the sin, love the sinner.” I have come to realize that is a terribly unhealthy motto. The attempt of that motto is to let the LGBTQ* community know that some Christians accept them but still think that they are living in sin. What does that communicate to the LGBTQ* community? It communicates that even those Christians who will accept them don’t think they are deserving of the love of God. That is not helpful; that is harmful. People who argue that they “accept” the LGBTQ* community and do not “judge” them but still believe they live a sinful lifestyle have in fact already judged them and already deemed them not acceptable to God. That took place before they made a conscious decision to not do it.

Seeing as how Jesus summed up the entire Old Testament law in two commandments, love God and love your neighbor as yourself, it would seem to me that Jesus simplified some things. The word neighbor is in no way exclusive; it means anyone. If the Christian church truly valued the only two commandments Jesus gave, then once they see how harmful these dismissive attitudes are toward the LGBTQ* community, perhaps they will realize they could love their neighbor better than that.

I personally don’t believe in any way that same-sex relationships of any kind are sinful in God’s eyes, unless of course these relationships bring harm and destruction to the people in them, which could just as easily be said of heterosexual relationships. Two loving people in a consensual relationship that bears love and joy are in no way sinning, regardless of the act of sex.

Though most Christians are bound to disagree with that statement, I don’t think it takes much to see the harm the church is doing to the LGBTQ* community with the way they are acting. The Christian community should open their eyes to the fact that they are picking and choosing when it comes to the Bible. Why is this the biggest issue? When there are starving and homeless people all around us, why is the church ignoring them and spending all their energy condemning another minority? Jesus set no example that encouraged that kind of discrimination. Even if the church does not change its stance on the sinfulness of same-sex relationships, it could get a lot better at showing love and acceptance to that community.

This new SCOTUS decision is a marvelous opportunity for the Christian church to do this. We can love all the people around us, even in our disagreements.