I read the following somewhere, though I cannot recall where or when:
"The most valuable part of a cup is the empty space in the center."
That got me thinking, and I wrote the following:
With what part of ourselves do we perceive nature?
Where do we hear God?
Where do our friends live?
The empty space in the center.
And what is there beyond nature, God, and friendship? There is nothing beyond these three. When I say this, I am thinking of friendship in its most expansive meaning, including the friendship that is the relationship between man and wife, between parent and child, friendship -- the connection between the souls of two people.
I'm writing this as we approach the nativity, as we wait in anticipation of the presense of God once again. Now, as you all know so well, is the time to cultivate emptiness so that we may see, so that we may hear, so that we may perceive.
I would love to hear all of your thoughts on this topic.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
What advice would you give?
A young friend of mine (and theo-fan's) is graduating from high school. This got me thinking and reflecting on life, as most of us approach the midway point. Looking back, and looking at where we are and how we've come to be where we are, what advice would you offer a high school graduate about to venture out into the world?
If your son or daughter came to you and said, 'Mom, Dad, what should I do with my life? What should I pursue? How important is financial security? How important is it to pursue my passions?', what advice?
If your son or daughter came to you and said, 'Mom, Dad, what should I do with my life? What should I pursue? How important is financial security? How important is it to pursue my passions?', what advice?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Adventure
How important is adventure to the human spirit? Do we need adventure? I've been thinking about childhood adventure, and about books like Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn. Is a childhood without adventure a stunted childhood?
What about adults? Our lives often seem so safe, so controlled, so dictated by necessities. Does this mean that we have traded in passion for security?
To me, adventure conjures up images of vitality, both of body and spirit. We are most alive when we are in the midst of adventure. I suppose I most readily associate adventure with surfing, whitewater kayaking, rafting, backpacking, and things of that nature. To me, this sort of adventure not only makes me feel alive, but it also makes me feel connected -- I feel like I intimately belong to this world in which I live. This feeling is paramount to the well-being of my soul.
So, how 'bout y'all? How do you define adventure? How important is it to the human experience?
What about adults? Our lives often seem so safe, so controlled, so dictated by necessities. Does this mean that we have traded in passion for security?
To me, adventure conjures up images of vitality, both of body and spirit. We are most alive when we are in the midst of adventure. I suppose I most readily associate adventure with surfing, whitewater kayaking, rafting, backpacking, and things of that nature. To me, this sort of adventure not only makes me feel alive, but it also makes me feel connected -- I feel like I intimately belong to this world in which I live. This feeling is paramount to the well-being of my soul.
So, how 'bout y'all? How do you define adventure? How important is it to the human experience?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
yin and yang
I've been thinking about yin and yang, the complementary actors in relationships. I suppose we live in a culture that values yang above yin, the assertive above the receptive, but I am coming to understand the value, indeed the necessity of both yin and yang to form something complete.
So what are yin and yang? They are, by definition relational -- we don't talk about yin and yang as balancing parts of an individual, but rather as the dynamics of different entities relating to each other.
Yin is to yang as flesh and blood is to bones.
Yin is to yang as poetry is to haiku.
The latter I learned from Wendell Berry in an essay defending the value of forms and structures. Essentially, he said that there is something to be said for the forms of poetry such as sonnets or haikus that give shape and boundaries to the art of the poem.
I would suggest that we could say the same about relationships between people: often, one partner supplies the forms, the structures, the parameters of shared living while the other partner supplies a more intangible element that I will call art. Art without structure is as vital as flesh and blood without a skeleton to give it shape; structure without art is as useful as a skeleton without flesh and blood.
Yin is to yang as water is to rock -- river.
These are thoughts off the top of my head, coming out without being completely formed (ironic, eh?). Let me know what you think.
So what are yin and yang? They are, by definition relational -- we don't talk about yin and yang as balancing parts of an individual, but rather as the dynamics of different entities relating to each other.
Yin is to yang as flesh and blood is to bones.
Yin is to yang as poetry is to haiku.
The latter I learned from Wendell Berry in an essay defending the value of forms and structures. Essentially, he said that there is something to be said for the forms of poetry such as sonnets or haikus that give shape and boundaries to the art of the poem.
I would suggest that we could say the same about relationships between people: often, one partner supplies the forms, the structures, the parameters of shared living while the other partner supplies a more intangible element that I will call art. Art without structure is as vital as flesh and blood without a skeleton to give it shape; structure without art is as useful as a skeleton without flesh and blood.
Yin is to yang as water is to rock -- river.
These are thoughts off the top of my head, coming out without being completely formed (ironic, eh?). Let me know what you think.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
"Wives, submit to your husbands. . . ."
So little has been written about marriage from an Orthodox Christian perspective (at least I've been frustrated with the little that I have found); yet, there is so much to be said. I'm thinking of this specifically from an Orthodox Christian perspective because I think that there is a unique understanding within this tradition that sheds some light on how to live as a married couple. I'll try to keep this short, just throw out the basics to get a conversation started:
The Church teaches that the Trinity is not only one in essence but also perfectly united in will. United in will -- this is profound. What does it mean to be perfectly united in will? None of us have experienced perfect unity in will with another human being, so the concept of three entities being completely united in will is almost incomprehensible to us. This is the great mystery of the Christian trinity -- this is how we say "Hear, oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One," and at the same time, "We believe in the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." It is utterly impossible have any understanding of trinity without understanding the concept of a perfectly united will.
What does this have to do with marriage? I'm trying to get there; I think I'm two steps away from the point that I'm trying to make. Any kind of close reading of the gospels reveals the united will of the Trinity: Christ makes several references to his willing submission to the Father, and to the willing submission of the Holy Spirit to the Father. The action, and maybe the essence, of the Trinity is defined by complete mutual submission. This is what it means when we say that God is love.
In the gospels, Christ prays that his followers may find this love, this union of will "that they may be one, as we are that they may all be one, as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be one in us. I in them, and You in me, that they may be made perfect in one."
At Christian weddings, I've sensed a nearly audible cringe from non-Christian friends and family when they hear, "Wives, submit to your husbands." It's such a strong reaction, that it is difficult to hear the "husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church." Even if they do hear, what does it mean? The key to understanding these two verses lies in understanding the perfectly united will of the Trinity: it is all about mutual submission. As Christ acted as a servant to all, washing his disciples dirty feet, so we are to serve one another.
Marriage then is about learning mutual submission. The more that we submit our wills to one another, the closer we come to a unity of will. The closer that we come to a unity of will, the happier and more complete our marriages will be.
OK -- I'll get down from my pulpit now. So much for keeping it short.
The Church teaches that the Trinity is not only one in essence but also perfectly united in will. United in will -- this is profound. What does it mean to be perfectly united in will? None of us have experienced perfect unity in will with another human being, so the concept of three entities being completely united in will is almost incomprehensible to us. This is the great mystery of the Christian trinity -- this is how we say "Hear, oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One," and at the same time, "We believe in the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." It is utterly impossible have any understanding of trinity without understanding the concept of a perfectly united will.
What does this have to do with marriage? I'm trying to get there; I think I'm two steps away from the point that I'm trying to make. Any kind of close reading of the gospels reveals the united will of the Trinity: Christ makes several references to his willing submission to the Father, and to the willing submission of the Holy Spirit to the Father. The action, and maybe the essence, of the Trinity is defined by complete mutual submission. This is what it means when we say that God is love.
In the gospels, Christ prays that his followers may find this love, this union of will "that they may be one, as we are that they may all be one, as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be one in us. I in them, and You in me, that they may be made perfect in one."
At Christian weddings, I've sensed a nearly audible cringe from non-Christian friends and family when they hear, "Wives, submit to your husbands." It's such a strong reaction, that it is difficult to hear the "husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church." Even if they do hear, what does it mean? The key to understanding these two verses lies in understanding the perfectly united will of the Trinity: it is all about mutual submission. As Christ acted as a servant to all, washing his disciples dirty feet, so we are to serve one another.
Marriage then is about learning mutual submission. The more that we submit our wills to one another, the closer we come to a unity of will. The closer that we come to a unity of will, the happier and more complete our marriages will be.
OK -- I'll get down from my pulpit now. So much for keeping it short.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Give it away now
How long can we keep feathering our nests while others sleep outside in the cold? I've felt this nagging sense of guilt and social conscience for a while, but I found it crystalized in an interview that I heard on our local NPR station this morning. The interview was with leading evangelical leader Brian McLaren*. who was making the case that evangelical Christians have been heading in the wrong direction for a long time.
What he said was essentially this: for decades, evangelicals have been so focused on the afterlife that they have neglected to care for the needs of people around them in this life. Interestingly, this is precisely a point that Chris made in one of our first discussions here, regarding religion and higher education. McLaren noted, using almost verbatum the language that Chris used, that there has been a juxtaposition between the evangelicals on one hand who are focused on the soul and its attainment of heaven, and liberals on the other hand who are focused on making this world better. McLaren went on to say that this is not just a false dichotomy; it is a neglect of the teachings of the gospel.
There is so much in Christian scriptures that focuses on the poor and on the importance of charity. We see it in the ancient Hebrew laws that instruct people to leave a portion of their crops in the field for those in need to gather. We see it all over the New Testament, in language so strong that it says that anyone who fails to love and care for those around them is not a true Christian at all. We see it in Saint John the baptist's statement that "I must decrease, and [Christ] must increase." On a purely literal level, John is handing his ministry over to Jesus who is the fullfilment of his message. On a deeper spiritual level, Saint John is expressing the truth that the ego man must decrease to make room for the emergence of the image of God within each of us. This second message has social ramifications: my own selfish pursuits must be laid aside in order to make room for the charity of God to act through me.
As an aside, there are so many bridges here. This acknowledgement of what has always been true creates potential bridges between various Christian groups (the Catholic Church has always been a leader in its efforts to reach out to the needy in this world). There is a potential bridge between the social justice crusaders of the "liberal left" and social justice crusaders of a group that has been the "Christian right." We are not so far apart. A favorite priest of mine, Father Seraphim, said that as we draw closer to God, we necessarily draw closer to one another. May this be realized.
McLaren talked about three central issues: prosperity; equity; and spiritual deficiency. He made a very nice case arguing that our nation's success in its pursuit of prosperity has put us at odds with the natural world; we are using more resources than our planet can provide and producing more waste than our planet can contain. Subsequently, we are creating an equity gap between America and most of the other people living on this planet (I'm sure this sentiment can be brought home to the gap between rich and poor in this country as well). That was where I pulled into the driveway, so I missed the rest.
But what are we going to do about it? I've got way more than I need. Stephanie and I have decided to start going through our closets and storage space to find whatever we can to donate, as a starting point. Our possessions are weighing us down.
There's so much more to say, but this is getting very long. Please let me know your thoughts on this though. Also, if you find this interesting, this post relates very closely to some previous posts and discussions: religion and higher education; ego trip; and Christianity, abortion, and the GOP. There's just so much to talk about here.
*Author, speaker, activist and pastor Brian McLaren kicks off his 2008 nationwide "Everything Must Change" tour in Charlotte this week. The tour targets people who don't feel comfortable in a traditional church, have doubts and questions about God and Jesus, and those who have questioned their faith. McLaren, who has been named one of the country's 25 most influential evangelicals by Time Magazine
What he said was essentially this: for decades, evangelicals have been so focused on the afterlife that they have neglected to care for the needs of people around them in this life. Interestingly, this is precisely a point that Chris made in one of our first discussions here, regarding religion and higher education. McLaren noted, using almost verbatum the language that Chris used, that there has been a juxtaposition between the evangelicals on one hand who are focused on the soul and its attainment of heaven, and liberals on the other hand who are focused on making this world better. McLaren went on to say that this is not just a false dichotomy; it is a neglect of the teachings of the gospel.
There is so much in Christian scriptures that focuses on the poor and on the importance of charity. We see it in the ancient Hebrew laws that instruct people to leave a portion of their crops in the field for those in need to gather. We see it all over the New Testament, in language so strong that it says that anyone who fails to love and care for those around them is not a true Christian at all. We see it in Saint John the baptist's statement that "I must decrease, and [Christ] must increase." On a purely literal level, John is handing his ministry over to Jesus who is the fullfilment of his message. On a deeper spiritual level, Saint John is expressing the truth that the ego man must decrease to make room for the emergence of the image of God within each of us. This second message has social ramifications: my own selfish pursuits must be laid aside in order to make room for the charity of God to act through me.
As an aside, there are so many bridges here. This acknowledgement of what has always been true creates potential bridges between various Christian groups (the Catholic Church has always been a leader in its efforts to reach out to the needy in this world). There is a potential bridge between the social justice crusaders of the "liberal left" and social justice crusaders of a group that has been the "Christian right." We are not so far apart. A favorite priest of mine, Father Seraphim, said that as we draw closer to God, we necessarily draw closer to one another. May this be realized.
McLaren talked about three central issues: prosperity; equity; and spiritual deficiency. He made a very nice case arguing that our nation's success in its pursuit of prosperity has put us at odds with the natural world; we are using more resources than our planet can provide and producing more waste than our planet can contain. Subsequently, we are creating an equity gap between America and most of the other people living on this planet (I'm sure this sentiment can be brought home to the gap between rich and poor in this country as well). That was where I pulled into the driveway, so I missed the rest.
But what are we going to do about it? I've got way more than I need. Stephanie and I have decided to start going through our closets and storage space to find whatever we can to donate, as a starting point. Our possessions are weighing us down.
There's so much more to say, but this is getting very long. Please let me know your thoughts on this though. Also, if you find this interesting, this post relates very closely to some previous posts and discussions: religion and higher education; ego trip; and Christianity, abortion, and the GOP. There's just so much to talk about here.
*Author, speaker, activist and pastor Brian McLaren kicks off his 2008 nationwide "Everything Must Change" tour in Charlotte this week. The tour targets people who don't feel comfortable in a traditional church, have doubts and questions about God and Jesus, and those who have questioned their faith. McLaren, who has been named one of the country's 25 most influential evangelicals by Time Magazine
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Christianity, abortion, and the GOP
Let me preface this by saying that I think that it is extremely dangerous to confuse religion with politics; mixing the two seems to always bring the former down more than it raises the latter up. Politics corrupts religion so easily that it is paramount that a person of faith zealously keep the inferior in submission to the superior (politics in submission to faith).
We all are well aware that in recent years the evangelical Christians have become a powerful force in American politics. They are now a base, if not THE base of the republican party. But why? How has this come to be? As I recall, several years back, the GOP began courting the evangelical Christians, presenting the party as a guardian of Christian values. A lot of American Christians accepted that idea and subsequently have become staunch republicans.
However, looking at the two major political parties from a Christian perspective, I'm a bit confused. When I compare Christian values to the values espoused by the GOP, the only compelling link that I see is abortion. As Christians, we believe in the sanctity of life . . . you know the rest. This is a very important issue for most Christians, and it is an issue that tends to split pretty cleanly along party lines.
But what about other moral and ethical issues? What about other Christian values? Taking good care of the earth is a very important Christian value. All life on this planet is holy, and all of creation is good. The GOP doesn't have the best track record on the environment.
What about the poor? There is some room for debate here, but not a lot -- the Democrats have been more consistent defenders of the poor. Taking care of the poor and needy is a central Christian value. Christ tells us that whatever we do for someone in need, it is as if we have done it for Him. This includes health care and the like.
There are other issues as well, far too much to get into all at once. It is enough to say here that the idea of the republican party as a defender of Christian values is a distortion and a deception. Abortion is the only thing that has been able to sell this idea. For many Christians, abortion trumps all other political issues; many view it as the slavery of our generation.
If the republicans didn't own the pro-life argument, they would soon lose their Christian base. If there was room in the democratic party for pro-life arguments, the republicans would lose their Christian base. Unless, and this is a big 'unless,' unless the Christians have been so fooled by the sale of the GOP as Christian that they are no longer able to tell the party from the faith.
We all are well aware that in recent years the evangelical Christians have become a powerful force in American politics. They are now a base, if not THE base of the republican party. But why? How has this come to be? As I recall, several years back, the GOP began courting the evangelical Christians, presenting the party as a guardian of Christian values. A lot of American Christians accepted that idea and subsequently have become staunch republicans.
However, looking at the two major political parties from a Christian perspective, I'm a bit confused. When I compare Christian values to the values espoused by the GOP, the only compelling link that I see is abortion. As Christians, we believe in the sanctity of life . . . you know the rest. This is a very important issue for most Christians, and it is an issue that tends to split pretty cleanly along party lines.
But what about other moral and ethical issues? What about other Christian values? Taking good care of the earth is a very important Christian value. All life on this planet is holy, and all of creation is good. The GOP doesn't have the best track record on the environment.
What about the poor? There is some room for debate here, but not a lot -- the Democrats have been more consistent defenders of the poor. Taking care of the poor and needy is a central Christian value. Christ tells us that whatever we do for someone in need, it is as if we have done it for Him. This includes health care and the like.
There are other issues as well, far too much to get into all at once. It is enough to say here that the idea of the republican party as a defender of Christian values is a distortion and a deception. Abortion is the only thing that has been able to sell this idea. For many Christians, abortion trumps all other political issues; many view it as the slavery of our generation.
If the republicans didn't own the pro-life argument, they would soon lose their Christian base. If there was room in the democratic party for pro-life arguments, the republicans would lose their Christian base. Unless, and this is a big 'unless,' unless the Christians have been so fooled by the sale of the GOP as Christian that they are no longer able to tell the party from the faith.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Ego Trip
"The doors, the doors, in wisdom let us attend." Shut the doors to the senses. Close them one at a time until you have closed all six. Lock them securely.
Incence is a useless stick until it burns itself away into beautiful fragrance.
Cut off the ego. It is nothingness grasping at everything.
What does it want? It wants to be admired, for everything. It wants to be admired for its looks; for its intelligence; for its talent; for its courage; for its spirituality; for its athleticism.
But what is admiration but a vaprous ghost? What if no one admires me for my looks, my mind, my athletic prowess? What if no one admires me for my courage or my spirituality? What if I never become a great author? What if I have none of these things? What if I am none of these things? What if no one admires me? What then have I lost? Nothing! I have lost nothing because admiration is a thing that no one can possess at all. It is not mine. It is not a part of me.
Incence is a useless stick until it burns itself away into beautiful fragrance.
Cut off the ego. It is nothingness grasping at everything.
What does it want? It wants to be admired, for everything. It wants to be admired for its looks; for its intelligence; for its talent; for its courage; for its spirituality; for its athleticism.
But what is admiration but a vaprous ghost? What if no one admires me for my looks, my mind, my athletic prowess? What if no one admires me for my courage or my spirituality? What if I never become a great author? What if I have none of these things? What if I am none of these things? What if no one admires me? What then have I lost? Nothing! I have lost nothing because admiration is a thing that no one can possess at all. It is not mine. It is not a part of me.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
The List
What are your four favorite movies?
Mine are The Mission; Cool Hand Luke; The Matrix; and Fight Club
Mine are The Mission; Cool Hand Luke; The Matrix; and Fight Club
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Episode IV: A New Hope
Some dreams die hard; some don't die at all. For me, the idea of living communally is so central to my ideology that it is never far from my thoughts. What can I say, I was raised on a fishing resort with my parents, my grandparents, and my uncle. Everyone lived together and shared the work (except for me because I was too little -- maybe that's why my memories are so fond). It was a wonderful way to live, and I have wondered again and again throughout the various stages of my life how it would be possible to re-create a similar situation, living together with friends or family.
Six years ago several of us were talking quite seriously about trying to set up some sort of community. We already bought groceries together, made meals together, helped each other out whenever there was a need. It was a good dream, but the timing was wrong: our resources were too meager at the time.
A few years later, we found ourselves actually living in the same house with several of you, sharing our days and our responsibilities, and the garden that we started.
It all makes me wonder about community living/communal living. How can it be done, or rather, how can it be done well? I've done some research on communes and found that most of them fail abismally. It seems that too often, communes are the brainchild of idealistic youth, strong on hope but often lacking in pragmatism, wisdom, and resources. On the other end of the spectrum, you have retirement communes. I've only read a bit about these. They seem to work better, but I can't help but wonder if such late communal living is missing too many of the benefits for which people decide to live together in the first place.
This brings me to middle-age communal living. I cannot help but wonder if people in their thirties and forties (that's most of us) should be the ones thinking about communal living. We have the resources and the earning potential, not to mention more maturity than we had in our twenties. At the same time, we are still young enough to reap the full benefits of communal living. It seems that there is so much that we could share, so many benefits on both personal and financial levels, that we should really consider the idea. I have so many thoughts on this topic that I'll publish them in a separate post, so this won't get too long.
However, before I close this, let me ask a few questions:
1) What would be necessary for the creation of a viable community?
a. In financial terms, how close to a metropolitan area would a community need to be?
b. What social conditions would need to exist? In other words, what would be required in
terms of shared values?
2) Preferences:
a. What degree of autonomy would be most likely to make such a community work?
b. How much land would be desirable, per family?
c. Is the idea of a shared business venture (farmers' market; bed and breakfast; etc.)
appealing?
I know that some of you are interested in this idea because we've talked about it before. One thing that I like about it is that there is no hurry at all. This is a dream that has persisted for me, and rather than withering like a raisin in the sun, it has only evolved. So, as far as I am concerned, if this is something that could happen five or ten years down the road, I would be happy with that. Besides, a successful community requires serious planning.
Six years ago several of us were talking quite seriously about trying to set up some sort of community. We already bought groceries together, made meals together, helped each other out whenever there was a need. It was a good dream, but the timing was wrong: our resources were too meager at the time.
A few years later, we found ourselves actually living in the same house with several of you, sharing our days and our responsibilities, and the garden that we started.
It all makes me wonder about community living/communal living. How can it be done, or rather, how can it be done well? I've done some research on communes and found that most of them fail abismally. It seems that too often, communes are the brainchild of idealistic youth, strong on hope but often lacking in pragmatism, wisdom, and resources. On the other end of the spectrum, you have retirement communes. I've only read a bit about these. They seem to work better, but I can't help but wonder if such late communal living is missing too many of the benefits for which people decide to live together in the first place.
This brings me to middle-age communal living. I cannot help but wonder if people in their thirties and forties (that's most of us) should be the ones thinking about communal living. We have the resources and the earning potential, not to mention more maturity than we had in our twenties. At the same time, we are still young enough to reap the full benefits of communal living. It seems that there is so much that we could share, so many benefits on both personal and financial levels, that we should really consider the idea. I have so many thoughts on this topic that I'll publish them in a separate post, so this won't get too long.
However, before I close this, let me ask a few questions:
1) What would be necessary for the creation of a viable community?
a. In financial terms, how close to a metropolitan area would a community need to be?
b. What social conditions would need to exist? In other words, what would be required in
terms of shared values?
2) Preferences:
a. What degree of autonomy would be most likely to make such a community work?
b. How much land would be desirable, per family?
c. Is the idea of a shared business venture (farmers' market; bed and breakfast; etc.)
appealing?
I know that some of you are interested in this idea because we've talked about it before. One thing that I like about it is that there is no hurry at all. This is a dream that has persisted for me, and rather than withering like a raisin in the sun, it has only evolved. So, as far as I am concerned, if this is something that could happen five or ten years down the road, I would be happy with that. Besides, a successful community requires serious planning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
