There is only one true flight from the world; it is not an escape from conflict, anguish and suffering, but the flight from disunity and separation, to unity and peace in the love of other men. — Thomas Merton

Monday, April 28, 2008

Merton Monday 08


 

This is one of my all-time favorite quotes from New Seeds of Contemplation. The day I had read this for the umpteenth time and its truth finally struck me in all its depth and simplicity, my entire life of personal Christian faith changed:

The eyes of the saint make all beauty holy and the hands of the saint consecrate everything they touch to the glory of God, and the saint is never offended by anything and judges no man's sin because he does not know sin. He knows the mercy of God. He knows that his own mission on earth is to bring that mercy to all men. —New Seeds, chapter 4

It never ceases to puzzle (note I don't say amaze) me that most Christians I have shown this quote not only don't get it, they argue with it. Generally, they tend to view it as doctrinally unsound, and their response is along the lines of, "Well, this a very dangerous statement. The Bible clearly teaches us that if we claim we don't sin, we are self-deceived and the truth doesn't live within us." Yep. The reference is from 1 John chapter one. I know. But Merton isn't even talking in the same ballpark as this kind of thinking, and Merton's point, like most of his points, is so pure and clear that it takes only a bit of legalistic contaminant to make it cloudy and obscure. The point is easier to apprehend if it is reduced to this: The saint does not know sin. He knows the mercy of God.

In my opinion, Merton's observation here is absolutely, one hundred per cent on target. When God takes hold of us, God desires for Love to be our singular vision, to the exclusion of all else. If we allow God to work in us, over time this desire becomes reality. It has been said that God's Love is a consuming fire. One of the things it consumes is our petty, human propensity to fixate upon and judge the sin of others.

I guess I'm still waiting for us Christians to see another simple thing: in Christian doctrine, there is already a judge and there is already one who makes accusations concerning other men's sins. The former is God, and the latter is Satan. I'm still waiting for us to figure out we are not the former, and that we shouldn't act like the latter. I'm still waiting for us to understand that between the Judge and the Accuser stands a defender, who protects the accused and offers him or her mercy. I'm waiting for us to understand that the defender, one Jesus of Nazareth, is the one we are supposed to emulate. All in all, I guess I'm waiting for us to figure out that as long as we're going to cling to doctrine, we should at least get our roles right.

It seems to me this means, for one thing, that we stop turning up our noses at other people, and simply love them like there's no tomorrow. Until within us God makes this our spiritual nature, we can at least strive to do it by force of well-reasoned volition.

Labels:

Monday, April 21, 2008

Having Everything But a Clue

Last year the congregation I attend announced that it would be holding a congregation-wide, weekend long retreat to promote fellowship. Good idea.

Well, except that the facility hosting the retreat, it was known at the time, charged around two hundred dollars to feed and house a family for the weekend. This meant, in effect, that the weekend of fellowship was for those in the minority portion of the congregation who could afford it. Bad idea. Really, really, bad idea.

Oh, there was no backlash. Nobody mentioned it in public. I heard no grumbling. But I was terribly bothered by it. It was so simple, so clear, so blatant. Did anybody organizing the event realize what it sounds like, what it means, when you stand in a pulpit and say that the whole congregation is invited, when most of the people know it is impossible for them, and those doing the inviting already know that? What exactly is the congregation implied to be in such circumstances? Those who can afford to be a part of it? And uh, parenthetically, isn't this the opposite of what Jesus taught?

This a perfect example of how socio-economics works in the real world: money divides people, all of the time in a myriad of ways. But the example is especially disconcerting in an organization where nobody is supposed to be divided in any way. Even more worrisome is that when I mentioned this to a few people who could afford to attend the retreat, as far as I could tell the economics and the consequent divide hadn't occurred to them at all. None of these people were mean or cruel people, but they were—and this is not an excuse—clueless. Those of us who enjoy power and privilege in a group small or large are likely to never notice the way we flaunt our position and lord it over others, and why should we? When all is well, when we have everything we need and most everything we want, what would cause us to stop and see the other side? What could cause us to question what we've always known? What would incite inquiry into that which seems so normal, so natural and so right to us? What, that is, except a heart and mind in a different, which is to say proper, place?

We need to stop and think. We need to think about the things we say and choose to do. There are numerous examples of the above case in point; little situations we probably don't even notice, that drive a wedge between humans because of economics. We need to think about a Christianity that prides itself on following the Bible and striving to emulate the church of the first century. In that church, everyone had everything in common, and no one was in need. Those who had, sold what they had so that those who had not, could have. We need to think about how we don't like to think about that little detail. We need to think about getting a clue.

And by "we," I mean myself most of all.

Labels: , , ,

Merton Monday 07

It sometimes happens that men who preach most vehemently about evil and the punishment of evil, so that they seem to have practically nothing else on their minds except sin, are really unconscious haters of other men. They think the world does not appreciate them, and this is their way of getting even. — New Seeds, chapter 13

Labels:

Sunday, April 20, 2008

We Are All Broken. No One is Exempt.

I had a brief talk today with a young man who suffers from certain psychological "conditions." I don't know what they are, and I'm not really concerned over what they are. He asked me to pray for him, that he might have a more gentle spirit, because he has cruel and mean thoughts. I said I would.

By the end of the conversation, I was telling him that wanting to be closer to God is already being closer to God, and that wanting to have a more gentle spirit is already having a more gentle spirit. And I said that we all, always, need prayers for that same thing.

I ended by asking him to pray for me, too; that I might be a better spouse, a better parent, a better child of God. He smiled, and I think he was genuinely touched by the thought that I would consider him able to pray for me. I did that on purpose, for his sake.

But you know what? As I shook his hand and walked away, I knew it was absolutely true: God will listen to him just fine—and I need his prayers at least as much as he needs mine.

Labels:

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Of Mice and Men

Well, I finally purchased a copy of Adobe CS3 Design Premium, and student pricing pretty much saved a year's tuition off the retail price. And hey, guess what? As far as I can tell, it all actually installed correctly. This means I'm one step closer to having the infrastructure set up for a publishing business (*woo*). It also means that I now own software that is at least two orders of magnitude more advanced than my current skill level.

So, possibly this summer, I will be reworking the rhrn.net web site to give it a more polished look. I'd eventually like to move over to Wordpress for the blogging, so if anybody can tell me how to do so painlessly, while retaining all my past posts, please do so. I'm wanting to make the move to more updated blog features (categorization of posts, technorati, etc.), but know almost nothing about how to do it. I'm open to being educated.

In theory, if a person puts the effort into making quality posts, and keeping them categorized, and actually posting regularly, then the material for a decent book manuscript can be made in about a year. I need to keep reminding myself of this. And it's something I'm eventually going to shoot for, since it's one of those things that time-multiplexes one's work; something I just about have to take advantage of with my schedule.

So there you go. Publishing business. New web site. New blog. Organized, polished posts. No sweat.

Annnnd I get to feed the rabbits, right George?

Monday, April 14, 2008

Merton Monday 06

One of the first things to learn if you want to be a contemplative is how to mind your own business.

Nothing is more suspicious, in a man who seems holy, than an impatient desire to reform other men.

A serious obstacle to recollection is the mania for directing those you have not been appointed to direct, reforming those you have not been asked to reform, correcting those over whom you have no jurisdiction. How can you do these things and keep your mind at rest? Renounce this futile concern with other men's affairs!

Pay as little attention as you can to the faults of other people and none at all to their natural defects and eccentricities.

—New Seeds, chapter 35

Labels:

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Class Dismissed

This month, an acquaintance passed away. From everything I've gathered, she was as friendly and kind as she had always led me to believe. I will miss seeing her around. She always seemed to be open to the world, and genuinely happy. She was also, by the way, deaf…

So my wife and I were talking about the passing of this lady's life, and while doing dishes after dinner, I remarked, "Yeah, she always came up to me and, as best as she could, smiled and said hello and wished me a good day. It always made me wish I knew sign language, you know? So I could communicate with her, with deaf people."

"Oh, I talked to her all the time," my wife said plainly. "All you had to do was speak clearly and make sure she could see your face. She could read lips just fine."

… … … dammit. geez, how did I miss that? … … …

I have a tendency to miss the act of communication, by being too concerned with the technical aspects of communication. And now I realize that I do this all the time, in a variety of ways. My bad. And let's not even go into the meaning and value of the act, lost because of a preoccupation with language. I feel bad enough already. Example set. Lesson learned. Kitchen class dismissed. Another line item on the "why I admire my wife" list.

I tend to think loving God and other people is like this. There is loving, with all of its associated meaning and value. And then there is a whole bunch of theorizing and pontificating about what love is. The latter is a good thing—unless it gets in the way of the former. So, one of the first possible answers to the questions posed in an earlier post? What does it really mean to love God, to really love others? I'm willing to say in the moment I don't know. But, part of it must be that when an opportunity to love is staring you straight in the face, just take it.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Of Guesses, Gambles and Dreams

There is a line of reasoning—one I find quite compelling—in some Christian theologies, and it is summarized by this very simple statement: Love must be chosen. To elaborate a little bit, this reasoning is typically employed in the construction of a theodicy, a defense of God vis-à-vis the existence of evil. One version of it would be something along the following brief presentation.

The foundational motivation behind all of creation is for love to exist outside (so to speak) of God, that love may be shared with God. In order for love to be love in any real sense, love must be choose-able. A creature must choose love; not have love forced upon it. The down to earth example would be that if you could create and program a robot to be your life partner, you could program it to act just like it loves you, but this would be different from it actually loving you. Love has to be chosen, and this is what makes it love. Think about it, and I think most of you would agree. It's pretty straight forward. And so, the idea goes, for this reason God had to give his creatures the ability to choose love or not. Hence, free will. Some people choose (chronically and/or acutely) not to love. Hence there is evil. And so on.

Now, what is fairly, but not plainly, obvious about this view is something very, very profound and beautiful. No matter how unsettling, detestable, tragic and horrifying evil can be, we can trust that in the end of all things, we will find God's Love to be in goodness far greater. In other words, no matter how horrible life appears, in the end, the horror is worth the beauty. This is very powerful. It also happens to be what I'm not going to talk about here, but there is another implication when the theory is taken a bit further, as some do. If you really believe there is true free will, you believe that God does not exercise absolute, minute control over the universe. Furthermore, if you're an open theist, as I tend to be, you believe that creation is unfolding, as is God with it. God doesn't have a detailed master plan carried out in each moment of life. God always wins overall here and there as necessary, but things aren't set in stone. I believe that an honest reading of the Bible reveals that biblical writers believed this as well. But overall, this means that creation, and being a part of it, is a bit of a gamble. For a born existentialist like myself, this not only makes sense; it is completely intuitive. Few or no things are ever known for sure. We do the best we can. Along the way, things are sometimes pleasant, and sometimes not. In the end, everything will work out (this is held in faith). But for now, life on a cosmic scale is about odds versus cost and payoffs. It works this way from the foundation of Creation all the way down to the tiniest of things. I say all this simply to note that although my thinking in those areas is much more expanded, it's briefly presented here so that it is understood as a backdrop for posts such as my early post on Spadefoot frogs, and posts such as the one that follows presently…


Flooded with thoughts today, thoughts all swirled together in a soft, hazy spiral. Who knows from whence these come; why, unbidden, they come to mind in the multihued tapestries they do. And who knows what to do with them, but to watch them, as if from the outside, and to feel them—feel them with an odd and awe-like curiosity. Life. Living. A life. One life. A single perception of living. Unique in all of history. The only thing that is mine and mine alone. Existing because and only because so many people, so many places and so many things, are a part of it; having formed it, shaped it, colored it and given it meaning. But the whole is greater than the sum. It is a life of shared parts, but its whole is only mine. Nobody else will ever know it. This is the meaning of tragedy, in all of its most glorious, most poignant, forms. It is our majestic connection to all of life, and it is our great loneliness.

In this present moment, there's an area of the swirling cloud, right around me, within me, over here where I pause to turn my mind's eye. It began recently when I spent the day with my daughter at a space exploration expo. It's a wonderful thing to watch her at such events; her most genuine grins and laughter always appear when she is in the middle of such things. From all appearances, she loves space engineering, geek-like activities. Days and sometimes a week of space-related stickers and patches, NASA badges, model rockets and Mars missions inspired by coneheads and nerd-gods; those who care not about bad hair days and who are more needed, more at home, in unearthly places. I share with her these feelings, as though there is always someplace else we should be—a place not here, a place always undefined. Perhaps we dream that rockets will someday take us to wherever it is, but at my age now I tend to think they will never expend fuel for my sake. I tend to think instead that the places we seek, she and I, are somewhere more in the vicinity of the simple and shared joy of the flight of a model rocket, than any place an Ares and Orion will ever take us. I always grin when a model rocket flight is true; no roll, no oscillations of any kind. Straight. Perfect. Joyous. And I always ask myself, what is it in those fractions of a second when a model you've made leaves the pad, and soars upwards out of site, that brings a moment of unspoiled happiness? I ask every time, and I can never answer for sure, except that maybe its modest flight is a metaphor, intuitively grasped, for our human dreams. You hope they fly straight. You hope they are perfect, and joyous. You hope they someday reach their mark. You hope that in the end they take you someplace just far enough away, and that you arrive there safely, locatable by those you love, unbroken or at least reparable. Most of all, you know dreams are for dreaming. All that matters is that they are given a chance—just a chance—to take off and climb sunward.

My big brother once told me, not many years ago, that he's proud of me. That means more to me than I can say. He said he's proud because he remembers long ago, when I was a "little bitty guy," that I would talk about working for NASA. "That's all you ever wanted," he said. "And now look at you." I guess that's something. Maybe it is simply fate; a fate shared with my daughter, and one I had no more chance of avoiding than she does. Or maybe it's simply something I made for myself, a thing my daughter may or may not care, in the long run, to create for herself. Come whatever may, I hope only that she finds happiness—joy in whatever she does and becomes.

However it has happened, I have been working in the space program for over half of my life now. I am good at what I do, although I must admit that I say so with the same energy and emotion that I can say, "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." I say it because other people have said it is so, not because I know or feel it to be so. Nor do I really care anymore. It's what I do, I try to do it with devotion and honesty and grace, but at this point in my life, its meaning to me is that it provides for my family, that maybe by chance it will have some good use and influence in the course of humanity, and that my children derive enjoyment from it. "Do you get to talk to astronauts?" they ask from time to time. "Sometimes. Once in a while," I tell them. "But my job is to help them talk to other people, when they're flying around in orbit," I try to explain. "That's so cool," my kids will say, and I do my best to share their excitement. Yeah, it's cool, I think, but the cooler part is that you think it's cool.

Part of the swirl is smiling, laughing at a joke only it and I understand. It is not a cruel, not a mean-spirited or arrogant, joke. It brings the same type of laughter as seeing the emperor with no clothes. It is not his nakedness, but his obliviousness that is comical. The joke is, we refer to science and engineering as if they're the most exacting things on earth, and people say I'm good at it, but… (do you get it?) I just GUESS. It's all I've ever done, since I was a kid. I've stumbled and bumbled along in life just… guessing at it. There are so few sure things in life; so few guarantees. There is so little knowing in life, so few givens. But for some of us, there is a knack for interpolations, propagations and probabilities—a gift we never asked for nor try to understand, or even use on purpose. It's an intuitive propensity for weighing things that most people never recognize as having mass. It is not a superior thing. It is not an inferior thing. It is simply about playing cards with the hand one is dealt. It is about guessing, about gambling, and daring to dream in the vague and frightening midst of an overwhelming lack of surety.

The point of all this is that the joy and dream of a little bitty guy, a little Professor Peabody (or was it Sherman they called me?) about eight years old, holding an Apollo helmet in his hands and staring, enraptured, at his reflection in its golden visor, was for nothing more, and nothing less, than to be able today to give my family members the chance to have their own dreams. The truth is, I would have it no other way; it would be meaningless otherwise. The dream is still the dream all these decades later, but at the age of eight I could never have guessed the dream's true nature. The swirl is closing. It will come again and open itself to me, unbidden and gentle in its imagery, but I cannot know when. So for now I smile and wave goodbye to an enigmatic little boy who thirty-five years ago grinned, and laughed, and cherished his own little geeky dreams. My God—that was so many guesses ago. So many tiny, so many monumental guesses ago. So many of them right, and so many of them wrong. Time has changed the weight of the mathematics, so much more complex now than they once were. Thirty-five years make the interpolations grow more difficult, and the propagations more frightening. The depth of the dream has changed immeasurably, and so very much for the better. It is no longer a dream of what I can do, but a dream of what I can give. It is a dream no longer for me, but for everyone I love. What that boy could never have guessed, could never have imagined, was that the dream was never truly his, would never be fully his own. It would always belong to someone else, and he was part of the dream, not the dreamer of it. He could not see that the dream was simply a brilliant guess, cradled in the mind of God.


—Prologue—

I wrote about dreaming of things where an Ares and Orion could never take us. Thinking of that, I remember holding my daughter in my arms, when she was only a few months old. Whenever the moon was out, I would carry her outside, and hold her body just so, and point, and say, "See that? That's the moon. You could go there someday, maybe, if you want to." We were at a church party one night, and somebody remarked how pretty the moon looked that evening. A lady was holding my daughter, and I asked my daughter, "Where's the moon?" The lady holding her said, "Oh, come on. She's a baby. She doesn't know what the moon is." With that, my daughter turned her head in every direction she could, until she saw the moon, and stared right at it, crinkling her brows as if to focus clearly upon its surface. The person holding her just stared at me, as in, "What the heck was that?" I simply grinned, and said, "She knows what the moon is."

I pray incessantly that each of my children will accomplish exactly what they and God want in life; not what I nor any other person want. I hope I will force nothing upon them, and I pray I never take anything from them. But, between you and me, if my daughter dreams such a thing, and if on some day she rides a rocket to the Moon, or to Mars, or to some other faraway place, at the moment of that vehicle's straight, perfect and true climb heavenward, I will think back to a baby who found the moon. I will remember a little girl with a giant grin, holding her model rocket at shuttle camp, posed for a picture taken by her daddy. I will think of all her smiles and laughter. I will marvel at the glorious mystery of dreams and guesses and gambles, the swirl will overtake me, and I will weep the joyous tears of a thousand distant suns.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, April 07, 2008

Merton Monday 05

Do not think that you can show your love for Christ by hating those who seem to be His enemies on earth. Suppose they really do hate Him: nevertheless He loves them, and you cannot be united with Him unless you love them too. --- New Seeds, chapter 24

Labels:

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

So Why Did the Loving God of Jesus Kill So Many People?

I don't always agree with Gregory Boyd, but I usually do. He's often controversial, but he's also and always one of the sharpest tacks in the box. His blog is informal, but addresses some pretty serious topics here and there. Right now, Greg's wrestling with how the loving God of Jesus could have ordered the wholesale slaughter of men, women, children, and animals. (I think Greg uses the word "genocide" somewhere in there.) If you've ever wondered, hop on over to Boyd's blog, and watch him wonder along with you. You can start with his 10:30 PM post of 21-March and work forward. (The link to his blog is over in my links list.)

A Place to Start

I'm not sure why this is on my mind today, but I've a pretty good idea that it's because I just wrote a quick paper on book three, chapter twelve of Augustine's De doctrina Christiana, which reminded me that Augustine was one of those folks that makes me think, Geez. How can somebody have such great ideas, yet have such horrible ideas?

Augustine's idea of biblical interpretation was that no matter how you interpret a figurative selection of scripture, as long as your interpretation promotes love for God and/or love of another, then your interpretation is correct. (I'll ignore his discussions about what is "figurative" and what is not). In fact, Augustine says that once a person comes to the state of loving God, he or she really doesn't even need to read the Bible anymore. In principle, Augustine was a big fan of the love of God. This, and his rather brilliant inversion of rhetorical eloquence from the classical notion of how something was said, into the notion of the meaning of what was said, are two things I like about Augustine. Beyond that, well, I'm not so sure.

Be that as it may, I'll get back on track. Whenever Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, he replied that it was to love God with all of one's heart, mind, soul and strength, and that the second was to love one's neighbor as one's self (see, e.g., Mark 12.28ff). This wasn't Jesus' own, original interpretation of Judaism; of the six hundred-some laws at the time, these two were, in fact, numbers one and two, and his quote comes probably from Deuteronomy 6.4 and Leviticus 19.18. Jesus also said that all of the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments (see Mt 22.36ff). For me personally, what is more meaningful is that when Jesus knew he was going to be arrested (either by divine foreknowledge or simply because he was bright and saw the writing on the wall; take your pick), his final instruction to his disciples was to love one another (Jn 13.34, 15.12 and surrounding context). I consider this in the following way: when Jesus was about to face trial, and knew either that he was going to be executed or might well be executed, he had one last chance to leave his teaching with those closest to him. How did he do that? He distilled it down to its essence: love one another.

I don't believe that there is much of Christendom that would deny this. I tend to believe that any serious Christian is able to quote these two commandments. I tend to believe that Christendom is mostly united on this intellectual point. But here's the rub: what does it mean to love God with our whole being, and what does it mean to love others as our self? What is it like to love in this way? What does it lead us to be, and how does it call us to live? It is at this point that things get very, very grey, the flywheel goes crazy, and things start coming apart at the axle.

But, I think this is still the best starting point for those of us who want to be Christians in a devoted way. If a person is serious about living a Christian life, it seems to me that the best place for him or her to start is by asking, "What does it mean, what does it really mean, to love God, to really love God, with all of my heart, mind, soul and strength? And, what does it mean, what does it really mean, to love others as myself?" These are the questions that define a life.

I'll end with something I've said before, and will say again: the Jesus story, to the extent that it has been rejected by some, has not been rejected primarily on grounds of historicity. It is the enormous challenge posed by the immense depth of the love espoused by Jesus, rather than any intellectual debate, that has caused serious emphasis upon his story to often be viewed with great skepticism. Jesus called us to accept more than we are willing to accept, to reject more than we are willing to reject, to love more than we are willing to love, and to give more than we are willing to give. Jesus called us to live within the reign and rule of God, and we are typically unwilling to do so. This is why people like you and me killed him in the first place. And, it is no great surprise that we are still murdering him today, in ways both small and large. The culpability falls upon many, many of us—but perhaps most of all upon those of us who are religious, and who, like those before us, continue to crucify Jesus in the name of our human doctrines.

Labels: ,