Nuanced Faith

Inner and Outer: The most important choice

noreply@blogger.com (Halleson) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:16:00 +0000

Teaching Junior High Sunday School is always a challenge, and one that I truly enjoy. But how to get across the seriousness of personal spiritual development to kids in early adolescence where they are just beginning the "separation" stage is tricky, but crucial. Most have already begun questioning authority: parents, teachers, church, rules, etc., and it's only going to get more intense as they become fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen. This is normal ages-and-stages development, so our job is to give them the tools to get through this stage safely and to enter adulthood with integrity.

That's why my teaching partner and I are emphasizing their inner selves and their outer selves, the inner being that quiet silent place where one listens to and connects with their Creator, and the outer being everything else including emotions, beliefs, physical selves, relationships with people and, actually, with the whole world around them.

What many don't seem to understand is that the inner awareness of God can be enhanced and nurtured to grow and develop as we journey through life, or it can be put down, denied, and shrunk to the point that it is no longer recognized. This is the choice, and it is the most important choice the kids will ever make in their lives, the one that will drive every decision they ever make as their inner God-conscious self intersects with the outer world in which we must live and function.

Many, and maybe even most, people recognize the good vs bad nature of the life we have been given even though they don't actively nurture God-consciousness within themselves. That doesn't mean it's not there. God works through them and loves them just as they are. It is not ours to judge the relationship that others have with their Creator, only to recognize for ourselves that God dwells within each of us to the extent that we allow His presence to grow and guide our choices, attitudes, and actions.

To help these young adolescents see what the intersecting of the inner and the outer looks like, we are showing that incredible movie, The Hiding Place as it demonstrates so well the various attitudes and actions that people take to survive when overwhelming evil threatens their lives and their faith.

If you haven't seen the movie, you might want to rent it sometime and watch.

Sounds and Silence

noreply@blogger.com (dorothy) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:34:00 +0000

Last week in his Galilee Diary column, Marc Rosenstein talked about the power of sound.

Shorashim is located on the west-facing slope of a shoulder of Mt. Gilon, [he wrote,] overlooking the Hilazon Valley. Across the valley, less than a mile away, is the Moslem village of Sha'ab....

....the muezzin's call to prayer in the mosque is amplified, and carries clearly across the valley, five times a day. Within our first year here we had already "stopped hearing" these sounds, in the sense that they had just become a normal part of the environment, often blotted out of our consciousness by other stimuli – not waking us up or disturbing us. The other day I happened to be awake at 4:00 in the morning. It was a clear, cool morning, there was a bright sliver of a moon in the eastern sky, and the nasal, mournful chant of the muezzin drifted across the valley, and it occurred to me that this was a beautiful moment, and that actually I like hearing the muezzin; it has become part of what defines home for me – a part of the landscape like the olive trees that carpet the valley.

During the day or early evening, I guess I really have stopped hearing it; and if I happen to be in a village at prayer time, it is often rather a nuisance, like a low flying jet – you have to stop conversation for a minute or two until the noise subsides. But in the pre-dawn silence, attenuated by distance, it seemed somehow comforting. Often, the muezzin's call wakes up the jackals that live down the mountainside, and they add a backup chorus of howling that seems just right. It's interesting how sounds become a part of the landscape.

In the Turkish period, the municipal boundaries of a village were defined by the reach of the muezzin's call (unamplified) – so sound actually did define the landscape. I imagine that my response to the muezzin's regular call is parallel to the feelings aroused by church bells for those who live in small towns in America – or big cities in Europe. On the other hand, the dominant and frequent sound that seems to characterize the landscape of most big cities today is that of the sirens of emergency vehicles echoing through urban canyons. People who come from the city to spend a night in the Galilee comment not only on the muezzin, but on the silence before and after.

When you experience silence you become aware of the impact of constant background noise on your quality of life. If you think about the "Shofarot" section of the Rosh Hashanah liturgy, which catalogs the references in the Bible to the sounding of the shofar and its meanings, it seems that we Jews too have placed a strong emphasis on sounds that fill and define the public space. The shofar is not an instrument for drawing-room chamber music concerts; it is the ancient middle eastern version of church bells and amplified muezzins. Like those public sounds, it is designed to wake us up, penetrate and interrupt our mundane consciousness, to call us to attention, to bring us together.

So I noticed and appreciated the muezzin's call, and then drifted back to sleep, to be awakened to start my day an hour later by my clock radio playing the advertisements before the morning news.

A reader on the Reform Judaism website had this to add:

Your message today evoked a whole host of thoughts and feelings. I remember the first time I heard the call of the muezzin. I was on the balcony of my room in a hotel in Jerusalem. I was stirred profoundly by the call echoing throughout the city.

And today I live on the sixth floor in a suburban New York county and can see the rooftops of the Greek Orthodox church a few blocks away, and magically I can hear the carillon in its tower, each time moving me to a sense of spirituality.

And the opposite is silence. The Cristo on the mountaintop in Rio de Janiero is surrounded by silence once the human babel is tuned out, and something about this man made marvel high up on the top of a mountain is amazingly moving, creating, even to an avowed Jew such as myself, a sense of peace and order.

What can I add?

Mysticism 101

noreply@blogger.com (Halleson) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:21:00 +0000

Dorothy's message on the abuse of mysticism by people who have no idea of what it's really all about got me to thinking.

First of all, the general dictionary's attempted explanation doesn't really give an adequate answer, so don't go there if you want any understanding. Mystics who have lived throughout history share some common traits. They are deeply internal men and women, so aware of the whole of creation that they have developed a very strong sense of the spiritual, so strong in fact that they sometimes receive revelations that don't seem to be available to those around them. Spirituality is, in fact, available to every person, but most of us don't develop the depth of awareness that mystics have allowed in themselves, and many people even deny the presence of the CreatorSpirit within themselves to the point where it shrivels up and is barely noticeable anymore.

Famous mystics recognized as such are Moses, Elijah, Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus, Teresa of Avila, the poet Rumi, Teilhard de Chardin, Gandhi, and Mohammad. There have been many others all over the world and in all eras of time.

The revelations are universal and have to do with love, compassion, justice, and awareness of what our Creator wants for all of us. Being a mystic is not a pleasant experience for those who also become prophets and speak out against the spiritually unacceptable behaviors of people and societies in their locale. These mystic/prophets often suffer hatred, persecution, and even sometimes assassination.

Yet, it is incumbent upon each of us to develop and enhance our awareness of God as we move through life's journey. Only then will we be able to answer God's many calls to us throughout our lives and to discover what God-consciousness really means as we fulfill the will of our Creator in this, the only life we are given.

Have some respect

noreply@blogger.com (dorothy) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:25:00 +0000

When did we start thinking it was respectful or even acceptable to claim other people's religious traditions as our own? The recent "sweat lodge" debacle in Arizona got me thinking about the gross cultural imperialism that some of the most sensitive Americans adopt.

My advice to those looking for a deeper mystical experience is to seek it first in your own cultural and religious traditions. It is there for all of us if we let go of our own personal arrogance and presumption.

The following is from the web site "New Age Frauds and Plastic Shamans." The site is run by a consortium of Native American aid and activist groups, including a few based here in New Mexico. New Mexico has a large indigeneous population as well as being a magnet for all kinds of wacky lifestyle experiments.

Do you think you are "Indian at heart" or were an Indian in a past life? Do you admire native ways and want to incorporate them into your life and do your own version of a sweat lodge or a vision quest? Have you seen ads, books, and websites that offer to train you to be come a shaman in an easy number of steps, a few days on the weekend, or for a fee?

Have you really thought this all the way through? Have you thought about how native people feel about what you might want to do?

Please think about these important points before you take that fateful step and expend time, money, and emotional investment:

Native people DO NOT believe it is ethical to charge money for any ceremony or teaching. Any who charge you even a penny are NOT authentic.

Native traditionalists believe the ONLY acceptable way to transmit traditional teachings is orally and face-to-face. Any allegedly traditional teachings in books or on websites are NOT authentic.

Learning medicine ways takes decades and must be done with great caution and patience out of respect for the sacred. Any offer to teach you all you need to know in a weekend seminar or two is wishful thinking at best, fraud at worst.

Another of the many faith traditions that have been plagued by opportunists and celebrity "seekers" is the Kabbalah, a mystical strain of Jewish scholarship. I was taught that Kabbalah should not even be attempted before the age of 40, after years of Torah and Talmud study. According to the Judaism 101 website:

Kabbalah is one of the most grossly misunderstood parts of Judaism. I have received several messages from non-Jews describing Kabbalah as "the dark side of Judaism," describing it as evil or black magic. On the other end of the spectrum, I receive many messages wanting to learn more about the trendy doctrine popularized by various Jewish and non-Jewish celebrities.

These misunderstandings stem largely from the fact that the teachings of Kabbalah have been so badly distorted by mystics and occultists. Kabbalah was popular among Christian intellectuals during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, who reinterpreted its doctrines to fit into their Christian dogma. In more recent times, many have wrenched kabbalistic symbolism out of context for use in tarot card readings and other forms of divination and magic that were never a part of the original Jewish teachings. Today, many well-known celebrities have popularized a new age pop-psychology distortion of kabbalah (I have heard it derisively referred to as "crap-balah"). It borrows the language of kabbalah and the forms of Jewish folk superstitions, but at its heart it has more in common with the writings of Deepak Chopra than with any authentic Jewish source.

I do not mean to suggest that magic is not a part of Kabbalah. There are certainly many traditional Jewish stories that involve the use of hidden knowledge to affect the world in ways that could be described as magic. The Talmud and other sources ascribe supernatural activities to many great rabbis. Some rabbis pronounced a name of G-d and ascended into heaven to consult with the G-d and the angels on issues of great public concern. One scholar is said to have created an artificial man by reciting various names of G-d. Much later stories tell of a rabbi who created a man out of clay (a golem) and brought it to life by putting in its mouth a piece of paper with a name of G-d on it. However, this area of Kabbalah (if indeed it is more than mere legend) is not something that is practiced by the average Jew, or even the average rabbi. There are a number of stories that discourage the pursuit of such knowledge and power as dangerous and irresponsible. If you see any books on the subject of "practical kabbalah," you can safely dismiss them as not authentic Jewish tradition because, as these stories demonstrate, this kind of knowledge was traditionally thought to be far too dangerous to be distributed blindly to the masses.

It is important to note that all of these magical effects were achieved through the power of G-d, generally by calling upon the name of G-d. These practices are no more "evil" than the miracles of the prophets, or the miracles that Christians ascribe to Jesus. In fact, according to some of my mystically-inclined friends, Jesus performed his miracles using kabbalistic techniques learned from the Essenes, a Jewish sect of that time that was involved in mysticism.

I'm not even going to get into my own feelings about those who sign up for weekend monastic experiences without buying into the rigorous teachings of the Catholic Church. That trend is relatively inoffensive and brings in some much-needed cash to Catholic religious communities. Sort of like the stripper who loses nothing by letting lonely men look, and comes away with money for her college tuition.

The Wizard of Oz movie was right: "There's no place like home." If your church is boring or overly accessible, look within your own heart for what makes you unreceptive. Then join the liturgy committee and help your own community address its weaknesses. In the meantime, have some respect for other faith communities.

Borrow practices that go along with your own beliefs, but don't pretend that makes you an authentic member of that community. Join another tradition if it inspires you, but join all the way. Religious traditions are not Disneyland, and they lose all their power if they are trivialized. At best, you fool yourself and disrespect another group of people. At worst, you harm yourself or others in a made-up ceremony.

There is nothing spiritual about that.

Okay, I Have to Add My Two Cents

noreply@blogger.com (dorothy) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:53:00 +0000

I think this is probably the story to which Halleson referred in her last post. It points out the ways that the companies issuing prepaid cards appear to be exploiting the cards' users. There are a lot of people who do not use credit cards or checking accounts, but rely on what cash they have on hand to pay their bills. In our increasingly electronic society they are shut out of many everyday transactions.

According to the William J. Clinton Foundation, "28 million people do not have bank accounts. The typical unbanked worker can spend $40,000 cashing paychecks over the course of a career. For a nation already affected by economic inequality and poverty, the economic downturn has made it harder for families and individuals to get ahead financially."

My colleague describes them as "people with low credit ratings or those who are too lazy to choose careful money management over convenience." The people I know who use cash over traditional credit cards -- and who have to use money orders and prepaid cards for transactions that don't allow cash -- are exceedingly careful in their money management. They are so careful that they do not spend money that they do not have in their pockets. They are families who budget carefully, and do not incur worries about two different people on a joint checking account writing checks to draw from the same money.

Halleson is right that the profit motive is no excuse to overcharge people and trick them into fees they don't understand.

I'd like to weigh in as a former salesperson. The fact is, particularly in commission sales, it is your repeat customers who make you most of your money. You have a relationship with them, and they come back to you and send their friends and relatives to you because you have shown that you care about their interests. A good lingerie saleswoman spends time getting the customer into foundation garments that make her look better in the clothes she puts over them. A good cosmetics saleswoman tells a customer honestly if her skin looks better with a little soap and water instead of thick make-up and expensive creams.

Especially when you make your money on commission, it is in your best professional interest to keep people happy and provide value. Otherwise your customers will just sneak in on your day off and return everything. Those return figures are deducted from your commission, by the way.

Selling is not in and of itself an immoral way to spend your life, and being successful at it is no reason for extra trips to the confessional. My guess is that the companies who are overcharging and cheating people with prepaid credit cards will have to change their billing structure just like cell phone companies did when better deals became available. This is where competition could be helpful.

We don't need to get rid of prepaid cards, just give people less usurious options.

If Nobody is Watching

noreply@blogger.com (Halleson) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:41:00 +0000

There seems to be no end of ways that human beings seek to profit from another person's ignorance or loss. Today's New York Times talks about the pre-paid debit cards that are sweeping the nation enticing people with low credit ratings or those who are too lazy to choose careful money management over convenience. Banks are charging hidden fees for the use of these cards that saps the balance that the consumer thinks remains on the card. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/business/media/06adco.html?th&emc=th for details.

It's all about the marketing game, the selling game for its own sake and for maximum profits to the company.

I tried this once. I was holding a garage sale and wanted to get rid of items that I could no longer use, so rather than standing passively by allowing potential customers to choose what they might want, I decided to try the selling game. When customers seemed to hesitate, I turned on the charm and pointed out the value and the usefulness of the items. It was fun. I could see how some people walked away from that sale with items that they might not have bought, had I been silent.

I've thought a lot about that little experiment of mine, and have wondered about the ethics of it.

Later as a marketing manager for a company and trying to honor what the company needed in enticing customers to what it was offering, I changed my tactic. First, I made sure that the product was good and had value. Then I advertised only those attributes that were absolutely true, and never used deceptive advertising created for promotional purposes. This was a company with integrity, and I was careful not to give the public any reason to believe otherwise. With this as the core of my marketing strategy, I was able to be creative in many ways that brought customers to examine its products and to purchase them.

A person who lives by faith in God and who tries to honor Jesus's command to "love thy neighbor as thyself" doesn't have to deceive people in order to accomplish his goals. Greed and pressure to perform may be ever-present, but we'll do a better job in the long run by dealing with people honestly.

When a secular writer looks at prayer.....

noreply@blogger.com (dorothy) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:07:00 +0000

Zev Chafets, a reporter for the New York Times, wrote a feature story about prayer that appeared in Times magazine last week. To me, what was most thought-provoking about the story was its complete lack of depth. After visiting with a number of representatives from various faith traditions, and quoting them extensively, Chafets ended his piece with an account of his visit to an Assembly of God congregation in West Virginia. He was touched, as would we all be, by the simple, uncomplicated faith of the children he met there.

All Christians -- and most likely serious members of other faiths as well -- understand the request Jesus makes for us to come to him "as a little child." It is, as a matter of fact, against our religion to over-think matters of faith. This is the reason that Catholics (especially those with Jesuit educations) often feel the need to pray for obedience, and why the quotation from Mark 9:24, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" is significant to so many people.

The downside of this attitude is a prevailing anti-intellectualism, the search for easy answers and the fear of intellectual engagement. Do you have to be stupid, or uneducated, or thoughtless, to be a good Christian? I think not.

A former colleague of mine who teaches religion at a Presbyterian high school has a wonderful lesson that he gives as part of his New Testament class. In it, he talks about what the early Christians must have looked like to their neighbors. Many of those around them would have been puzzled, even horrified, by the insistence of this small Jewish sect that their slain leader was actually the son of God and the savior of all people. The leader they were so attached to, after all, was known to have been a condemned criminal. "I always have trouble with this part of the lesson if there are students in the class from evangelical churches," he says. "I've had them burst out crying in class, interrupt me when I'm speaking, and complain to the head of school that I am being disrespectful, that I'm calling their lord a criminal. They not only miss the point of the lesson, their early religious teaching makes them see it as blasphemy."

The story's conclusion appears to be that faith and prayer are for the simple and credulous, and that intellectual engagement should be left to the nonbeliever. The fact is, any religion worth following has more to it than easy, accessible answers. Here are some excerpts from the Times story that stood out for me:

[Marc] Gellman is a Reform rabbi of liberal theological leanings, the former head of the New York Board of Rabbis, a scholar with a Ph.D. in philosophy from Northwestern University and a celebrity. He and his friend Msgr. Tom Hartman are the stars of a long-running cable show called “God Squad.”

“Evangelical Christians, Pentecostals, they go to church to pray,” Gellman [says]. “Why else would they be there? But Jews are different. People come to temple to identify with other Jews, or socialize. The writer Harry Golden once asked his father, who was an atheist, why he went to services every Saturday. The old man told him, ‘My friend Garfinkle goes to talk to God, and I go to talk to Garfinkle.’ There’s a lot of that.”

“In the old days cantors made the women cry. Now they just want to do performance pieces. And congregational singalongs aren’t the Jewish way of praying. Our prayers are meant to be chanted rhythmically.”

“I’m saying that techniques can make a difference,” Gellman says. “Like wrapping yourself in a prayer shawl if you want to shut out the world. But really, when you come right down to it, there are only four basic prayers. Gimme! Thanks! Oops! and Wow! Wow! are prayers of praise and wonder at the creation. Oops! is asking for forgiveness. Gimme! is a request or a petition. Thanks! is expressing gratitude. That’s the entire Judeo-Christian doxology. That’s what we teach our kids in religious school.”

“What about adults who want to learn to pray?” [Chafets inquires.]

“I tell them to start with prayers of Thanks! That’s what Christians call ‘grace.’ Everybody has something to be grateful for.”

...Rev. Bob Osborne, pastor of the Presbyterian church and head of the Morgan County [West Virginia] Clergy Association, [says] some show up [to Easter services] for social reasons — the local equivalent of going to shul to talk to Garfinkle. On the day I met him, Osborne expected a full house. But he admitted that he has been losing members to local evangelical churches. “They aren’t burdened with liturgy or a tradition that demands intellectual engagement,” he said.

What are you focusing on?

noreply@blogger.com (dorothy) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:56:00 +0000

This past August, I attended a conference on bilingual liturgical music in Tucson. We shared the hotel with a group of families who were bringing their children -- mostly sons, but there were some girls competing -- to ride in a BMX bicycle competition. Each time we called the elevator to go up to our room or down to an event or workshop, we weren't sure if we would be sharing the space with a Spanish-speaking grandmother and her guitar, or a group of boys in mohawk helmets and their bikes.

We ended up taking the stairs a lot, but both groups turned out to be good company. The BMX contestants looked a little outlandish, but they were polite and helpful, often getting off and going down the stairs rather than crowd out the musicians. They had little patience with the slowness of the elevators, which were not synchronized, so they would all come at once and then none would come for several minutes. The kids were cheerful about it, though, and seemed to prefer the stairs to waiting. (Quick and impatient are probably useful qualities in a BMX race.)

Although the staff and volunteers from the Tucson diocese did a wonderful job, there were a few glitches. None of it was worth grousing over, and it would have been hard to stay irritated through the next session of music, prayer and practical advice anyway. The group from my church learned lots of new music, and got some great tips about making our music more prayerful and inclusive for the congregation.

This morning's Washington Post ran a story about a gospel choir competition. To quote from the piece: "A gospel choir sing-off isn't like a typical arena concert....Nia Pree, of [the choir] Rejoice, pointed out that, unlike other talent competitions, this one was jitters-free. 'When you focus on God, there is no stress,' she said."

Blocked

noreply@blogger.com (Halleson) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:31:00 +0000

Things get in the way.

When I find myself restless and unable to settle down and accomplish something (or so I perceive), I've learned that there is usually something that blocks my way, some one thing that is weighing me down, something that I don't want to do or face.

Only when I focus on WHAT that block might be, can I overcome that one thing that is preventing me from moving forward. I can usually feel it building, the frustration, the inability to stick to any given task for very long. The most recent was the stack of papers on my office desk that needed to be attended to. I was sure that there were some difficult and time-consuming items among the papers that were going to take forever to straighten out.

Finally, I said to myself that I was not allowed to do the thing that I really wanted to do until I faced the stack on my desk and completed whatever tasks were in that mysterious pile. One morning (This can go on for days) I got up, poured myself a cup of coffee, sat down, faced the pile, and began at the top. The two items that I thought were going to be awful, I put at the bottom of the stack. When I finally got to them, I walked around the house for a bit and then sat down again. Surprise! I was finished with them in about ten minutes.

No matter how many times these blocks have occurred to me throughout life, I still seem to let them build up and bother me until my restlessness reaches a critical mass, and I can't move on without self-examination.

There must be a lesson in there somewhere. I'll have to think about what it might be. Comments would be helpful. . . .

A New Earth

noreply@blogger.com (Halleson) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:53:00 +0000

Eckhart Tolle's book "A New Earth" has been around for awhile and once was an Oprah pick. I just finished it, and would say that it has changed the way I view the world.

Although it was written in an easy style, I had to read it in bits and pieces because it was hard to absorb. The first half of the book outlines the insanity of the earth and the way we live our lives totally focused on the desires of our ego. Yes, I could see that. It's pretty obvious actually.

The second half lets us know how to bring about a new earth, filled with kindness and compassion. Can it be done? Well. . .it would certainly take some work.

What really caught me, and where I gained the most benefit was Tolle's integrating the vernacular of the various world religions to show that the message that each brings really is the same even though we use different words to express it. For example, the word "salvation" used in Christianity is very misleading when seen in the context of all the myths that have grown up in this religion over the years. If we believe as many of us have been taught that heaven is a place to which we "go" to be with God forever, then salvation likely has, for us, the nuance of getting there when we die.

Tolle's explanation makes a lot more sense. Salvation is not that cut and dried as being an achievement that we cash in on after death. Instead it is the process of working toward setting aside our ego and becoming present here and now in this life with the presence of the spirit within us. It's the acceptance of God and God's purpose for us, individually and corporately, and living completely out of a spirit-filled life.

Can I personally do this? I've been trying for a long long time, and only now do Christianity's words that point in that direction make any sense for me.

The Jewish New Year is a Time of Reflection and Renewal

noreply@blogger.com (dorothy) — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:10:00 +0000

For a couple of months now, I've been waiting for the day when I would feel less busy, less stressed or at least less frantic. That has not come. But Friday will be Rosh Hashanah, and yesterday was my birthday. I had to work on my birthday, I had a cold and a headache. And yet. The event I worked at had a lot of good music and a memorable performance of Chinese martial arts and dance. I met two people who look like they are going to continue to be worth knowing. I saw an endearing side to a co-worker who has been annoying me lately.

Okay, now at least I'm ready for Yom Kippur.

Joyful worship

noreply@blogger.com (Halleson) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:02:00 +0000

Worship on Sunday spilled over into clapping and total joy as the music honored our teenagers returning from the Appalachian Service Project where they had helped to repair homes. Usually much more formal, this past Sunday's music consisted of three guitars and a fiddle (violin in reality) playing Appalachion hymns. Rythmical and fun, the congregation as a whole really got into it with the musicians, but the person sitting next to me did not approve at ALL. He said he was raised in the Dutch Reformed tradition where clapping was not permitted. My answer was that I was raised a Lutheran in the most somber of ambiances and clapping supposedly turned worship into performance art and therefore was sinful. I realized that I had gotten over that attitude at last and completely entered the spirit of the worship. It truly WAS worship.

God is love. God is joy.

Busy isn't exactly the word for it......

noreply@blogger.com (dorothy) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:01:00 +0000

Those of us at at Nuanced Faith are hardly unaware of the recent rarity of our posts. Yes, we still exist. Of course, we still have opinions.

Here's the problem. In my case, I used to be a teacher and before that I was a stay-at-home mom. I worked hard and my duties -- not always fulfilled -- drove me crazy. My summer schedule, though, was at my own discretion. Not so in my current job, in fact summer is our busiest time.

I've provided some visual aids to help me explain. Take a look at these two pictures. Which one looks like a better way to spend scarce summer free time?

Then again, which location is conducive to posting blog entries?

Maybe there are younger, more connected, or more technologically enthusiastic people out there who can daydream by the lake and write blog entries at the same time. (Come to think of it, I've not yet met anyone of any generation who is more technologically enthusiastic than Halleson.)

Anyway, we'll be back for sure in August or September. Have a nice summer!

FaceBook

noreply@blogger.com (Halleson) — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:43:00 +0000

I apologize for not blogging for a couple of weeks. I am overwhelmed with deadlines, and almost considered closing my FaceBook account because of it. I didn't of course, mainly because FB has just about every member of my family and extended family and also friends and church members on it, so it's a bit of comic relief to become acquainted with all of them in a whole new way.

When I first went on to this social networking site, I accepted some "friends" who were a bit more -um- not what I wanted to see, especially their photos. Ugh. So I restricted my site to "Just Family and Friends" and now nobody but them can see what's being said back and forth. Then I "unfriended" all the undesirables. They didn't seem to notice anyway.

So now FaceBook is fun. And a great distraction from my nervousness over having taken on more tasks than I can handle. I'm methodically working through the projects although some are going more slowly than I would prefer.

I even made up a quiz about Spirituality for the FaceBook audience, and so far three people have taken it with three different results which sort of validates my premises about choosing the outcomes: mystic, follower, analyzer, agnostic, or hogwash.

Anyway, back to making illustrations and maps for my upcoming book which will soon be published.

Thanks for your patience.

Oof da.

Notre Dame Commencement Past and Present

noreply@blogger.com (dorothy) — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:35:00 +0000

Yesterday I posted a long piece over on Paying-Attention -- long because I included the entire text of George W. Bush's 2001 Notre Dame commencement address. There have been many eloquent responses to the controversy about Obama receiving an honorary degree at Notre Dame, and the one I found most powerful was the speech college president Patricia Mcguire made at her own Catholic institution, Trinity Washington University.

Here is the whole thing:

While Trinity is thriving, we are part of a sector of American higher education that is increasingly under siege. The nation’s 245 Roman Catholic colleges and universities are heirs to more than a century of progressive efforts to win acceptance in the mainstream of the American academy. The hard and thoughtful work of numerous Catholic scholars and educational leaders in the middle of the 20th century modernized the governance, curricula and scholarly frameworks of our institutions. The previous great generation of Catholic academic and intellectual leaders --- including such luminaries as Jesuit Father John Courtney Murray, Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, former Notre Dame President Father Theodore Hesburgh, and Trinity’s own President Sister Margaret Claydon -- moved Catholic higher education out of the insular, parochial consequences of this nation’s 19th and early 20th century anti-Catholic, anti-intellectual propensities.

These great leaders of the Vatican II era developed a rich and extensive body of thought supporting the fundamental premise that our faith should not fear freedom, but rather, embrace it; that we must engage with our culture, not shun it; and that Catholic universities must have the same high intellectual standards as all universities, nurturing academic freedom as the bedrock of excellence in scholarship and teaching. The progressive influence of Catholic higher education in the last 50 years propelled lay Catholics into the mainstream of our nation’s social and political life, opening doors to places where once we were held in suspicion or even barred because of rampant religious discrimination.

Today, a half century of progress for Catholic higher education is at risk of slipping back into those insular, parochial pre-Vatican II days. On Sunday, on the campus of the University of Notre Dame, a drama unfolded that will affect the future of all Catholic colleges, and, indeed, will affect the place of Catholics in American life. As has been a tradition at the University of Notre Dame, the president of the United States spoke at the university’s commencement.

Notre Dame has invited many presidents in the past without fear or favor regarding their political positions. But the announcement of President Obama’s appearance triggered one of the angriest and most aggressively hostile efforts to block a commencement speaker ever endured by any American university. The fundamental issue is about the Church’s teachings on the right to life and the contrary policies of the Obama Administration. But there’s more to the Notre Dame case than the obvious clash between religious dogma and secular politics.

This is not about bishops exercising their rightful responsibilities to call Catholic institutions to fidelity to Church teachings. Nor is this about the right of individual Catholics to voice concerns about institutional actions. Disagreement and passionate argumentation are a normal part of university life, and religion sharpens the edges of any debate about university activities. For all Catholic universities, close and continuous dialogue with our bishops is an essential part of our stewardship of the Catholic intellectual tradition; Catholic college presidents frequently must exercise prudential judgment in making sure that the local bishop is not surprised by the appearance, if not the reality of dissent from Church teachings in university activities.

But something else is at work in the Notre Dame case.

The real scandal at Notre Dame today is not that the president of the United States spoke at commencement, albeit causing some controversy among Catholics. The real scandal is the misappropriation of sacred teachings for political ends. The real scandal is the spectacle of ostensibly Catholic mobs camping out at Notre Dame for the specific purpose of disrupting the commencement address of the nation’s first African American president. This ugly spectacle is an embarrassment to all Catholics. The face that Catholicism shows to our new president should be one marked with the sign of peace, not distorted in the snarl of hatred.

The religious vigilantism apparent in the Notre Dame controversy arises from organizations that have no official standing with the Church, but who are successful in gaining media coverage as if they were speaking for Catholicism. The media loves nothing more than a good Catholic versus Catholic fight, a self-destructive civil war that has no winners save the anti-Catholic underground that finds joy and vindication in watching Catholics strangle each other with litmus tests about fidelity. The self-appointed “watchdogs” of Catholic higher education also afflict Catholics in political life, acting as grand inquisitors who appear to want nothing more than to drive all Catholics away from public office. They have established themselves as uber-guardians of a belief system we can hardly recognize. Theirs is a narrow faith devoted almost exclusively to one issue. They defend the rights of the unborn but have no charity toward the living. They mock social justice as a liberal mythology.

Catholicism is not a one-issue faith. The social justice teachings that are central to our Church’s moral construction demand that we act in defense of the sacred dignity of all human life, from conception through salvation. Ours is a faith that demands peace and decries unjust war even as we demand that the unborn child have a right to live --- not mere life, but a life that can realize the full potential of the Creator’s divine plan as a matter of justice. Ours is a faith that is profoundly intolerant of racism and the exploitation of women, of poverty and the violence that economic injustice spawns. Ours is a faith that demands a more just sharing of the world’s resources, more pervasive global education to remediate the illiteracy that condemns children to repeat the cycles of poverty of prior generations. Ours is a faith that finds the use of torture for any reason an abhorrent offense against life. Ours is a faith that calls each member to take the option for the poor, to stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters on this planet, to exercise the responsibilities of our citizenship fully, to honor the rights and dignity of workers, to be moral stewards of God’s creation --- all in the name of life. This is what it really means to be “pro-life.”

Catholicism is a faith of charity and hope, not hatred, bigotry, self-righteous condemnation. To be Catholic is to embrace the world in all of the remarkable diversity that is part of creation; to be a university is also to embrace the world in the fullness of its intellectual scope and in the endlessness of the human quest for knowledge, meaning and, ultimately, Truth. A Catholic university realizes that the differences of opinion that are the plain reality of human thought are not at all a danger to our faith, but rather, a manifestation of the freedom that God has given to every human being to think, to learn, to engage the quest for that Truth that can never be fully known in this life. Those who claim to know the Truth already claim a power that is God’s alone.

The terrible danger of the siege at Notre Dame, and the ugly specter of Catholic vigilantism’s efforts to intimidate Catholic academic leaders and politicians, is that Catholics will be driven back to the edges of American life, unable or unwilling to be elected to public office, as we once were, unable or unwilling to engage with our colleagues of other faith traditions in the difficult, bruising, uncomfortable yet utterly necessary debates about essential moral issues that contribute to the shape of our society.

The great opportunity in the Notre Dame controversy is the renewal of our commitment to the robust intellectual life of Catholic colleges and universities as the best possible means to ensure the vitality of our faith in public life. If we live the duality of our mission well, neither our freedom nor our faith will suffer harm, and both will be enlarged.

This is a mission that calls us to create campus communities that respect the human person; to minister to the spiritual as well as intellectual needs of these communities; to ensure that the teachings of the Church are fairly and accurately presented. Fidelity to those teachings does not require shunning all other forms of expression. We should make even greater use of the teachable moments when the clash of ideas reveals the need for better research and scholarship on the most critical issues we face, not just as Catholics but as citizens of a very complicated society. Catholic institutions of higher education should be contributing significantly more research and scholarship than we have thus far on those core issues where faith and politics collide: the right to life, economic and social justice, universal education, environmental destruction, equal justice, keeping the peace.

We live our mission as Catholic universities in the sunlight, not in caves; we teach and learn from the center of the culture, not on the margins. Evangelization’s best work occurs in uncharted territories among those who do not share our faith already. We engage every human being who is a child of God and part of his creation; and whether we agree or disagree with that person, every child of God belongs on our campuses. And when that child happens to be the president of the United States, so much the better for the fruitful opportunity to open new avenues of dialogue about the future breadth and depth and moral foundation and legal construction of that Good Society we so earnestly seek.

Here at Trinity, let us take from the controversy at Notre Dame a renewed commitment to give witness to the fullness of our faith tradition, not indulging the moral relativism of repressing faith for the sake of getting along, nor cowering in fear of the moral absolutists who would have us hear no voices but their own. As a Catholic college with a long and proud tradition of educating leaders for the public sector, with a mission commitment to action for social justice that comes to us from our founders, the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, we must not shy away from using our intellectual firepower to push the current debate away from the self-destructive precipice of Catholics set against Catholics. We must lead this debate toward the more life-giving mission in true Christian evangelization, teaching all nations the imperatives of justice and peace through which human life will, most assuredly, reap significantly greater protection than the current intractable arguments will ever achieve on their own.

So which of the ladies pictured here do you think is best equipped to solve a problem that is, at heart, in our hearts? The comments on InsideHigherEd were interesting and thoughtful, as always, but many of them did not seem to address the specific issues McGuire raised.

First, I think it is clear what McGuire is complaining about: That the Catholic Church is increasingly recognized inside and outside the faith community as a "one-issue interest group." Political activists (with the assent of the Vatican and the bishops) have reduced the entire range of Catholic teaching to the imperative to criminalize abortion. Not, mind you, the imperative to do everything in our power to see that the unborn are protected. No, just make it illegal and our work will be done. President Obama has not signed on to that fight.

Second, that narrow focus refuses to acknowledge the myriad of other ways that we as a society can abolish abortion by removing the demand: By taking better care of women and children, by showing more respect for families, and by giving pregnant women hope for the futures of themselves and their children. President Obama leads in that aspect of our battle.

Her point was that Catholic institutions need to be defended from political posturing at least as much as they need to be defended from liberalism or libertarianism. Looking at it this way, I'd say McGuire's statement was too mild.

Evolution and Human Nature

noreply@blogger.com (Halleson) — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:53:00 +0000

Every now and then, the John Templeton Foundation publishes a new series on the Big Questions. The most recent is about evolution, and can be found at http://templeton.org/evolution/. Even the most learned among us have varying views on evolution's importance especially when human nature is added to the equation.

I won't bore you with a long treatise on my views. Go to the above-mentioned website and see what you think. They are open for comments too, so you can express your own views there.

We think, therefore we are.

Gay Pride is our pride

noreply@blogger.com (Halleson) — Mon, 04 May 2009 01:55:00 +0000

A few years ago, one of the gay men at my church invited my congregation to march under the banner of our church in Chicago's Gay Pride march. My congregation happens to belong to a denomination that is all mixed up about allowing gays to be clergy or serve as officers in the church or to get married to each other, yet about twenty people decided to march, me included.

It was truly one of the profound experiences of my life and I loved every minute of it even though my feet ached for days after this very long walk. We proudly marched along with people from other churches to show our support for the gay equality movement. The streets were jammed with people all along the march watching us go by, some taking our pictures. We marched right alongside flaming leather-wearing men, bra-less lesbians, drag queens wearing high heels (oh, their feet must have hurt when it was over!), and just plain GLTB folks who want equality for themselves and their families in our nation.

As we walked by, I saw many people along the parade route give us the thumbs-up of approval. We handed out buttons that said things like: "Peace," "Justice for all," "Love your Neighbor," and "We are all Children of one God." I heard people calling out to us, "Could I have another one?" "I need a handful." We gave them out until they were gone.

For me, the issue is not that a sinful lifestyle, if one insists on calling it that, is being lived, but that we have a whole population group that is caught up in something not of its own making. The God-given sexual continuum that includes gays, lesbians, transgendered, and bi-sexual persons and also those born as what used to be called hermaphrodites also includes those of us who are straight (heterosexual), or more-or-less straight, in the very same continuum. So who are we to judge? I really don't think that one of the criterion for God's judgement is where we stand on the gender scale.

So Eric, I say take your band to the Gay Pride festival and do it with love and pride and enthusiasm. There will always be people who want to detract from your expression of God's love, and we just can't be intimidated by that. Do what you know is right.

I think you know what is the right thing to do.

Ephesians 4:1-6 I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

A rare opportunity

eric@followeric.com (Eric Castillo) — Sun, 03 May 2009 15:37:00 +0000

A unique opportunity has presented itself to the band I'm in with Sean Gallagher.

In the short time I've been at work I've made a lot of good friends, among them is a gay couple, one of whom happens to be a drag queen. It was this person who approached me about the possibility of my band performing at what will be Enid's first ever gay pride festival. A little confused, I reiterated the fact that we play Christian worship music. The offer still stood. Unsure of the band's reaction to the event, I let him know we would consider it.

So I mentioned the idea to Sean who also threw the idea open to discussion to a lot of our college group friends in the church. The general consensus was pretty supportive of the idea. Of course, there were some concerns, some of which I understand. For some, there's a difficult blending of love, support, and approval and people came on different sides on the issue of showing approval of what they would consider a sinful lifestyle.

Ultimately, I think the reasons for taking the opportunity are far greater than any hesitation I might have about it. It's a rare opportunity and by taking it I think we would be saying really positive things about just how universal God's love can be.

I think it serves to underscore our point since this will be Enid's very first gay pride festival. We assume there may be "Christian" protesters, offering their tired, old, outdated, and unloving message while we have the opportunity to worship and love God out in the community.

As of now, nothing has been set officially and Sean still has a decision to make. If you want to weigh in on his decision and read his thoughts on the opportunity, read his blog post on the subject at http://seangallaghermusic.tumblr.com.

Which club do you belong to?

noreply@blogger.com (dorothy) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:41:00 +0000

Knopf posted this John Updike poem as the final installment of their "Poem-a-Day" feature for poetry month. Was Updike a Christian? I don't know anything about his personal life or beliefs. Decide for yourself.

Fine Point (12/22/08)

Why go to Sunday school, though surlily,
and not believe a bit of what was taught?
The desert shepherds in their scratchy robes
undoubtedly existed, and Israel's defeats—
the Temple in its sacredness destroyed
by Babylon and Rome. Yet Jews kept faith
and passed the prayers, the crabbed rites,
from table to table as Christians mocked.

We mocked, but took. The timbrel creed of praise
gives spirit to the daily; blood tinges lips.
The tongue reposes in papyrus pleas,
saying, Surely—magnificent, that "surely"—
goodness and mercy shall follow me all
the days of my life, my life, forever.

By the way, I got the poem from Rosemary, who also sends the following thoughts, under the heading "Things that annoy me:"

Today's NYT has a quote from a Republican woman upset that Alen Specter switched parties, saying "We're a Christian family with Christian values". How can I be a Presbyterian and NOT be a Christian with people like that? Oh, well...or maybe I should say, Oy vey!

Christians in Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Halleson) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:25:00 +0000

I seem to have entered a discussion on FaceBook with a woman who graduated from the same school of nursing that I did, although she is from a much more recent class. I am enjoying the dialogue even though she is more politically conservative that I am. Nevertheless, her thinking is sound and it's helpful to hear her views.

Her FaceBook "friends" are another story. Emotional. Angry. Defensive. But I listen to them too, because they represent a part of the political fabric in our nation that I don't often encounter in the circles in which I travel. That doesn't mean I'm able to just sit back and be an observer without weighing in at times when I think they are really out in left field.

When one of them angrily upbraded the Obama administration as a whole because of an alleged mistake Napolitano made in remarks about the border with Mexico, I replied with this remark:

I agree that this nation seems to be moving to a more socialist political postion, but the Republican stance on minimal regulation hasn't worked either. Look at the greed that has brought our country to its knees, and I'm not blaming Republicans or Democrats for this. We are all at fault for permitting it and for taking advantage of it ourselves. We need to seek a balance that keeps unbridled corporate, governmental, and individual greed in check while allowing the freedom for the people to function democratically. Our system will never be perfect, but we can be better than we currently are without developing hatred for one another and without becoming extremist in our views.

In other discussions where I have entered these "Christian" self-righteous dialogues and where I have promoted a message of balance, it seems to stop the discussion in its tracks. I don't know if this is a strategy that may reach these people or not. For me, it is less a strategy than a genuine statement of how I feel. And maybe that is the way we more progressive Christians might approach our fellow Christians when they step outside the command to love our neighbor as ourselves. Be ourselves. Think through our positions without taking a harsh stand that we are right and everyone else is wrong, and then say what we feel.

Love our neighbors even when it's kinda hard to like them.

Creationism and the Courts

noreply@blogger.com (Halleson) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:21:00 +0000

I totally agree with Dorothy's assessment of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board which denied a Creationist group permission to offer a master's degree in science education. I wish these people would get over themselves, but since that won't happen probably until the Creationist's own kids get tired of this silliness, the courts must weigh in.

So here is why I don't get particularly excited over the issue (other than to get disgusted with yet another group trying to push their self-created ideas on everyone else):

1. Something "out there" put in motion that which allows our existence. Very likely we didn't spring out of nowhere.

2. Over the millenia, much has come into being and gone out of being and massive changes have taken place on this planet and in the growth and variety of living things. Only someone in rigid deep denial could dispute this, and there is no point in arguing with these people since their brain has probably solidified their thinking so that they cannot absorb new ideas anymore. All we can do is keep them in check through the courts.

3. We need to think of our entire planet as a living organism and respect it and nurture it as such.

4. The way our world works is that we eat each other. Maybe that is why the Creationists fall apart psychologically. They don't want to be eaten. Rent the movies "Walking with Monsters" and "Walking with Dinosaurs" put out by the BBC to see how this works. Your kids have seen them. You might want to take a look too.

5. "Life" itself is neither kind nor cruel. It is what it is. We humans are born into a situation where we need to learn to take care of ourselves, and this means taking care of those around us as well for we are completely interdependent.

6. There is now a school of thought that believes that we could very well be the only life in the universe. See the message below: "Ordinary, or Are We?" If this is true, and if we come to believe it, will we then finally change our short-term self-destructive thinking? (There is this thought in the back of my mind, buried deep I hope, that if Pakistan and India and Israel and Iran all send nuclear bombs at one another at the same time, the impact on our planet might be so profound that it tilts and changes its rotation around to sun to the point where all life is extinguished, except maybe the cockroaches which seem to be indestructible.) Nuclear non-proliferation doesn't seem to be working, so we'd better begin working toward zero-tolerance even for ourselves and our allies.

7. Apparently Muslim scholars are getting serious about what the Koran is really about just as Christian and Jewish scholars have done for years and are still doing regarding their own "sacred" scriptures and writings. I suspect that we will find that we are closer together in our thinking than the fundamentalists of any religion could ever believe. Hail the day! May it come sooner rather than later. . . or, especially, may it not come too late.

So, as Marting Luther once said: HERE I STAND.

A. I believe that there is a Creator who created me and all that is around me.

B. I believe that evolution is the method that is used to build the Creation slowly, step by step and that it is not yet finished.

C. The Creator has planted in me a sense of presence that I cannot deny. No matter what happens as I try to work out my own life and how I live it, I can find strength through the Spirit that lives within me. I may fall, and I may fail, and I may do wrong, but the Spirit will help me to endure and to get up and try again.

D. There is a purpose to our existence. It is multi-fold and complex. Part of it is compassion, justice, and the recognition that we mean something in the grand scheme of things.

E. I believe that another plane of life exists after this one. Energy doesn't simply cease. It transforms into something else. Read "Journey of Souls" by Michael Newton for the best description of what we know about what happens to us on the other side. What we know is limited but hopeful.

F. God/Allah/G_d, or whatever we choose to call our Creator for the sake of discussion among us is so far beyond our understanding that it is truly unknowable. Any descriptions or definitions diminish it.

G. My job is to find for myself what the Creator wants of me, and to go forward wherever the Spirit leads me. This I will strive to do until my life on earth is ended.

In my Father's house are many dwelling places. I go to prepare a place for you.

What's right with Texas....

noreply@blogger.com (dorothy) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:34:00 +0000

What's next, a Ph.D. in astrology? The frightening thing is that this group has been giving out science degrees in California for years. The fact that a case like this is even accepted by the courts is a chilling reminder of just how little scientific understanding prevails in the USA today. (My comments are in red.)

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS
Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research sues state over denial of its master's program
11:44 AM CDT on Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By HOLLY K. HACKER / The Dallas Morning News
hhacker@dallasnews.com

The Institute for Creation Research has taken its fight to train future science teachers to the federal courthouse.

The Dallas-based group alleges that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board violated its civil rights by denying the institute's request to offer a master's degree in science education.

The board said the program did not meet state academic standards.

The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Dallas, alleges that the higher-education agency rejected the degree program because of the institute's claim that scientific evidence shows the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Among the institute's arguments in the lawsuit: "The monopolistic realities of the science education market in Texas (and in America generally) would limit creationist learners to science education opportunities from evolutionist graduate schools." By definition, creationist learners are studying theology, not science.

It says the institute is "the only graduate school which specializes in creationism-informed science education."

Raymund Paredes, Texas' higher-education commissioner, has said the institute's proposed master's program would not prepare future instructors to teach science standards in Texas public-school classrooms.

A spokeswoman for the Coordinating Board said the agency has no comment on the case because it's under litigation.

The late Henry M. Morris, a Dallas native known as the father of "creation science," created the institute in 1970. The theory centers around the philosophy that science and religion both indicate that a divine being created the Earth and all living things. If this is the case -- and I think it is -- why not trust the evidence God gave us? This isn't about the existence of God (which is not a question for school science class) it is about a narrow, sectarian interpretation of His purpose.

The institute has offered science degrees in California for years. [I find that shocking!] Once it moved from San Diego to Dallas (in 2006), it needed approval from the state of Texas to offer degrees here.

Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, has introduced a bill that would, in effect, exempt the institute from state rules that degree-granting universities must follow.

Some have tried to frame this as an issue of religious freedom. Excuse me? The state of Texas is trying to prevent graduates of a program that denies the scientific method from becoming eligible for state certification as teachers of science. At least there is one state out of fifty that cares how ignorant their population becomes.....

I never thought I'd say this, but Go Texas!

No more gray area?

noreply@blogger.com (dorothy) — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:06:00 +0000

The Canadian magazine MacLean's published a story on religious identities earlier this month. The chart here shows the distribution of faith identities among Canadian young people. As in the United States, the largest groups of religiously observant individuals tend to be immigrants, and in Canada the immigrants tend to be from Islamic or other non-Christian backgrounds.

MacLean's notes,
'Reginald Bibby, the University of Lethbridge sociologist who heads up Project Teen, says the grey zone of those who believe in God, but don’t regularly practise an established religion, is rapidly emptying out, leaving behind two distinct camps: teens who are very religious and actively practise their religion, and those who don’t believe in God at all. “For years I have been saying that, for all the problems of organized religion in Canada, God has continued to do well in the polls,” Bibby writes in The Emerging Millennials, a new book based on Project Teen’s latest findings. “That’s no longer the case.”'

I'd be interested to see how such a survey would play out here in the states.

Ordinary. Or are we?

noreply@blogger.com (Halleson) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:25:00 +0000

The April, 2009 issue of Scientific American poses the question of whether or not the earth is really just an ordinary planet in a universe that probably has lots of other planets out there somewhere, some with lifeforms. This has been the common view since Copernicus first proposed the idea that the earth is typical not extraordinary.

Now there is some evidence that our planet, and us, really are atypical, that we are special, that we are unusual. I can't adequately describe the details of what these scientists are discovering, but it has to do with the density of the universe and the emptier than average nature of the space surrounding the area where we happen to exist.

Now let's say that this is true, that we're not an average galaxy, solar system, planet, or lifeform: that the earth and all its creatures including us really do occupy a unique place in a vastness so extreme that we cannot imagine the scope of it. . . that there is only us, and no other. Let's say that the scientists actually prove that this is so. What then?

1. We can no longer have in the backs of our minds the assurance that life will go on somewhere "out there" if we destroy the only life that has developed.

2. As a species, we will have to come to the realization that we are all that we've got. Just us. Nobody else.

3. The amazing BBC documentaries "Walking with Monsters" showing evolution before the dinosaurs and "Walking with Dinosaurs" showing the period when they ruled the earth demonstrate how slowly evolution occurs, how brutal it has been, and begs the question of from where our own propensity for violence comes.

4. Respect for life appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon and is spotty at best. On the contrary, we glory in war and bloodshed and killing. (I watched the film "Casino Royale" last night where 007 offs people right and left, and he's suppose to be a hero.)

5. Right now, the highest form of life on our planet is probably homo sapiens, although we don't know who is doing all that UFO stuff. It's unlikely that these are coming from outer space in spite of what the scifi writers and movie makers would have us believe.

6. The intelligence of homo sapiens seems to have come on the scene rather suddenly about 200,000 years ago although the technology of the tools that we use has evolved radically since then and is still evolving as we build upon the knowledge we have gained before.

7. There is no reason to believe that homo sapiens will be the final evolution of higher-order beings unless, of course, we blow up our planet before natural evolution can take place.

So then, looking ahead. . . .

1. As presumably the only intelligent beings in the entire universe, except for the Creator who brought us into being, we need to take a very hard look at what we are and what we are becoming.

2. Why are we here, and is there some purpose in our being? For awhile, I wondered whether or not this planet, and what was happening on it, was just some grand experiment for the pleasure of the Creator. What happens merely happens like the mix of chemicals in a test tube: the what-will-be-will-be principle.

3. Now my thinking has progressed. Currently I believe that there is a purpose to our existence. I am wondering if our Creator needs us to be something, to become something, to grow into something for which only the Creator itself sees as possibility.

4. As a whole, we homo sapiens know that violence is wrong. Or, at least, a lot of us know that. People obsessed with power don't seem to know that. People desperate to survive can't let abhorrence of violence stand in the way of personal continuence.

5. En masse, we seem to be moving toward ending war, to preventing cruelty to persons and other creatures. Unless you are a big-picture-type person, it may be hard to see this, but slowly, slowly, it appears to be coming.

6. Here might be the next evolution then, a whole new perspective on compassion and on what justice-for-all really means.

7. We're here for a reason. Whether we are on a typical planet like many others or whether we're occupying a place in the universe that is a one-and-only, we need to move ourselves out of this violent era and into a time of compassion and justice for all living creatures on our planetary home.

8. I believe that our Creator expects nothing less. Once we have worked out a way to achieve peace and balance, we'll be shown the next step toward what is expected of us.

Will we ever see the complete pattern?

One Body, Many [unofficial] Views

noreply@blogger.com (dorothy) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:06:00 +0000

Over on the Commonweal discussion group, I 've been following a thread about the misconceptions and general poor relationship between Catholic liberals and conservatives. It's kind of a "heretics v. dogmatics" set up, except that the dogmatics are a bit outnumbered among Commonweal readers. Personally I am somewhere in between. I'm totally traditional in my liturgical tastes, but I don't like being told what to think.

That got me thinking about my own parish, and gave me a chance to appreciate the breadth of views, lifestyles and attitudes there. Sangre de Cristo Catholic Community was founded not by the archdiocese but by a group of people who wanted to worship closer to where they lived. This history, I think, contributes to the ease with which ordinary parishioners are willing to make decisions. Rather than waiting for a pronouncement from the pastor or the archbishop, our lay community is more likely to do the research and then bring father a proposal to either agree with or explain why not. That may sound unexceptional to you protestants, but it does not reflect how most Catholics have been raised to behave.

The liberal part is only structural, though. We toe the line in matters of doctrine, liturgy and even political action. Our parish sends a contingent to pray in front of the abortion clinic, and we were among those urged to send some of the letters that recently helped defeat a domestic partnership initiative in the state legislature. Urged, I might add, not by the pastor but by a group of lay people. There are others besides me who disagree with some of these actions, but we express ourselves through secular channels.

I have several good friends on either side of the divide, from the choir member who used to pray (out loud) that we would all follow God's wishes and vote Republican, to the neighbor who adorns his car with pacifist and ultra-liberal bumper stickers. Both of them, and all of us in between, are people of good conscience, admirable Catholics and members of the body of Christ. What I appreciate most is the opportunity my membership in this community affords: not just to attend masses and burrito breakfasts, but to get to know people who feel differently than I do. Because I know them, I know that their views are expressions of their desire for a better world.

Commonweal reader Roberta Meehan wrote a thoughful column on cafeteria Catholics, left and right. Here is an excerpt:

"........You are welcome to visit [the] New Ideas Bar and present your ideas for reforming your church. Please note that there is a Left side to this Bar as well as a Right side. Some guests at the Cafeteria Catholica tend to think that the Left side of the Bar is promoting the Church as the People of God while the Right side of the Bar is for promoting the Church as the hierarchical conglomerate of God's regulations. We would like to assure you that these perceptions are not necessarily true. We invite you to visit this Bar and see for yourself. Experts on both sides of the Bar are standing by, ready and willing to answer your questions.

Oh, and please notice the man at the check-out register. He will help you move on. If he looks sad when you leave, it is probably because you did not select a generous portion of his personal commandment - 'Love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself.' He believes that had you filled your tray with his dictum, you would have no room for any of the other rules, regulations, edicts, and dogmas found here in our Cafeteria Catholica. After all, that is what he built his own church on."