Life's eternal transience

Republished from the CrossWalk America blog.

Just one week after starting my new discipline of listening to Democracy Now!, I have two blog-worthy items to report. First, Thursday's show touched on my own church, the UCC, and a lawsuit filed (and won!) in Jackson, MS by UCC members against a radio station's license renewal. Friday's show included an in-depth look at Blackwater, a company that has profitted immensely from the Iraq War. Eric Prince, founder and CEO of Blackwater, is a fundamentalist Christian seems to see his company, its role, and war in religious terms; for those of us trying to articulate a more compassionate vision for Christianity, this is a topic of concern I think we will want to address.

----

In Gregory Benford's novel "Eater," he describes a character who lives "as a passionate vehicle of life's eternal transience."

"Life's eternal transience." There's a mantra for the week (or a lifetime). As I read the sentence, I momentarily brushed up against something of God.

I'm fine with transience.* Even with being transient, should things turn out that way in "afterlife" terms. Even so; simply by Being, I have become a part of, and affected, the eternal Life that transcends my transience.

My friend Nick and I saw Will Ferrell's "Stranger Than Fiction" this weekend. I can't remember if that was before or after I was reading Benford, but they intertwined for me. Ferrell's character, Harold Crick, is faced with certain knowledge that he is going to die. (His comes in a unique form... but it's a bit of truth that we all share, don't we?) Poignant awareness of his own transience. He has to decide how he's going to live once he knows he's going to die; after he looks mortality in the eye, he is transformed. He chooses consciously and intentionally what role he wants to play in the larger (eternal) Story he's a (transient) part of.

Check it out. Take a loved one (it's in the $2 theaters now!). Look at it from a faith-perspective. **End of recommendation**

I see my self, as a Jesus-follower, as a transient spike in an eternal story of Life. I found a couple of interesting reflections this week that echoed this view but also revealed new angles and contours. That's what this blog was about (I wasn't really sure until now).

-h

* Really, a person kind of has to be; transience is pretty much what we are and have. We hope for, think about, talk about, and make decisions in light of the eternal, but transience is all we can truly grip. I'm saying the same thing over and over now; I value the eternal, but it's slippery. Stretching beyond our grasp is good, I like to do it, but it's also... beyond my grasp. :-) I hope you get what I'm failing to verbally express to my satisfaction.

You Can't Kill the Story

Republished from the CrossWalk America blog. There, you can also read "Musings on McGrath," my promised reflections on last week's post. -h

The quote below is from Bill Moyers, a speech on America's corporate media system called "Life on the Plantation."

The question of whether our political and economic system is truly just or not is off the table for investigation and discussion by most journalists. Alternative ideas, alternative critiques, alternative visions rarely get a hearing, and uncomfortable realities are obscured, such as growing inequality, the re-segregation of our public schools, the devastating onward march of environmental deregulation– all examples of what happens when independent sources of knowledge and analysis are so few and far between on the plantation.

So if we need to know what is happening, and big media won’t tell us; if we need to know why it matters, and big media won’t tell us; if we need to know what to do about it, and big media won’t tell us – it’s clear what we have to do: we have to tell the story ourselves.

And this is what the plantation owners fear most of all. Over all those decades here in the South when they used human beings as chattel and quoted scripture to justify it (property rights over human rights was God’s way), they secretly lived in fear that one day instead of saying, “Yes, Massa,” those gaunt, weary sweat-soaked field hands bending low over the cotton under the burning sun would suddenly stand up straight, look around at their stooped and sweltering kin, and announce: “This can’t be the product of intelligent design. The bossman’s been lying to me. Something is wrong with this system.” This is the moment freedom begins – the moment you realize someone else has been writing your story and it’s time you took the pen from his hand and started writing it yourself. When the garbage workers struck here in 1968, and the walls of these buildings echoed with the cry “I am a man,” they were writing their own story. Martin Luther King, Jr. came here to help them tell it, only to die on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel. The bullet killed him, but it couldn’t kill the story. You can’t kill the story once the people start writing it.

- from "Life on the Plantation," delivered by Bill Moyers to the Media Reform Conference in Memphis, TN, 12 January 2007

This week that's my hope for not just our mass media, but Christianity. "You can't kill the story once the people start writing it."

Media first; Moyers recommends a single, simple, meaningful step of action. I am, here and now, making a personal committment to take it and hope you'll consider the same. It's this; make Democracy Now! a primary news source in your household. Many of you can pick up the program on your TV or radio already; for the rest of us, the radio show is freely available every weekday here in English and Spanish - I use the daily "show page at archive.org" to stream the show while I'm making dinner. You can also sign up for the podcast.

What makes this a Jesus-following issue for me? Not politics. Even as a guest representative of CrossWalk America, I cannot stress that enough.

In Marcus Borg's new Jesus book, he makes two relevant moves. First, he thinks that following Jesus is first and foremost about a new way of looking at the world; for example, seeing that in God's Kingdom "the last shall be first," and understanding that "what you have done to the least of these, you have done to me (Jesus)." Second, this new way of seeing is the "narrow path" Jesus speaks of. "Narrow" does not mean "exclusive" or "judgmental," it means counter-cultural, against the status quo, subverting accepted norms and wisdom in favor of God's passion for love and justice.

My friends, in reading this book it is entirely clear to me that our corporate media establishment reflects, and reinforces, the "broad way" of our culture. The way we get our news has a huge impact on our way of seeing. You can bet I'll still check NYTimes.com often enough, but please consider how your practices of consuming information affect your way of seeing. And consider the alternative that Bill Moyers, a man of impeccable journalistic experience and, I believe, of great faith, has suggested as the best available source of a different way of seeing.

Of course, you have not missed the wider implications of "You can't kill the story once the people start writing it." Jesus proclaimed to the poor peasants of Galilee that God was calling them to begin writing their own story, instead of letting the priests write it exclusively. He was killed for it, but the people had already started writing, and the Story could not be killed. Over two thousand years and it has not yet been killed. We see common people in Africa and Asia and America picking Jesus' story up and adding chapters up to this very second. It's dangerous business; it makes the Powers of the Broad Way quite uneasy when the people Write. So we must. In the news and in Christ, we must listen and write not to the powers, but to the people.

-h

McGrath's Open Forum on "The God Delusion"

http://blog.crosswalkamerica.org/2007/01/15/mcgraths-open-forum-on-the-god-delusion/

Republished from the CrossWalk America blog; http://blog.crosswalkamerica.org

----

Alister McGrath, theologian and scientist, responds to biologist Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics;

http://www.citychurchsf.org/openforum/Audio/OF_Alister_McGrath.mp3 (direct link - click to listen to mp3 right now, or right-click and "save as" to download)

Dawkins' book is one in a series of recent volumes by "new atheists," including Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" and Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell." As a person who is very interested in the philosophy of science, it's fun and fruitful to be in conversation with these voices. They've had an impact on me as a Christian, and I think it matters for people of faith to spend some time in this discussion. Below is a revised version of my personal notes, which mostly summarize but also include a couple significant comments/ideas I'll mark with (h:) . McGrath's talk at times took the form of apologetics, a point-by-point defense of his Christian worldview, which can feel argumentative but in this situation may be helpful in adding a different kind of light to the territory Dawkins covers. -howie

----

Dawkins assumes there are three possible explanations for people of faith: they are stupid ("fools"), deluded ("mad"), or evil ("bad"). He describes faith as an "infantile" "process of non-thinking," comparing belief in God with belief in Santa Claus. McGrath points out that Dawkins does not converse authentically with the many studied, reflective, intelligent people of faith, including many scientists. Dawkins does not account for or discuss adults who come to faith (adults don't come to believe in Santa), suggesting that his analogy is not valid.

McGrath points out that all people live by certain assumptions that cannot be proven (i.e., there is no worldview that can be constructed without some assumption, that is entirely a priori). Challenges to our assumptions are always disconcerting, but we can respond differently (transformation - embrace - active fear - passive suppression). (h: I've found that seeking and thinking about the assumptions I live by has been a freeing process of self-discovery and then choosing what I will assume.)

"Delusion" is defined as "a belief held in the face of evidence." There is a long history, stretching back to Freud, of explaining religion naturally as a form of wish-fulfillment. Dawkins takes this point to imply that the human wish for God's existence is a delusion; McGrath points out that we often wish for things that are possible and real. For example, I might wish right now for someone to watch a movie with tonight. Later, a friend calls me, and we end up seeing "The Last Waltz."

Dawkins created the concept of a "meme" in 1976. His analogy is that memes are to human culture what genes are to human bodies; a way of encoding and transmitting information, loosely an "idea." He disparages belief in God as a "virus of the mind." McGrath points out that if you accept the concept/image of "memes," all ideas have that status and it does not affect their correspondence to reality and truth.

"Real scientists are atheists" and "science disproves God" are further assumptions Dawkins makes, against the witness of such scientists as Stephen Jay Gould, Francis Collins, and Paul Davies. McGrath asserts that science, by its legitimate methods, cannot judge or comment on the issue. "Are there limits of science?" Dawkins' book answers "Yes, but given enough time science will explain everything, become omnicompetent." McGrath agrees that science has unlimited potential regarding the material world, but cannot address "meaning" and "purpose," which he insists are real, legitimate questions. (h: Dawkins' argument reminds me of Goedel's incompleteness theorems; that any system of truth-expression (such as science) will generate true statements that cannot be proven within the system; such systems are inherently incomplete.)

Dawkins claims that religion leads to violence, ignoring the example of the officially atheistic USSR. McGrath counters with the insight that human nature is potentially violent; we tend to transcendentalize divisions, whether they are religious, tribal, racial, economic, or something else. (h: Though history is full of people using religion as a means for violence, our great religious leaders have shown us the way of transforming our nature towards universal compassion. Jesus is a perfect example, and there is no shortage of others, thinking today especially of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)

The last point Alister McGrath makes is to point how "terribly modern" Dawkins' argument is, meaning that it is thoroughly embedded in a modernist worldview that sees reason as the only way of knowing truth and the one way to do things properly. Dawkins seems like a scientific/logical positivist of the 19th century in this way, taking on a posture of certainty that is characteristically modernist (before physicists discovered uncertainty) but rather un-scientific. We are now in a post-modern period, open to many different possibilities and most importantly, to more-than-material forms of truth, information, knowledge, and being.

----

Thanks for making it this far. I'll ponder and reflect for the coming week, and strike back with some conversation-starters about what it all might mean Monday next. -h

New Year's Eve Pilgrimage

The Pilgrimage is a practice of worship and discernment that some of us at St. Peter's began in late October. Its purpose is to be an opportunity for us to very intentionally listen and act in our role as stewards of God's people and God's universe. Jody and I have tried to weave together an experience inspired by our local worship tradition, Quaker thought, emphases on authenticity, intimacy, and personal --> world-transformation, and the all-important church potluck.

Click here for the "order of worship."

Here for my "Primer" post.

And by starting here and reading forward, you'll catch most of what I've written about the story so far.

OK. Thanks for sticking with me this far. Because of a wild week, this post is mirrored at the CrossWalk America blog and the St. Peter's [blog] - and I'll be subverting the expectations of the CWA crew for another meditation on the loose theme "God's promises kept, but not how we expect." :-) So meta.

Last week on the Pilgrimage, New Year's Eve, we had a larger-than-average crew of regulars. When we came to the time for Circles of Trust, the heart of the experience, everything went in a different direction that it had ever before. We have created a set of markers to mediate how we speak, and respond, in the Circle of Trust; the goal is to maintain a very safe space so that we have a chance to hear and share our deepest inner voice. (See the Primer or Order of Worship links above for details on the markers.)

Right away, the circle began to stretch outside of our markers. I was surprised, because have moved through the learning curve for this new practice much faster than I expected we would, and keeping to the boundaries had never been an issue before. Now, we were saying great things; people were sharing their various points of view on what we sensed was some new energy and momentum after several months of apparent stagnation at St. Peter's. But my first response, as a facilitator of the Pilgrimage, was to think "Hey - where is this going? Do I need to slow it down by saying anything about keeping our markers?"

I waited. We kept going.

And as I thought a little longer about the journey we've been on thus far, and about the people in the circle, I realized that we were doing exactly what we needed to do. Our excitement couldn't be contained in our boundaries that night; the departure wasn't scaring away our inner voices, but was caused by our deepest selves feeling safe enough to share the excitement out loud.

I relaxed. Went with it.

Everything was fine. Being outside the prescribed borders served our purpose; we didn't diminish the goal, but actually reached it. (In a way I never expected! Ha! Found it!)

What happened New Year's Eve was not something I could have processed or responded to as I did in week one or two of our Pilgrimage. Then, I think I would have felt it necessary to break in and remind the circle of the markers, possibly squishing the spirit out of the moment. So I am blessed by the rare, clear glimpse of how I am being transformed. It's never much, but it's enough to show me that Something is Happening. Journey on, -howie

Pilgrimage Wk 9 and Tribalism

The Pilgrimage continued on New Year's Eve with a vibrant group and a spirit/sense of hope and moving forward. We don't quite apprehend its origins, but here it is, so we'll try to be moved by it. The table was one of our best, and that's saying something.

----

While thinking about music for my friend Ben's visit to St. Peter's on Jan. 21, I ran across this blog draft from October. I thought it was worth our time, though it's not as timely to Pope Benedict's remarks about Muslims as it was then (still, what he said is worth remembering).

Orson Scott Card, from the short story "Teacher's Pest"

"...I've set up the criteria for measuring the key components of long-lived
civil societies, and the triggers that collapse a civil society back into
tribalism. Is it possible for a civitas to last forever? Or is breakdown an
inevitable product of a successful civil society? Or is there a hunger for the
tribe that always works its way to the surface? Right now it doesn't look good
for the human race. My preliminary assessment shows that when a civil society is
mature and successful, the citizens become complacent and to satisfy various
needs they reinvent tribes that eventually collapse the society from the
inside.'

"So both failure and success lead to failure."

"The only question is whether it's inevitable."

"Sounds like useful information."

Bob Somerby on the Pope's recent (October) comments;

"Benedict has been shedding tears about a fairly deliberate, sweeping insult.
Here at THE HOWLER, we won’t waste your time noting the fact that this doesn’t justify riots or shootings. But read Benedict, or read David Brooks today, and understand where our world is headed. The west is full of angry white males who have long been spoiling for a good tribal fight. They want to pit “our” tribe against theirs. They’re the people who call talk radio to bitch about all that “political
correctness.” They’re the people who lodge deliberate insults, then say that
they’ve been misunderstood. And yes, because they’re angry and dumb, they’re
going to get the fight they want—and, quite sadly, the rest of us are going to
get that fight along with them."

And this, after Jody and I have had a positive conversation about tribalism and the KC Chiefs. Our world could use some more ritualized conflicts, and less real ones. Something tells me
neither al-Qaida or the neocons will settle for a soccer match, though. (Maybe it's history, biology, and those pesky facts.)

If you're not familiar, here's a resource;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism

Some good examples, application, and discussion:

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/06/altruistic-horizons-our-tribal-natures.html

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2006/04/hardwired-tribalism_14.html

And an interesting tangent;

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2005/06/networks-and-netwar.html

I hate the idea that my decisions could come from a part of me dominated by caveman-era social dynamics. Maybe you do too. When I first encountered this stuff (via Robert Wright's The Moral Animal) I was pretty distressed, but I also felt like a veil was lifted.

If you're like me, you enjoy freedom and the more, the better. The first step to transcending tribal dynamics is learning about them; then we can choose how we let them influence our actions. Where's Jesus? The human Jesus felt the pull of tribalism, same as everybody. Yet he also lived in ways that were universal; that took the tribal traditions and stories he knew and fashioned them into something transcendent. There's an example for us. I can't help but think that the more we know about these relationships, the more possibilities we'll have for following faithfully. -h