my true loves gave to me

This has been a powerful Christmas for me.

I have experienced a togetherness with my multi-tiered family that is fuller than I dared hope. The geographical distances and relational landscapes of family often create a blur of uncertainty that eludes focus and tranquility. Yet this year it's as if an adept photographer (perhaps toting a Panasonic Lumix LX 5, as I will be from here on out) took aim and snapped a shot of the bunch of us laughing and gifting and feasting; singing and playing; remembering and anticipating; expressing our gratitude and holding each other tight.

The careful composition of that image is what I will be carrying with me (tucked in my back pocket next to my new plaid handkerchief) into the year ahead. The way that the light gambols from face to face will be a graphic promise that in times of uncertainty and flux, peace is resoundingly possible.

Perhaps over the next twelve days of Christmas, at some point, you may find a chance to listen in to this sermon preached in anticipation of the advent of one who graced the world with his presence of equanimity in the midst of an often harsh reality; of calm and hope that tends to displace the harshness of the wintry moments in life with the warmth of conscientious connection to one another.

Laurence: at CommonGround, on the Advent

what i'm reading along with everything else i'm reading:

http://neweyeseachyear.wordpress.com/

and you should read it too. it's the sort of writing that touches that secret spot in you. in such a way that you think some combination of 'weird' and 'wow' is going on between you and the writer, or at least you and the text. it makes you curious about whether or not, just maybe, the world isn't out to get you so much as it's out to invite you.

invite you to what? read it, and keep reading it throughout december (*think advent*), and it will probably become clear. maybe not crystal clear. that's not the point. but clear enough to take your next step with confidence.

seminary semester #1

I’ve learned that there has never been a single orthodox Christian theology. There have been dominant imperial theologies and less influential brands of liberation theology. There have been theologies that have engendered violence and theologies that have engendered compassion. There have been theologies that create fear and manifest themselves in frightful ways; there have been theologies that foster mutuality, which take shape in cooperative relationships. But there has never been a conclusive theology, no final articulation of the divine, no one portrayal of God that has any “right” to trump another. Theology is a mess of exerted attempts to calculate and/or incarnate God. It’s a mess of options that render themselves inspired and/or inspirational. It’s a mess that isn’t (and has never been) sorted by one sort of authoritative declaration or another. Church councils have tried, but there’s always someone who eventually pushes back. Empires and nations do their best but don’t manage. Scripture – even if it were agreed upon what’s in and what’s out, what is and what isn’t sacred text – as it turns out is too slick to nail to the door of dogma in any final rendition.

I don’t think this is a problem. Have you ever cleaned out rain gutters? Your fingernails get all grimy. Accomplishing the task requires a certain disregard for cleanliness (as well as an affinity for perching at the edge of dangerous heights). You have to dig in with both hands and scoop out the decomposing mess (and risk a fall) to get the flow back.

That’s what I’ve learned about theology too. Both hands. Risky business.

Some theologians – professional and lay alike – would sooner not process the mess of theology. I’m not sure what motivates them to maintain that God is a tidy subject and that God-talk ought to be a sterile practice. Acknowledging the mess is helpful for me because it frees me from the paranoia that comes with trying to keep clean. Theology isn’t a practice of propriety. It never has been.

A lot of contemporary concepts of God are clogging the outlets of creativity in people’s lives. It's kind of pointless to be dainty with the God-clot when what you’re after is God-flow. Carefully pinching away twigs and soggy leaves won’t cut it. Instead: one handful of the mess after another, freeing the gutter from guarded doctrines that have proven themselves to be obstacles to the vital, fluid, forceful flow of a refreshing God.

And yeah, we'll have to clean it out again later. Theological job security I suppose.

reading: Beyond Monotheism

Naomi Shihab Nye:

Some start out
with a big story
that shrinks.
Some stories accumulate power
like a sky gathering clouds,
quietly, quietly,
till the story rains around you.

Laurel Schneider:
When did the stories of God become a story of totality, of a closed system, of a One? To what corner of human longing does the story of the One belong? As the motors of fundamentalism in all of the religions of One God race on the fuel of battered bodies and broken hearts, the logic of the One chokes on itself like a stone in the mouth. The story of the One denies fleshiness and the stubborn shiftiness of bodies; it cannot abide ambiguities and unfinished business; it cannot speak syllables of earth. But in its failures are openings, for there are always gaps in the story of the One, fissures that widen and crumble at the edges... The story of the One cannot, finally, achieve the still point that it pretends to crave; the very stones cry out.

John Rajchman:
the whole is not given, and things are always starting up again in the middle, falling together in another, looser way... one thus has nothing of the sense of a well-planned itinerary; on the contrary, one is taken on a sort of conceptual trip for which there pre-exists no map.

compassion

moving meaning

Kristin, Keith, Ashley, Jeffrey, and Kari thank you for your help! I turned the paper in last night and I feel great about it. I was delighted with the thoroughness, openness, and depth of your responses. It's an honor to consider each of you a peer and a colleague in this whirly, twirly pursuit of meaning.

I won't bother to confound you with my brilliant analysis of the distinctions and similarities between Structuralist Criticism and Deconstructive Criticism, which more or less comprised the first bits of my paper (let me know if you want a copy and I can email one to you). But I would like to share the conclusion of my paper. Hopefully it will make some sense, even though it's out of context:

It is a dangerous reality that a text, which is considered to be sacred and authoritative by a community, may be used to harm people inside and outside of that community. The selective deafness of a community to particular members, usually the marginalized minorities, will result in a perceived consensus that fails to recognize the concerns of those whose voices are silenced. This is a difficult reality to grapple with. The Christian community has continuously participated in this reality when engaging the biblical text. This is made apparent and contended with by many necessary disciplines, such as Feminist and Post-colonial studies, Queer theory, and Liberation theology (amongst others). Many people from the margins of the Church are pushing their way to the pulpit, demanding the movement of the Bible’s meaning in ways that will alleviate them from inaccurate stigmas. Others scrap the text or leave one community for another that has reached a more welcoming consensus. And there are others who continue to be subjected to the harsh reality of harmful readings of the Bible. It is a responsible thing to do, because of this last group, to challenge not only the specific meanings that those communities are adhering to but also the absolutism that allows them to hold their stance.

This does not require that all religious conviction regarding a sacred text be discarded or that critical rhetoric needs to be adopted. There are other ways to articulate the complex relationship between a community and its sacred text that remain honest about the possibility of the movement of meaning. For instance, Christians embracing the Bible as their sacred text may perceive it as “unchangeable but alive”. The paradox of that statement honors the mysterious nature of religious sensibilities while also acknowledging that the Bible, with its relatively unchanging script, can be engaged as an interactive force in the community. A Christian may find it challenging to be exposed to the suggestion that the meaning of the Bible, even one portion of the Bible, is not fixed. But there are options of adaptation for that Christian. There are ways that they may become open to a flexible understanding of the structure of meaning in the Bible without having to relinquish their religious identity. The situation of marginalized members of a Christian community who wish to remain part of that community as holistically engaged individuals is more sober. Without a communal flexibility of understanding, marginalized members of that community must choose to remain truly themselves – unorthodox, homosexual, female, dark-skinned – and release their religious identity. Or they must choose to suppress their selfhood in order to retain a sense of religious belonging. This need not be the case. Trustworthy structures are built to flex for the safety of those who find sanctuary in them.

needed: comments from the faithful

Calling all people of faith. Specifically people of faith in the Bible. It doesn't much matter to me what sort of faith in the Bible you have, but I need people who consider it a special text, in one way or another. (Some of you may think it's inspired, others that it's inspiring. If you think it's completely archaic and entirely dull then tune out for this post... but tune back in for all subsequent posts. You are still welcome here.)

I have an assignment for one of my Bible classes coming up, and I need your help. This is your chance to contribute to graduate level work in the field of religious studies. Do not pass this up! Whether you know me personally or not, whether you do it anonymously or not, respond to this post with a comment. Okay? Okay!

Here's what I need, it's simple: I'm reading a book (it's called Judges and Method, if you're interested) that contains a sampling of several relatively new approaches to biblical study and interpretation. One of the things that the content and the structure of the book implies is that there are in fact several different ways that a person can approach the biblical text. That there is not just one way to read or interpret the Bible.

I'll be writing a paper on the book and one of the questions I'm dealing with is this: Given the fact that so many readers of the Bible are people of faith who come to it expecting a single, clear "word" or message; and given the fact that many people expect scholars to tell them what the biblical text "really meant," how do you think most people of faith would respond to the exposure of such a range of approaches?

So what do you think? I need you to be honest, and I want a broad range of opinions... so lay it on think. How/what do you feel about the concept that there might be a range of approaches to the Bible? that there may not be one fixed meaning to any given biblical text?

(PS - If any of you who think that the Bible is entirely dull ended up disregarding my initial caveat and you're still reading this post - you should read the book of Judges and see if that doesn't cause you to reconsider... it's totally wild, not for the faint of heart.)

whirling

Just finished watching Occupation 101, a documentary that engages the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from an angle not typically covered by popular media. It opens with a quote by Stephen Hawking, "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." And it proceeds from there to recount the layers of complex tragedy that have steadily accrued in Israel/Palestine within the past several decades.

I will be traveling to Israel/Palestine with a group of students, professors, and peace activists in January. The trip for me will be an attempt to continue to dispel personal ignorance regarding the complex religious, social, and political issues that pervade the pocket of the globe commonly referred to as The Holy Land. I also hope to contribute to a more accurate (less delusional) understanding of what has and is contributing to the conflict. In my sphere of influence, my conversations and interactions, the extension of my voice, I want to be honest and hopeful.

Honesty and hope don't always go hand in hand on our whirling twirling globe. But let's try.

pro-carnal

Albert Mohler wrote an article about whether or not [his type of] Christians should practice yoga. His conclusion was not surprising, since [his style of] Christianity is radically challenged by the pluralistic ethos of the global culture today. As a representative of sequestered Christianity he concluded that yoga is not an appropriate practice for those wishing to maintain [his particular brand of] a Christian identity.

Again, no big surprise. And I'm doubtful that his article will do much to dissuade committed yoga practitioners, even Christian ones. Most practitioners are convinced of the sanctity of yoga because it functions. They don't need approval from the Christian aristocracy. Yoga is fine, and Mohler is fighting a losing battle (against a bunch of fit pacifists) to suggest otherwise.

I'm more concerned with implications that Mohler made about core Christian teaching and his apparent ignorance of traditional Christian practices. His audience has shallow roots in the world of yoga, but plenty of Christians would have heeded his words that:

"Christians are not called to empty the mind or to see the human body as a means of connecting to and coming to know the divine. Believers are called to meditate upon the Word of God — an external Word that comes to us by divine revelation — not to meditate by means of incomprehensible syllables."

Mohler's limited and noxious understanding of yoga aside, he's denying something key to Christianity here. And as a current student of the early church fathers I can be quite certain that, though they may concur that yoga is eccentric, they would rip Mohler's anti-body sentiments into tiny shreds and scatter them over a Docetistic grave. Christianity is all about the body.

As a progressive Christian who is fully confident that he's got nothing on yoga I'm willing to sidestep his offensive and untoward attitude about it. But don't mess with the incarnation.

be kind

Gregory & Jesus

Last week I wrote a paper summarizing Gregory of Nyssa's work: The Great Catechism. In it I found a striking quote, one of my favorite Christian exclamations to date:

"The labyrinth of this our life cannot be threaded by the faculties of human nature unless a [human] pursues that same path as he did who, though once in it, yet got beyond the difficulties which hemmed him in."

This was Gregory's argument. This was Gregory's perception of the necessity of God's having been incarnate in Jesus at a crucial point in history. It is a perception, an argument, an exclamation that I find engage-able.

The labyrinth of this our life cannot be threaded by the faculties of human nature unless...

Unless we follow in the way, the style of life, of one who limns the crux in reality where divinity and humanity intermingle.

Maxiums the Confessor (580-682 CE)

Ignorance about God on the part of those who are wise in divine things is not a lack of learning, but a knowledge that knows by silence that God is unknown.

God possesses an existence... that is beyond all affirmation and negation.

Mission

In Tom Robbins' Another Roadside Attraction there is an account of the passing conversation that Jesus had with Tarzan. I don't think that it is historically factual. But maybe some sort of truth can be found in it?

---

[Jesus]: I’m preparing myself for my mission.

[Tarzan]: Which is…?

[Jesus]: To change the world.

[Tarzan]: The world is perpetually changing. It doesn’t do much else but change. It changes from season to season, from night to day, from ice to tropics. It changed from a pocketful of cosmic dust into the complicated ball of goof and glory it is today. It’s changing every celestial second with no help whatsoever. Why do you want to stick your nose into it?

---

Facetious iconoclast though he is, Tarzan kind of deserves an answer. Or if not an answer than at least some thought in response to his rhetorical question.
At least that's how I feel. Because here I am, back in the classroom, preparing myself for my mission. It's good to be here. It feels natural for me. To what end? Or is it enough to be somewhere that feels right.
I can't decide if I want to change the world, or find my place in it. Maybe those two options aren't radically different?

link

Classes are cruising along. Lots of stimulation, a great community of learners, plenty of reminders as to why it is that I am doing what I'm doing. Why? To change the world of course! -- Kind of kidding, more on that from Tom Robbins later...

For now, here's a link to some balanced and, from where I stand, pretty accurate thoughts about Islamic concepts that might otherwise seem confusing to my readers whose only understanding of Islam is in the context of the sensational headlines of mainstream media.

Feel free to post your thoughts and comments here. Though I would ask that you think first and then post, thus filtering out unfounded animosity.

Article: The Meaning of the Koran.

routine

Tuesday 2pm. Constructing a Concept of God.
Xenophanes observed that people create gods in their own image. Whether that's true ontologically or not is still up for debate. But that old satirical Grecian hit the nail on its head in a round about way at least. How we conceive and perceive of God is partially due to the stance we take, the angle we're coming at God from. Tuesday's at 2 I will join professor Laurel Schnieder as we "examine and develop various proposals for conceiving of God in rapidly changing Christian communities". We'll be unpacking all of the heft and bulk of angles like this: liberationist, post-modern, feminist, African-American, Asian, and post-colonial.

Tuesday 6.30-9.30pm. History of Christian Thought: Foundations.
That's quite a presumptuous title. Historically speaking Christians have done an awful lot of thinking. And those thoughts veined out in every which way. Truth be told this course will be sticking mostly to Western manifestations of Christian thought, and we'll only have the space really to survey some of the loudest and proudest of Christian thinkers from early on through to the Reformation. I like the title, it abbreviates nicely (Hist XN Thot), but "Some of the Thoughts Christians Had for a Millenia or So" would be a touch more appropriate.

Wednesday 9am-noon. Interpreting the Gospels.
No small task in and of itself. I'm alright without Greek for this class, but I will be brushing up on the "Grecco-Roman milieu of the Gospels". Professor Yang (rumor has it she pulls a bit of weight in the contemporary milieu of New Testament hermeneutics) will open our burgeoning minds to today's methods of gospel research and scholarship. But in an ongoing effort not to bite off more than our mandibles can handle we'll be sticking to the canonical gospels for this course.

Wednesday 6.30-9.30pm. People and Faith of Israel I
Bible stories mostly. But not the rated G, warm and fuzzy versions. The Hebrew Bible has been put through the crucible a time or two. And it has emerged as one of the finest collections of literary prowess on the market. It has a lot to say about God, a lot to say about faith, and a lot to say about life. Hopefully they won't be saving all of the juicy stuff for the second installment of the course. That shouldn't be a problem; there's plenty of substance to go around.

place in space

With a fresh batch of eager friends and colleagues, a charming neighborhood (and city) to continue to explore, and an exciting schedule of classes soon to begin I move into this weekend both weary and light.

Our apartment has become thoroughly ours and, infused with personal touches of color and comfort, will function as the perfect home base for this coming bout in academia. (Thank you Lauren.) My new friends come from all walks (and sprints and tip-toes and dances) of life - they are beautiful and energetic and I feel embraced and privileged to be among them.

I'm trying now to catch my breath in the midst of all of this incipience.

I breathe in satisfaction, and breathe out anxiety.
I breathe in organization, and breathe out clutter.
I breathe in expectation, and breathe out intimidation.
I breathe in deep into the center of myself, and breathe out with my arms wide open.

angles

The angle that I come at Christianity from is not unanimously considered legitimate. What results is that I am considered a) [best case scenario] a prayer request, or b) [worst case scenario] a threat. In my case I've sensed in spots that I am viewed as a bit of each.

Now I don't mind being prayed for. But the threat thing throws me off. I think that that has to do with the others' fear, not my scariness. Throughout history "new" ideas, unconventional ideas, ideas that vary from the norm have been regarded with suspicion and nervousness. I want to be sensitive to that, and I think I am. I bite my tongue a lot.

But my tongue is getting sore. And while I don't think that I have "it all together", I am confident that I have a valuable (not scary) perspective, that I'm not alone in my approach to Christianity or in my experience of Jesus, and that I am gifted with the capacity to communicate (and demonstrate) the things that I believe about life and God and faith.

So, ready or not...

capacity

Some things transcend reason. Others contradict it. Consider the difference.

I'm on it!

Have a look at this brief article from my homeland regarding religious understanding in Canada.
Raising the standard for what is considered a socially acceptable grasp of religion, whether one's own or one adhered to by your neighbors, is pretty much exactly what I want to do with my life.
That and spend a lot of time playing outdoors.
Peace. Shalom. Namaste. Etc.

open letter to a jazz lover

August 11, 2010

Professor Harvey Cox,

I’m a chapter away from being finished with reading your book: Fire From Heaven. I want to thank you for your insightful perspective. More than your perspective even I’m grateful to have witnessed your posture. It is one that I aim to emulate as I begin a new phase of training and dreaming toward my vocation and career. Thank you for having the courage to treat your subject with a sense of mutuality. Thank you for not assuming that you have the upper hand. Yet thank you also for believing in the validity and importance of your own voice. I find your approach to theology, scholarship, and commentary to be inspiring.

I will be beginning an MA in Religious Studies at Chicago Theological Seminary in approximately four weeks and I am positively alive with anticipation for what this horizon may amount to. Thank you for your part in preparing me for what is ahead.

Your reader,
Aram Mitchell

(Last year Cox published The Future of Faith. I haven't read it, but it might be worth a look.)

s04e10

I'm a little behind, I admit: just finished episode ten of West Wing's season four, the one where the Whiffenpoofs get snowed in at the White House, Danny Concannon shows up in a Santa suit, and Toby sort of reconnects with his father.

Also in this episode Will Bailey, up and coming Deputy Communications Director gets tested. The President, Chief of Staff, and Communications Director (three pretty powerful dudes) throw a curve ball issue at Bailey to see if he'll respond by "speaking truth to power".

Never mind the political particulars of the imaginary West Wing. Life on our side of the television's screen has a good supply of its own drama. And I wonder, that being considered, how truthful are we to the powers that be?

That's not to say that powerful guys are necessarily life's villains, but truth be told it can't hurt to keep even them accountable to the way of love. Go ahead. Use your voice.

keynote

Hyun Kyung Chung created quite the spectacle at the 1991 general assembly of the World Council of Churches. As one of the keynote speakers, a role filled by a scholar or cleric offering an academically rigorous and emotionally engaging homily, Dr. Chung danced to the podium accompanied by nineteen fellow Korean dancers, two Aboriginal Australian dancers, bells, candles, drums, and didgeridoos.

Her speech opened with an invocation of the spirits of those killed by oppression, the spirits of the forest, the earth, the air, the sea and all its creatures, and "the spirit of the Liberator, Jesus Christ".

When accused of practicing syncretism (as opposed to a "pure" or "orthodox" style of Christianity) her response is, "I know I am a syncretist... [and if] you don't know you are a syncretist [it's] because you have hegemonic power."

Which is a fancy and feisty way of saying that we all shade our beliefs with colorful displays of our personal and cultural dispositions. Only some of us have been in the limelight for quite some time now and we've forgotten about the others who have historically been ushered backstage.

When those others step on stage, out of the margins, into the light: a) we're disoriented, b) we're possessive, or c) we notice their contribution to the color scheme.

"I think in order to really heal the world we need the wisdom of darkness. This can be the third world, dark people, women, or 'our shadows' (all the things we do not want to confront in ourselves)... I think that we need 'endarkenment' for a while, not enlightenment, to heal the world."



(I read about Dr. Chung's '91 address in "Fire From Heaven" by Harvey Cox)

Burst

You come from somewhere
someone's progeny
and fix yourself to his identity
or her breast
until you have the strength to stand apart and start
your search for the axis.

Looking high and low and in between
you can taste the dirt in a Wendell Berry poem
and feel the sparkle in the eye of a gnostic Christ.

Your body finds sex and
your soul finds your body and
your search for the center finds you.

Coming from somewhere thrust with a burst
into this world you lift your head
and stretch your legs
and open your heart to the unknown coming your way.

Coasting

Every once in a while -
When you're coasting downhill on your bicycle
You get a flat stone to skip five skips
A sip into your second glass of wine
The shutter on your camera shuts on a scene somewhat uncommon
A loaf of bread comes out just right
You hear your name spoken lovingly
When you dream a vivid dream
-you feel free.

To Whomever May Be Concerned:

I find life to be easier when things are organized. I gravitate toward orderliness and do my best to pursue clarity and ward off chaos. But I also try to allow space for disorder to take place. I have a drawer in the kitchen that is solely for clutter. I have a file amongst my computer documents that is a miscellaneous catch all. Until recently my hair was matted and unkempt. I try not to finish every book that I start. My most treasured spiritual insight is that peace is possible despite unanswered questions.

“In the beginning” order emerged from chaos and – as I’m sure we’ve all experienced often enough – it returns to it from time to time. At the cosmic dawning, as with our own essence, there is a relationship between the two – between what is done and what is undone, between the structured surge of life/now and the unkempt disarray of what was or has yet to be.

Living with order and chaos at war within and all around us is one option. Seeking conscious communion of the two is another.

Favoring the latter I try to open myself to the value of each, even though one is more difficult for me than the other.

I find that I have done well. I’ve made progress. But one chasm I’ve yet to cross (to enter) is what to do when order in my relationships evades me.

Recently I’ve been haunted and distracted by other people’s sore spots. I have come to realize that who I am – persona/ideas/expression – is a disruptive force in some people’s lives. Whether they are threatened, concerned, or curious, and have communicated it with tact, passion, or silence it has become clear that several of my relationships are askew. And I feel responsible to do something about it.

I hesitate to throw them into a drawer full of clutter, or to file them away to glance at later. I don’t want them to get too tangled up. I don’t want to not finish something that I’ve started. I am tempted to devote all of my energy to smoothing things over and setting things straight. But I can’t.

I can’t because I lack the capacity.

But also because I have the potential for creative enterprises that require my energy, and I am entering a season where I long to give it to them.

If you are one of my friends feeling askew, threatened, concerned, or curious: I cannot assuage the threat you feel, nor salve your concern. But I may be able to engage your curiosity. This isn’t me checking out of these relationships. It’s me saying that if you have questions about me then I’d be glad to enter them with you, but I can’t answer them for you.

hard soul

Also in TO, had a session of throat grinding, heart finding musical tutelage somewhere along Queen Street. Featuring champion busker and free fingered artist: DB Buxton.

coming out

I was in Toronto last weekend, standing on Church Street talking with Aaron, whose family is Indian and Catholic. We were talking and he asked me if I have a girlfriend, to which I responded, “A wife, actually.” I asked him if he has a boyfriend, but he doesn’t. He said he has to be discreet. I wondered out loud if that was because of his family, and he said that, yes, it was. His family doesn’t know. He hasn’t come out yet.

I was standing there on Church Street thinking about Aaron’s discretion, and I thought that probably most of us have something or other that we haven’t come out about to our families. Which doesn’t suggest that Aaron’s situation (being gay in a family that disapproves of his orientation) isn’t uniquely difficult, because it is. It does, however, raise the question: Am I making it difficult for any of my loved ones to be honest about who they are?

love

Moms and Dads give lots to their children. There are exceptions who don't. But most of them do and it's probably generally agreed upon that that's the way it should be.

Then every now and again there comes an opportunity for a son or a daughter to give a bit too.

And hopefully ultimately the flow of love between parent and offspring becomes as vigorously mutual as possible.

Click: part of the flow.

remembrance

I am grateful for the country I reside in. And grateful for the folks who, taking initiative and making sacrifices and believing in the effectiveness of believing, had a hand in crafting the country it is.

Thanks to the soldiers and to the activists, the academics and the farmers, the politicians and the teachers, the journalists and the janitors, the rock stars and the IT guys (and gals). Not everyone does what they do with grace and poise and a heart full of hope. But some of you have. And lots of you do. Thanks to you.

Let's not forget to remember each other.

quest

I have experienced an ongoing call to seek, a convincing impulse to reflect, and a persistent compulsion to express. I trust that the call is good, because it has been good. It has inspired me to quest for compassion, knowledge, integrity, and humanity.

I value this vocation. I consider it to be profound and true.

head

G.K. Chesterton wrote, "The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head."

And without deliberating as to which disposition is the better of the two, it's valuable to know which one you tend toward.

ownership

Granted, I'm taking this out of context... but not very far out of it. And take my word, even in its context it did little else than reek of hubris while providing a distinct example of nationalistic pride gone askew.

Read from a periodical this evening, in an article that I think was trying to say that the U.S. is learning to appreciate soccer and that soccer's popularity is growing here, becoming more of a priority. It said it like this: "Face it, world: the U.S. is going to play, watch, market, manage and own your sport sooner or later."

Then it quoted someone at the head of the U.S. soccer force, "For good or for bad, America has always been the center of the universe, whether it's sports, culture, politics; so it makes sense that as soccer has exploded to become a true global sport, America would hop on the bandwagon."

I agree that America is hopping on the bandwagon, and a fine bandwagon it is, and a fine squad they have to do the hopping (I'm a big fan of Howard's tending prowess). But, dear me, soccer has not exploded to become a true global sport -- it is the global sport.

And I think that ownership is not determined by purchasing power (through marketing, managing, mass viewing, etc) but by the enthusiasm with which it is played.

Soccer -- the world's football -- is for all of us; possibly the one thing remaining that will always shed imperialistic robes for the sake of its own simplicity. Two goals and a ball. Heart, passion, celebration.

It tends to bring us together. I value soccer for that. Let's let it do what it will.

see

Seeing something from where you are is quite natural and easy. Seeing that you see something from where you are is more difficult at times. It's good to perch every once in a while, to see as expansively as possible, to take a moment to value perspective.

grounded

I value having a spot to sit and think, stop and feel, to stay put and let the business of a day pass through my consciousness leaving me more or less at ease with the way things are, situated.

habla

I spent a lot of time the past few months talking with Jesus. I discovered that language is a luxury, helpful, but not a necessity. We saddled horses together, played soccer together, climbed trees, fixed leaky hoses, harvested bananas, shot the breeze -- all with minimal mutual vocabulary. Jesus spent even more time talking at me than I did at him. And he seldom slowed down to ensure my comprehension.

I'm back, feeling rinsed off by three months at the end of the road in southwest Costa Rica. Airing out for now in Indianapolis, recalling the summer days of my childhood, and sorting through the insights that piled up while I was away.

sabbatical

Hey readers. For the next few months you won't hear much from me, but for the occasional photographic representation of my musings and the writing de mi esposa, visit this magical place.

Lapham

While wondering the aisles of periodicals at one of a selection of large bookstores in the Indianapolis area the other day, dragging my heels to the exit, wanting only to linger amongst the words and images a little bit longer, but needing to return to the elements of the non-literary portions of life, my eyes stumbled onto something.

I had a gift card, a Christmas gift card with a snowman on it, that I had managed to hang on to up to that point. I fished it out of my wallet and traded it in: a book of Anne Sexton poetry for Lauren, and the most recent issue of Lapham's Quarterly for me.

LQ is edited by Lewis Lapham (Lapham's). Published four times a year (Quarterly). It adopts a topic each issue, this one hones in on religion. And it explores that topic throughout history by compiling a myriad of writings by figures, this time, ranging from Josephus to Nietzsche, from John Donne to Jon Edwards to John Updike to Jon Krakauer.

You can read some of the excerpts that I've been picking through at the LQ site.

hot topics

I had an opportunity to guest teach for a group of peers at one of the local churches the other day. My dad is their usual teacher, and I've gotten to know them all quite well. We had a great time.
I had taken a poll the previous week to find out what they wanted me to teach about. I took in a few possible "lecture titles" and went with the one that got the most votes: "Selected Topics in Biblical Hermeneutics: Creation, Homosexuality, and Hell".
A few PowerPoint slides into it I had already made my main point which was, more or less, this: everyone who reads the Bible (or anything for that matter) interprets the Bible, there are a variety of options to be chosen from when it comes to shaping an interpretation, own your choices.
Which is to say, if you're confident enough to confess something with confidence then you owe it to the rest of us to trace its roots and track its implications. We all owe it to each other.
If you're interested in the selected topics themselves, I'd be glad to guest lecture at your venue of choice for a small fee and a complimentary lunch at Yats.

Then why?

In light of the frustration I communicated in my last post what is it that keeps me, in one way or another, on the fringes of the religious realm?

Well, here's the thing:
Religions are human productions. Really, they are. People made them. Not deliberately, but people living life at certain times spread out all over the world and all throughout history contributed to the development of the religions.

It wasn't like an assembly line at the religion manufacturing plant where this person added this piece and that person added that piece and it all fit together to become one fancy final product.

It was more like how people make babies. Once upon a time people's questions about life coupled with the reality of their lives and a baby was conceived. This happened wherever people clustered together. Some of the baby's grew up to be strong and active in the world. Others grew up and kind of kept to themselves. Many of them had babies of their own. And several of them, to this day, have dissociative identity disorder.

What I'm interested in is how we, as parents, respond to our offspring. And, even if we don't have our own, how we respond to the presence (and actions) of other people's offspring.

I'm not interested in discussing whether or not such and such a religion should exist, or whether religion in general should be discontinued. In my opinion it's kind of too late for those questions. Religion is too much a part of the family, too much a part of the human story, to be rid of it. Not without a big mess.

Maybe it will come to that. Things are already a mess and maybe before we can clean things up we'll need to make a bigger mess. But an honest appraisal of what the world would be like -- for so many individuals, nations, and cultures -- if the rug of religion was pulled out from under them leads me to conclude that I am not prepared to be the one to tug.

I think we have a lot more to discuss before we go down that road. And if we all open ourselves up to discussion then maybe we won't have to.

Pushy religion

Happy twenty ten. I've been struggling to come up with a bit to write here at the start of this new year. There are plenty of thoughts stirring, but not many taking shape, not the sort I'm interested in posting anyway.
So I've tapped the archives, found something I wrote a while back that I don't think I ever posted. It's a touch morose, but I hope (dare I say plan?) to offer some constructive and good tempered ponderings soon. Meanwhile...

I grow weary of this insistence: authentic faith requires either an attainment of certainty or the fervent pursuit of it.
It frustrates me. Why insist on answers? The questions will return, and the answer isn’t to answer them. The answer is to enter them.

Perhaps religion is nothing more than an institute dealing in the currency of answers.

Once upon a time religion dealt with questions. It didn’t answer them. I’m tired of religion that gives away its answers with the flash of a smile.

I’m tired of religion that offers certainty as a synonym for faith, sewing the two together with a cross-stitch. I find myself tearing at the resultant seams for a glimpse of light, a breath of air.