Ground To A Halt, But Less Concerned

There is much of me that feels as though it has ground to a halt. Outwardly, this is much less dramatic than it sounds, and inwardly, its existence isn’t completely apparent. Its taken time, reflection, movements of emotion and exhaustions, both physically and spiritually in order to shape something beyond the brain impulses that would otherwise solely define its realness. Its also been aided by the words of others and the sharing of similar experiences or moments in the soul’s variation.

I’ve thought so much and read so many books over the last few months but have felt unable to say a word. I don’t have a lot of free time, but I do have some. I’ve posted little more than a handful of blog posts here over the past few months, and those have mostly been photographical posts. Its not that I’ve lacked time or truth to attempt to share, its that something has changed. I’ve written post after post these last few weeks only to leave them unpublished in dissatisfaction, either with the content altogether or the arrangement of the words themselves.  

A friend of mine recently was a part of a gathering of folks involved with Emergent Village, and afterward, the thoughts he translated into words to graciously share with his readers were ones that somehow helped me explain my own feelings even to myself. Its not that parallels need be precise, but that words chosen trigger just the right thoughts and that peace you get when you find yourself defined. Such definition carries not the forcefulness that one’s true identity given by God would bring, but it is similar, and, albeit fractional. It brings an exhale of understanding and peace, but not necessarily the complacency or the fabled “joy of the Lord”. 

At this gathering of Emergent folk, Brittian describes himself as arriving at a state of agenda-less-ness. I may read more into his reactions or even adopt some and then tell him “I’ll take it from here,” but as is obvious, we can often trigger feelings and revelations within each other with words that were meant for other purposes. By the end of his time there he had dumped his regular response to the question “What do you do?” and replaced it with, in so many words, “nothing.”

You see I’ve let go of many pursuits in my life, and even in the last few years. Pursuits that would seem to define the very nature of such narratives as “Christian”, “American”, “lover”, “fighter”, and “artist”. I can’t help but leave it that vague because even to me, looking back at my life as though I could read the pages, I couldn’t paint the picture even if only I were viewing it. Perhaps its the complexity that so burdons my soul while my mind enjoys the exercise.  Perhaps its the demands of reasonability that so burdons my mind while my soul finds it to be a shade from the sun on the warmest of summer days.

I’ve long now thought myself as meddling in the affairs of the gods, or at least the affairs of men who actually give a damn, and believe in that damnation for better or worse. Kahlil Gibran, with every word, applies color and comfort to the absurdities that would otherwise plague me. Just today, I pulled from his short collection of writings, Between Night and Morn, a line from a story that for a moment, I could swear was about me. 

“His soul abandoned the rapid parade of time rushing toward nothingness.”

And so I’ll raise my glass, not to passivity nor the narrowness of hedonism, but to the agenda-less importance of first, be-ing. The be-ing that frees one to rise through clouds to find clear skies above them and yet, still devoted to truth, remaining within them. The same being that disregards any notion of a halting or of progress, and leaves us with contentment in saying, simply, “I dream…I dream”.

(Please do visit Brittian’s blog and his particular post in which he concludes with “I dream…I dream”, and thank you, Brittian, for sharing.)

The Future of Christianity – Kind Of

Between all the conversations and other events that have been happening this weekend, I’ve been trying to reflect on the conversations I shared on Saturday. I was invited a few weeks ago to participate in a small gathering and discussion within walking distance of my home (gotta love Portland) that was called “The Future of Christianity”. In reality the title didn’t seem to fit the discussion but I believe the title was taken from a short video we watched to spawn discussion points. The video is a discussion primarily between two philosopher/theologians who I’m actually somewhat familiar with, though have had little more time in the past than to skim a book or two. The men in the video were Ken Wilbur and Thomas Keating, both very brilliant in their individual, yet complimentary ways. 

The video talked much about Wilbur’s integral theory of consciousness, which is basically a way of describing paradigms in relation to spirituality and culture. There’s a certain incremental spectrum he uses for illustration which is rather inconsequential to my thoughts here other than to say the idea raises eyebrows (among the company in attendance) over its linear nature.  In other words, it suggest a linear progression of what we commonly might think of as enlightenment, and doesn’t seem to offer room for the particular values in the categorizations it places at its lower levels. Some of these devalued categories include things like mysticism and ethnocentrism. Its true that these exhibit negative qualities in many contexts but to place them linearly as inferior values seems arrogant and rash.

Anyway, my point is not to explain the theories. (Which by the way really are rather interesting and aptly named by Wilbur in one of his books, A Theory Of Everything. Quite the title huh?) What struck me most about the day was the connections shared between participants, which in a community like this, seems to be as intentional as the discussion itself. Not only was I able to attend with two close friends, but upon arrival, I discovered that the event was something much different from the emergent church exercise I had the impression it would be. Not only did the age range have a great span but so did the particular positions held within the faiths. Not only were there representatives from many Christian denominations but there were also present (intentionally included) people from the Jewish and Islamic faiths. 

Bringing together people of many faiths offers differing perspectives which is invaluable in itself and turns the imagined world of different people into a real one. At its core, the purpose of the discussion was simply discussion and to find familiarity and common ground between a diversity of cultures. At the discussion it often carried the name, the commonality of virtue. There was no problem to fix or solution to compromise on. It was simply to understand and share mutual existence. That is something most of us are good at talking about but not so good at finding in reality. In reflecting on the experience with my friend Joel, we realized that really, this was a unique moment in time, and a surreal and blessed one at that. 

I’m still processing the experience even now,  even beyond the great conversations we shared among beautiful souls during the day. I posted a series of quotables to my twitter throughout the event, which spawned a bit of conversation on my facebook in particular. I’d like to expand some more on some of those thoughts, particularly ones by Thomas Keating as well as the event organizer, Chuck Cooper, but will save those for a later post.

More On The Church

 I feel my last article about the Church, which began with a lengthy (and dense) quote from Tolstoy, ended on a bad note. Or perhaps not completely bad, just incomplete. I’ve been holding a small discussion with some of my closest conversationalists on the issue, and attempting to iron out more precisely for myself where I believe the proper place is for a non-church-attender to stand on the issue. Or more precisely, what form my tone should take on the issue. I hope to be posting some of the highlights of that discussion in the near future, particularly after I’ve allowed my own thoughts on the matter to become more clear.

All this to say that it is incomplete, though my friend Stephen posted this link on Twitter earlier today, and I found it quite honest, calm, and relatable, more or less what the shape of my tone should, perhaps, be in love.

The article isn’t dead-on with how I feel, but I believe we share many honest sentiments.

Here’s a few lines I pulled from the article:

Periodically on this journey we may go through times when we can’t seem to find any other believers who share our hunger. That’s especially true for those who find that conforming to the expectations of the religious institutions around them diminishes their relationship with Jesus.

Scripture does encourage us to be devoted to one another not committed to an institution.

I make no secret of the fact that I am deeply troubled by the state of organized Christianity. Most of what we call ‘church’ today are nothing more than well-planned performances with little actual connection between believers. Believers are encouraged toward a growing dependency on the system or its leadership rather than on Jesus himself.

Most of us on the journey are accused of being divisive because freedom can be threatening to those who find their security in a religious system.

The Holy Infallible Church

A rather lengthy, but worthwhile passage from Leo Tolstoy‘s The Kindgdom Of God Is Within You in his third chapter, entitled “Christianity Misunderstood By Believers“:

In the times of Constantine the whole interpretation of the doctrine had been already reduced to a RÉSUMÉ–supported by the temporal authority– of the disputes that had taken place in the Council–to a creed which reckoned off–I believe in so and so, and so and so, and so and so to the end–to one holy, Apostolic Church, which means the infallibility of those persons who call themselves the Church. So that it all amounts to a man no longer believing in God nor Christ, as they are revealed to him, but believing in what the Church orders him to believe in.

But the Church is holy; the Church was founded by Christ. God could not leave men to interpret his teaching at random–therefore he founded the Church. All those statements are so utterly untrue and unfounded that one is ashamed to refute them. Nowhere nor in anything, except in the assertion of the Church, can we find that God or Christ founded anything like what Churchmen understand by the Church. In the Gospels there is a warning against the Church, as it is an external authority, a warning most clear and obvious in the passage where it is said that Christ’s followers should “call no man master.” But nowhere is anything said of the foundation of what Churchmen call the Church.

The word church is used twice in the Gospels–once in the sense of an assembly of men to decide a dispute, the other time in connection with the obscure utterance about a stone–Peter, and the gates of hell. From these two passages in which the word church is used, in the signification merely of an assembly, has been deduced all that we now understand by the Church.

But Christ could not have founded the Church, that is, what we now understand by that word. For nothing like the idea of the Church as we know it now, with its sacraments, miracles, and above all its claim to infallibility, is to be found either in Christ’s words or in the ideas of the men of that time.
The fact that men called what was formed afterward by the same word as Christ used for something totally different, does not give them the right to assert that Christ founded the one, true Church.

Read more of this passage here.

I’m anxious to an open discussion on this topic. I fully expect Tolstoy’s words to be offensive to some (even those without directly vested interest in the structure or hierarchy of the Church, but rather, those who find its cultural contribution to be unreplaceable), as they would have been to me at some point in my past. I also fully expect his words to be taken as a direct assault on Christianity itself, though I hope in our discussion we can further highlight the differences between true Christian doctrine and what our culture has done with it. Afterall, that is the purpose of Tolstoy’s words.

There are those of us who in some way, whether foolish or wise, are attempting to bypass the cultural prism through which we see Christ. For some, that prism is understood as the Church, and for fewer, that prism is understood as such while its effects on our perceptions are attempted to be neutralized. I cannot and should not say that I will never return to Church life or some gathering of what we commonly call church, for if I see the Church as flawed, then I must see it as a part of this world, deserving of love, even if it deceives itself of its own righteousness.

A friend of mine who regularly still attends the most recent church I attended has noted on multiple occasions to me that she cannot stop attending despite her disappointment in both the message and self-righteous focus of the church in particular. Her reason is her love for the people, who are in fact people, deserving of the Love that we are directed to extend. It is just that perhaps these members (and I will not dis-include myself in many regards) that accurately fit the descriptor that is Tolstoy’s chapter title, “Christianity Misunderstood By Believers”. In all my rhetoric I cannot help but be humbled by the fact that we are all fallen and lost, and the choice to love is the hardest and most vital step away from this state.

What’s more, it was just this week that I conversed with a friend who finds himself employed in what we, who are disgusted by consumerism and globalism, consider the depths of hell, Starbucks. Ok, perhaps it serves best as an emblem of said -isms, not taking on as they say, vexillum solus, or the solo banner. The common view is its representation of affluent suburban life but what we rarely imagine is the true nature of poverty. If poverty is defined not by money, but by spiritual and emotional state, those in suburban American affluence would not be disincluded, regardless of their own awareness of their state of poverty. I think Christ defined The Least also as those who are trampled by society, which would leave out those I have just mentioned, but it is also not as though we are to love those in only one level of whatever hierarchy of life “the least” refers to.

This latté-serving friend of mine finds himself just needing the money and being unable to otherwise, for the time being, escape the neighborhood his parents live in, which is mentioned as one of the most wealthy in the nation. As a cynic I find it easy to talk of such places the way one Paris Hilton would talk of a Motel6, but I am put in my place by the voice inside me that has found at least a hint of what honest objective love looks like. I am once again humbled by the lives and love of my friends, in this case, one who chooses daily to connect with those through the humble realization that we are all fallen and lost, all deserving of love, even the affluent.

There are those of us who, especially through Paul’s teaching, are fully in love with the theological implications and poetic nature of the marriage of Christ to the church. Notice the lowercase ‘c’, there, not the capital. As a body of believers (who according to Tolstoy, misunderstand our own religion) we are defined as the church not by the system of human politics and hierarchy that is falsely built in Christ’s name but by, at its simplest level, believing in the name and sharing this commonality with our brothers and sisters.

***

For related reading:

On Poverty and Prosperity

Church Is Not God

Full Text of Tolstoy’s The Kingdom Of God Is Within You

***

Ellul, From The Subversion Of Christianity

If we grant that what the New Testament means by Christianity and being a Christian merely conforms to human ideas and pleases and flatters us as though it were all our own invention and teaching springing up from within ourselves, then there is no problem. There is, however, a ‘but,’ a difficulty, for what the New Testament really means by being a Christian is the very opposite of what is natural to us. It is thus a scandal. We have either to revolt against it or at all costs to find cunning ways of avoiding the problem, such as by the trickery of calling Christianity what is in fact its exact antithesis, and then giving thanks to God for the great favor of being Christians. As Kierkegaard says, nothing displeases or revolts us more than New Testament Christianity when it is properly proclaimed. It can neither win millions of Christians nor bring revenues and earthly profits. Confusion results. If people are to agree, what is proclaimed to them them must be to their taste and must seduce them. Here is the difficulty: it is not at all that of showing that official Christianity is not the Christianity of the New Testament, but that of showing that New Testament Christianity and what it implies to be a Christian are profoundly disagreeable to us (”Instant,” p. 167). Never–no more today than in the year 30–can Christian revelation please us: in the depths of our hearts Christianity has always been a mortal enemy. History bears witness that in generation after generation there has been a highly respected social class (that of priests) whose task it is to make of Christianity the very opposite of what it really is (p. 240).

– Jacques Ellul, The Subversion Of Christianity

(ht)

On Poverty And Prosperity

I dislike the term “rethink” because it is so in tune with the fashionable Emergent movement which claims as its mission to “rethink the way we do church”. Not unlike the hundreds of Christian sectarian movements that came before it. 

Last month I posted a short article asking if we should  reconsider how we define poverty, as it seems contradictory for Christ to have defined it as a state of material possession. I am now more resolute in the opinion that we should define poverty not by material possessions or income bracket, but by oppression, disrespect, pain, and fear. Is it not obvious that those who embrace low income willingly often find more contentment? Does the classic cliche of “money doesn’t buy happiness” not apply?

Despite my distaste for it, the term “rethink” does seem to fit this circumstance because it suggests that we take a closer look at how we normally perceive poverty and prosperity.  

On Religious Foundations and Non-Conformity

The following is an abbreviated exchange between myself and Mike from subversivechurch. It followed my brief comments regarding Contradiction and Surrender. I love conversing with both Mike and Chris from subversivechurch, and would urge you, if you appreciate the more in-depth subject matter of my blog, to also frequent their blog at subversivechurch.wordpress.com.

Mike:

When we think something is proven or truth, then we start to build upon it, start to form our worldview around it as a foundation. Obviously if this truth turns out to be not truth, then we either tear down what we have built on said truth or we defend what we have built on said truth.

I think we can safely say that many people try to defend their religion, especially if it is being questioned. But it is exactly such a defense that starts things like the crusades, the moral majority and all sorts of other manmade atrocities carried out in the name of God.

Amos:

Very true. Would you say it is instincts of defense that lead us to transform defensive action into oppressive action when power is grasped and our accustomed comfort or authority is challenged?

Actually that was a rhetorical question, I think I know what you would answer.

Mike:

Actually, for those who see opposition as a threat to power, yes.  I would say that many, rather hope that many, of the early church leaders were trying to consolidate Christianity.  After years and centuries of oppression and martyrdom, it is very understandable to see why the acceptance of Christianty into the political arena would have been welcome and even seen as the product of all the suffering of past generations.
 
But it doesn’t make it right.  So like our leaders in the mainstream church today, they defend their system, but are doing so based on good intentions.  I have several friends who are pastors and do not see any deviousness in their plans for their church.  It has to be the same with the leaders of old.  But it is unfortunate they can’t be more flexible and organic.  And really, it is ok to stick with a certain way of doing things, as long as one has an understanding that things may change, and it is ok if they change.  But when people start to defend their way as the only way, then they are no better than those using power for more sinister means.
 
Why?  Because it stifles the Holy Spirit.

Amos:

Right, good intentions doesn’t equate to good systems. What is most unfortunate is when defenders of the consolidated, expansionist pseudo-faith cannot even consider their direction. Its one thing to not realize what Mother Culture is always whispering in our ear- the many types of mass behavior that she whispers. But it is another when ideas are suggested and far from being even considered. Do accepters of the subtle lies of Mother Culture think non-conformists are only trying to get personal attention? As though they all have un-pure intentions? What is it about conformity and mass behavior that intoxicates us? Or is it little more than a symptom of a greater lust, or a greater brokenness?

We all have at least somewhat good intentions, or at least all of those relevant ( hate that word ) to the circumstances I’m describing. I’m trying to understand why its so much easier to not understand, dismiss, and sometimes even demonize another’s ideas when it only takes a little honesty to realize that we’re all looking for the same thing. One of my favorite lyricists puts it well: “Brother have you found, the great peace we all seek?”

We’re scared of whats different. I suppose thats describing again the circumstance in the previous paragraph. These are all symptoms, I guess, or ways to describe the symptoms of something larger. Something I’m trying to find a word for. I would say “fallenness”, but that is to vague for my satisfaction. 

Mike:

You are right about non-conformity being a scary place.  It is also at times a lonely place, which is why you see non-conformists talking about community as well.  If it were not for my wife and kids, Chris would be my only community.  There are a few, but thankfully growing number of people I have met online who, if I had no one here, I would pick up and move to be closer to for the sake of sanity and community.  Yet, my faith in God has taken me this far and I can not go back to my starting point.  Following Christ is an almost immediate step past the point of no return.  Because we live in a society that considers itself christian, this point is not something readily visible or understood or taught.   Bonhoeffer quotes Luther about taking community for granted.  I find much solace in their words.

Also, the idea of being wrong is another big deterrence from stepping out in non-conformity.  Looking like, or even worse, being proven a fool is too much for most people.  It was something I struggled with for many years.  When you see so many heading the opposite way of your non-conformist thoughts, those thoughts are chalked up as wrong or from the devil.

This is exactly why Chris and I blog.  We hope that those who have those nagging thoughts that something should be, must be different, but are scared to follow them to fruition read of our journey, our thoughts and see that we are both confident and a little unsure and there is hope.

 

Neutral Presentation Of Christianity

Bradley R. E. Wright had a great small article on his blog about the tendency in academia to remain biased against Christianity as a religion, even in situations where objectivity is blatantly being destroyed. I of course had no problem noticing the trend back when I was in college, but had no clear way to articulate or address the issue then.

My comment in reply to Bradley’s blog was to mention that “Academia’s best course is objectivity, allowing listeners/viewers to decide for themselves. The sort of psuedo-academic issues (I say psuedo because it seems that academic would rely on objectivity) have for so long been mixed up with personal opinions that it seems much of academia has forgotten what objectivity is.”

I’m rather of the opinion that this is among the many indicators of the individualization of our culture.

I thought it a good idea to bring this conversation here to my blog, but please check out Bradley’s blog, its littered with excellent observations and true objectivity.

The Journey To Love

I’m increasingly resolving to post more on the topic of concrete love. I wrote an introduction to the problem I see us facing in the abstractness of Christian language several months ago, and am feeling guilty for not keeping up with my intended posting on the subject.

Parker has in our recent conversations expresses disagreement with my hypotheses (for lack of a better word) on the state of Christian culture and the causes and explanations I attempt to offer. I think he is resolved to assume we disagree ever since I supposedly “moved to Portland to become a hippie liberal” and often disagrees on a basis of the abstractness of the solutions I offer. 

But I say “Nay! How could it be that Love is not the answer? “

On Saturday Parker and Jessie Moore and I sat on the library lawn in Hood River after getting french toast for breakfast downtown. I find it often difficult not to bring up debatable conversation, especially more recently when hanging out with Parker. On this particular occasion I mentioned a line from the book Jesus for President that I was glad to have found because it seemed at that point in the book that Claiborne was finally arriving at the conclusion I was hoping he might arrive at. The end of the ensuing conversation was an attempt (I believe) on my part to explain the philosophy of life as a journey toward a realistically unreachable destination. That destination is unreachable because it is the ideals we live by but cannot achieve, the absolute truths, if you will. Love in its purest form, is an absolute truth. It is an idea we have, but in practice, fall far from its achievement.

I hope Parker doesn’t begin to perceive himself as my nemesis, as he is known for his ninja-ness and may smite me with a sneak attack from the bushes. As Parker and I often arrive at the same conclusions by way of different abstract reasoning, we often don’t realize the similarities in our arguments. I am well known for starting sentences with “In Jesus for President, …” while Parker is increasingly finding it hard to resist the introduction of “C.S. Lewis says…”

We may also endorse differing approaches to the conclusions we share but this is exactly my point, and I cannot help but exclaim this in our friendly, yet heated, conversations. “Thats exactly the point!” I remember saying on at least one occasion. 

Love as Jesus described it and offered as an example for is an ideal. Its perfection is an achievement that humanity cannot and will not achieve in this world. Yet it is what drives us and what connects us both to each other and to God. If that ideal is not achievable, as the journey/destination theory suggests, the destination itself is not the purpose in this existence we currently find ourselves in. It is the journey that matters most. It is our investment of talents for something good and better and pleasing to the master. 

To get away from the abstract idea, we must explore it. We must find roadmaps in our lives that give substance to the journey to finding perfect Love. In roundabout ways, this is the what my mind is consumed by and the reason I blog is to share my findings in this journey with those who care to listen.

This is the journey of discovering Love.

So I continue to inwardly express dissatisfaction with my efforts to share more concrete findings of Love instead of offering little more than instances of dis-love. With this renewal of effort I hope to offer more often the positive definitions I’ve explored, or at least more directly refer to this conversation (with myself and whoever would like to listen in) about Love.

Militarized Christianity Is A Lie

Today the world is on the brink of ruin because the Church refuses to be the Church, because we Christians have been deceiving ourselves and the non-Christian world about the truth of Christ. There is no way to follow Christ, to love as Christ loved, and simultaneously to kill other people. It is a lie to say that the spirit that moves the trigger of a flamethrower is the Holy Spirit. It is a lie to say that learning to kill is learning to be Christ-like. It is a lie to say that learning to drive a bayonet into the heart of another is motivated from having put on the mind of Christ. Militarized Christianity is a lie. It is radically out of conformity with the teaching, life, and spirit of Jesus.

– Father George Zabelka

Read the rest of this speech, originally given at the Pax Christi conference in 1985.