Thoughts from the ditch

Last night I was one of the cars you see on the local news which spun out of the road. Being stuck for 2 hours in a ditch by a highway, facing oncoming traffic, in a snow storm (even a puny, Richmond one) gives you time to reflect a little.

First the positives - I made much headway into Gulliver's Travels. I have it on my Kindle and so I had some good reading material. It was nice to be able to just sit and read - what else was I to do?

It says something that the only way I get to sit still for a couple of hours to read in peace and quiet is when I am stuck in a ditch.

Now for the more bizarre parts. The police was very prompt, and even prompter issuing me a ticket (court summons really) for "reckless driving"...what?

After about an hour (and countless cars, including many of my co-workers) a guy stopped with his pick-up truck, and said that for $30 dollars he would tow me out. That's the spirit! Spirit of something, but perhaps not Christmas.

After that another half an hour and a lady stops to make sure I am ok. Very nice. After her another pickup truck - also wanting money. Then a towing service. I had called AAA and was waiting for tow, so for a moment there I had a glimmer of hope, but no. The gentleman came out and proceeded to tell me how late AAA was running and how cold it would get in my car. So if I needed any help he would be glad to help me...for a fee.

Finally finally the AAA tow truck shows up (2.5 hours later). he then proceeds to tell me how he woke up feeling really sick and was throwing up all night but that his boss made him come to work anyways. Great! A disgruntled tow truck man. I confess that it did make me a little nervous.

After half an hour of tugging and pulling I was finally set free. Of course with the small glitch that I was now facing incoming traffic, and had to somehow do a 180 in slippery conditions in the middle of a freeway.

But all's well that ends well. Apart from about $1000 of damage to the door of my car, there really was nothing but a lot of sitting and reading, and this small slice of humanity.

What is missing?

A colleague sent me today a link to the story of the sale of the original manuscript of Audubon’s Birds of America.

The book apparently sold for more than $10 million to an anonymous buyer.

What got me going is the sheer size of the thing! Look at it! Huge!

This brought back memories of oversized books. The first books which I remember being oversized were my Dad's collection of Alex Raymond's Flash Gordon comics. They were large books, and it was an incredible pleasure to (almost literally) fall into them.

As an avid Kindle fan, and a general cheerleader for e-books, I got to say that I do not miss print books at all...until I am faced with an object of such obvious beauty on its own, such as Audubon’s book. The experience of flipping pages of a well-bound book is, in my mind, a form of performance art, of perhaps one of those sculptures which require you to interact with them.

If you have ever held a book which is printed in the finest grade paper and bound with the finest leather you will understand what I mean.

But here's a point: this kinesthetic, sensual experience of flipping pages, smelling the leather, and what-not, has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the work! In fact, while it may bring its own pleasures (and it does) those pleasures are completely external to the experience of the novel - though I can imagine some works where the turning of the page be made into a necessary part of the plot, for example the Choose Your Own Adventure books which I loved as a child. But even then, it is not the issue of the turning of the pages, per se, that matters, but the reader's choice of actions - which can be easily emulated (and even improved) in an electronic format.

So I am left with this vague nostalgic feeling of "something lost" by the transition to e-books, but when I look actively for what exact element is lost, I find nothing.

All that is lost is a physical habit, which can be replaced by another - the stories will go on forever.

The dough takes care of itself

"Ye gods! But you're not standing around holding it by the hand all this time. No. (...) [T]he dough takes care of itself. (...) While you cannot speed up the process, you can slow it down at any point by setting the dough in a cooler place (...) then continue where you left off, when you are ready to do so. In other words, you are the boss of that dough." (Julia Child)

Here we are, well into Advent, and in my house this means the most disruptive smells of my wife's baking: cookies, breads, cakes, and various other delectables. It is impossible not to be carried away with their smells, and the mind goes off in many a gustatory reverie.

I remember trying to read a theology book ("For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy" by Alexander Schmemann) which began by saying "You are what you eat." And then went on to talk about the Eucharist. I could not go much further as the impact of that thought arrested me. We all know the saying about being what we eat, but I had never thought about its implications for the Communion bread. If I am eating God (in a sense) then...

But let us go a little further. You not only are what you eat, but you function on what you eat as well. We all have heard about the positive (or detrimental) effects of diet on mental as well as physical performance. Could there be, I wonder, I connection between spiritual performance and diet?

Taking this to another level, very few of us eat what is unappetizing. Yes, some of us had to learn to like this or that food - mostly because of parental enforcement or medical enforcement (I am yet to meet someone who actively enjoys Metamucil for example). Eating is one of the earliest forms of socialization. I remember my shock and horror the first time I tried Bovril on toast...if you do not know what Bovril on toast is like I would recommend you contact Br. Bede and Sr. Therese who I am certain will be able to regale you with culinary tales to fire your imagination (you can also go to the Bovril Shrine here: http://www.medianet.ca/bovril/bovril.htm).

On our last trip to visit my family in Brasil I introduced my wife to a culinary treat of ours called "farofa." She pithily described it as "eating sand"...it is toasted manioc flour - and that's pretty much it, though there are regional variations where things like bacon are added to it. Usually the kids bread a banana on the flour and eat it! Yum! She was not so impressed.
Of course, the most perfect food for our spiritual bodies has to be Eucharist. Whether you are a Tridentine Catholic, serious Oxford Movement Anglican, a no-candles-on-the-altar Calvinist or something in between, the sharing of a meal together as Christians in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice is the most nutritious aliment known to humankind.

So for these last couple of weeks as our heads swim in Christmas cookies, puddings, turkey or ham, candy canes and other such wonderful things, take some time to (re)watch Babette's Feast.

Also pause and consider: could all this pleasurable eating be a kind of thinking? Or, conversely, what kind of thinking is fueled by all this good eating? Nowadays we talk a lot about different types of intelligence - things like musical intelligence and kinesthetic intelligence and, of course, the old emotional intelligence. Is there such a thing as "foodie intelligence"? Can pleasure be a form of thinking? Further, should you seek/expect pleasure from sacraments?

The Romance languages, like French and Portuguese, have different words for pleasure ("plaisir" and "jouissance" in French, "prazer" and "gozo" in Portuguese) - and it makes me wonder - can we re-discover the levels and differences in pleasure (not all are good of course)? It would bring me much pleasure if someone were to write a book which would tease out these differences theologically, similar to what C. S. Lewis did in The Four Loves. Can we write The Four (or Five or Seven) Pleasures? What is contemplative pleasure anyway? I believe the answer to this last one is encompassed by the Julia Child quote above!

Pride, self-deprecation and humility

Those who are indifferent to praise or blame have great tranquility of heart. (Thomas a Kempis)

Truly, I say to you, unless you repent and become like a child, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like a child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3-4)

Self-deprecation in any for whatsoever is a cancer. You must fight it with all your strength. How do you know if you are doing it? This is where pride comes in. Self-deprecation is usually generously peppered with feelings of shame, guilt and anxiety when we are faced with calls to "curb out pride".

This behavior has nothing to do with humility! My definition of humility is someone who has no pride and thus feels no shame, guilt.

Humility has to do with realism. To be truly humble is to have a clear view of our reality. If you are a good pianist, for example, and have been gifted with musical talents, it would be a grave fault to deny those talents with a self-deprecatory remark (this would be hiding your talent in a hole in the ground). If the reality is that you are a talented musician, then give God the glory and say "I am a good musician, thanks be to God!" that is not arrogance, that is humility.

But, if you have acknowledged your sin (and don't we all do so daily, at least at Compline? If not more often!?); if you have committed yourself to pursuing holiness (and all Christians have done so), then do not fall into the trap of shame and guilt (and therefore pride) when your sin is revealed (either privately in your prayers, or publicly).

No one is called a Christian because they are holy (well maybe one or two of you). We are Christians because Christ has opened a way for us to be truly holy and perfect, and we have heeded his call, dropped our nets and followed him.

Here's the question in my meditations: since Christ did all the work, how can we be concerned with our worth? The prideful are slaves to their audience, but we are slaves of Christ. Who is your audience? The prideful are shamed when they do not live up to their audience's expectation, we want only to hear the Master say "You good and faithful servant." Who do you live up to? The prideful need others to see them in an idealized way, and go to many lengths to make sure their public image is spotless, we repeat constantly to ourselves: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matt 5.11-12) How polished is your public image?

Humility heals our broken selves, and releases tremendous amounts of energy. I mean physical energy. The humble is like it says in the psalms:

It is God who arms me with strength and keeps my way secure.
He makes my feet like the feet of a deer;
he causes me to stand on the heights.
He trains my hands for battle;
my arms can bend a bow of bronze.
You make your saving help my shield, and your right hand sustains me;
your help has made me great.
You provide a broad path for my feet,
so that my ankles do not give way. (Psalm 18:32-36)

Praise the LORD, my soul;
all my inmost being, praise his holy name.
Praise the LORD, my soul, and forget not all his benefits.
Who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases,
Who redeems your life from the pit and crowns you with love and compassion,
Who satisfies your desires with good things
so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s. (Ps. 103: 1-5)

It is palpable to anyone you meet. The way of humility is the way of liberation. The humble is the only person capable of helping their neighbor remove the speck from their eyes.

So if you feel guilty, if you are denying your gifts from a sense of false modesty, remember this is pride. Throw yourself at the mercy of the Love of God. Confess your pride, "repent and become like a child", and enter the kingdom of heaven!

Sit

This chair is all chairs
This is the Throne of Heaven
This, the throne of Hell
Sitting here, sitting at the heavenly choir
Sitting on the bus, on the toilet,
Sitting still as I drive, sitting
As I work away

My life is one, punctuated by
Getting up to sit somewhere else,
Moving to sit, hurrying to sit

All the leather chairs will fade away
All the hard wooden benches will
Break, all folding chairs, all
Church pews, fade and fail

When I an dead
I will sit on the earth
It too will fade away
Only my sitting will remain

Having a real enemy

Without a doubt this is one of the more controversial aspects of spiritual life. I would say, though, that for the contemplative solitary having an enemy is a, well, god-send. At a fundamental level enemies keep us real, keep us in reality - rather like a wall keeps you in reality when you drive straight into it.

When I think about "enemy" I tend to think of those (people, things) that make me fearful of suffering (digest this for a moment). If I feel particularly archetypal I may think of my enemies things like disease and death. But Benedict says that we should always have our death in the forefront of our thinking. So either this is a case of "keep your enemies closer" or Benedict wants the monk to get over their fear of death. My guess is that Benedict wants us to think of death not as an enemy, but rather a wise advisor. Wise because death is not swayed by the petty ego, and thus is able to provide us with a perspective - a final perspective as it were.

But how about people? I have met too many Christians who take Jesus' injunction to turn the other cheek, as a way to refuse to accept the existence of personal enemies. "I love everyone" is their motto. I am sorry to say but this is frequently an anemic form of faith, closer to a moldy dark abandoned basement than a virile and ensolared power which brings light to the world.

My own self-analysis (for what is worth) leads me to believe that this is a particularly pernicious form of egotism. No one loves everyone that way. Jesus did not love everyone that way. He is LOVE, and so was quite capable of calling people "vipers", and Peter "satan"...

Benedict suggests that the purpose of the cenobitic life is to prepare someone (heal the petty ego, strengthen the good ego) to become a solitary and go out to do battle with the devil by themselves. The devil is everyone's real and final enemy, but there are other things to hold as enemies: the prophets did battle with the injustices of society, and they frequently called the king to the carpet, by name! (In this vein, have you ever wondered why the Bible frequently calls nations by personal names, like Ham for Egypt or Israel for the Hebrew people?)

Idea: instead of blaming an amorphous conglomerate like BP for the spill, we should pray at the CEO. Yes, "pray at"! : )

I propose to you that if you are not able to concretely identify at least one real enemy (yes a person, even if he or she is a figurehead), then you are not doing your job of solitary very well.

My challenge to us is this: how aware are you of your enemies? How many enemies can you list? Are there any real people in your enemy list? Can you change the list so that you have actual names (and perhaps even faces - Google them)? How are you doing battle with your enemy? What concrete steps are you taking? Daily? Weekly?

As you walk up to your prie-dieu realize that you are marching up to the front lines. As you pick up your breviary or settle into your prayer word, you are firing a shot at all that keeps people starving, afraid, suffering. All those headlines you see on TV, the newspapers and the internet. Be angry at it. Then look at your enemies and pray at them. Pray with all your might. Do not falter, not for one moment - you are redeeming the world one name at a time, one prayer at a time.

If it helps, think of this exercise as the shadow version of "love your neighbor". If you cannot name three or four of your actual neighbors, then I would say you are simply loving (and living) a fantasy.

 

 

At some point attraction stops being a choice.

Those who are attractive are the people who spend time, regularly spend time figuring out who they are and where they are. Not so much plotting the future, but rather deepening their stance in the present. Making sure their presence is a present for others by, strangely, being deeply present to them.

When you stand before a beautiful work of art - the beauty makes you speechless, perhaps for a second perhaps for days.

When I stood before Monet's Water Lillies in the museum in London, or Rodin's the Lovers, eternally kissing and embracing in marble, oh I was lost. There was never enough to look at! I can close my eyes and see it, in detail, it is not as if there are new brushstrokes or chisel cuts, but it is so profoundly itself that it is mesmerizing. Or when I read:

Every Angel is terror. And yet,
ah, knowing you, I invoke you, almost deadly
birds of the soul.

What would I not give to write those lines!? Or when I was in a very stressful job, riding the commuter train into London on one of those dark and cold and damp days which only the English know how to create. And around me were other malcontented commuters all dressed in their proper greys and blacks and browns. And then I read:

I believe in you my soul, the other I am must not abase itself to you,
And you must not be abased to the other.

I was not the same. As when I heard for the first time:

And if the elevator tries to bring you down
Go crazy - punch a higher floor

And I got it, I truly got it! I got it why rock and roll is so dangerous and why every dictator in the world wants to ban it! And probably why Plato banished poets from his Republic. And why the arts get little funding, or funding with strings attached from presidents and kings. And when I try to explain it all these half-asleep people nod benignly at me. They do not hear my roar, my bellowing roar deep in the pit of my heart, that furnace! Do you hear it?

And that moment comes, those moments come, you come to a standstill and can stop pretending, attempting, reaching. You can just be yourself because the beautiful presence before you is just being.

All of this is even more electrifying when it is another person, and not an object. Oh, objects can stare back, and when we notice the object looking at us it is a scary thing. Nietzsche said "When you stare at the abyss, the abyss stares back at you." He was right that old, crazy fraud.

But when someone stares back it is at that point that attraction stops being a choice.

And by stare I do not mean the hard-and-frowny stare, unblinking until tears roll down your face. It is not a game of chicken. Rather it is an encounter, subtle and gentle. More like the slow removal of a veil from the virgin's face - where she is expecting, trembling her first ever kiss.

Ever been in that place? Can you feel it now, as (perhaps) a warmth in your heart? How things which seem difficult and things which seem painful, don't quite disappear, but are transformed into scenery, into backdrop. Sometimes these moments when, soul-to-soul, you surrender (in spite of yourself) into an intimacy which a lifetime together may never ever reveal. And we seek it, oh how we seek it! We are all born to be known. To be revealed to each other in a nakedness of heart which is simultaneously intoxicating and devastating. Because we are fundamentally known at our deepest center.

And so I have no choice. I simply have no choice. Before you.

Leaves

Leaves (for N.) by Leo Campos (10/20/10)

Autumn rain scribbles at my window
"Write this to her"

Dry yellow leaves
Across the parking lot
Scratching their way to winter

Better to finish as ashes of a fire
Than dust. Even when dead
The memory of the desire
(Which burned) can become the next flame's bed

The leaf whispers of love
To a sun-loving tree
As the wind takes it away

What are bodies for?

A good blog (if you don’t read it). Today’s post is especially good: http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2010/09/nfl-players-porn-stars-and-body-of.html

But we don’t even need to go as far as these extremes. Last night I was talking with a friend about the mistrust/fear/paranoia involved in sex. I went off in my usual attack on Americans and their very unhealthy relationship to their own sexuality, implying all along (of course) that the Brazilian approach is healthier and better.

But today’s post brings “body” to a higher level. How about sports? How about fashion? How about diet? How about medicine? All things that directly affect (or use) a body will both influence and be influenced by it. A large person may wish to be thin but it may be simply genetically impossible. A highly strung person may wish to be calm, but their body fidgets. And so on.

We have a certain amount of plasticity in our bodies. There is much we can add or remove from it without necessarily destroying its basic functions. In fact we can destroy many of its basic functions without dying. With advancements in technology we can change size, shape and gender. It is not unfeasible to think that we will be soon enough able to modify ourselves down to the genetic level.

With all this freedom to manipulate our own bodies the question posed in the article are very pertinent: “Aren't the bodies of porn stars similar to the bodies of NFL players, and even the bodies of high school football players? That might sound extreme, but I'm throwing it out there for reflection. How are bodies sacrificed for our entertainment? And do we even care as long as we get our orgasm or that state championship? Two thousand years ago humans brutalized the body of God. And one wonders, has anything changed?”

The answer is that nothing has changed because we are still the same race. Perhaps in the future we will become more hospitable to bodies, our own and others, and also more generous and charitable.

For now I would be ecstatic to meet someone who could simply stand and be right there where they are standing.

 

 

Being present

When you sit to pray make sure you are sitting there! Make sure you are actually present. "Be sober" means to not be delusional, to not be asleep or intoxicated. Full intoxication is not an issue with me. The danger is the partial intoxication(s). they come from many sources but I trying to narrow it down to the issues that pertain to prayer.

Main issues:

• Faith in the wrong thing, or in a thing, full stop. Instead of a Person, The Person.
• Focus, or lack thereof.
• Patience, or lack thereof
• Hospitality, especially to myself by inviting myself to the prayer time

Wrong faith: in this case what do I trust? Do I trust my feelings - and so I respond to them with such priority? Do I trust my thoughts, and follow them around in many many circles? Do I trust my nervous system and spent a long time worrying about pain or discomfort? Do I trust my memories? Do I trust my knowledge of the "right" way of doing things? And so on? 

I spend most of my time dealing with issues of faith in everything but God and Jesus Christ. 

Wrong focus: I tend to focus on what I trust, and ignore what is untrustworthy. This is natural and probably healthy. If a caveman knows for a fact that a rustling in the bush is a saber-tooth tiger and take appropriate evasive action, they more likely survived and eventually these survivors begat me! 

On the opposite end, if I am certain that these sounds in the back pew of the church are NOT ghostly presences, I do not get nervous and simply ignore them as "wood creaking" noises.

So I focus on what I trust, and I trust that which I have high (blind?) faith in. 

Wrong patience: it amazes me how patient I am with my favorite sins. As my friend once told me, "The only sins you keep are those you enjoy." The word "enjoy" here is used in the slightly ironic sense of unhealthy enjoyment. I obviously try to curb my avarice, gluttony. I blush at my lust. I haughtily ignore my pride. I am saddened by my sadness. I fight my anger. I am certain I couldn't care less about my acedia, since I am constantly sharing with others how far along I am in the path of self-discovery - and now am far above vainglory.

Wrong hospitality: instead of welcoming in the Holy Spirit and Jesus into my prayer, I spend a lot of time inviting tax collectors and sinners. I wish I could say I invited these characters of my own soul for the sake of their edification and healing. the ugly truth is that I invite them because I enjoy they taudry gaudiness. I enjoy their songs of lust and leisure more than I enjoy the psalter. So I throw a party and invite the murderer, the adulterer, the thief. hardly ever do I invite the Holy Spirit.

What is the solution? 

 

Judging again

Can I be a reasonable judge, in the old sense of the word "reasonable"? As in "And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and living sacrifice unto thee."

When I first heard that sentence I thought it meant reasonable as in "appropriate" or "sensible" (i.e. not everything)! But my guess is that it does not mean that but it probably means something more like "intelligent" or "sound."

To be a reasonable judge of others means that I use my intellectual faculties to their fullest, both the analytical as well as intuitive and emotional sides, to grasp the full complexity that is a person - soul and body.

But to judge anyone I must begin with some prejudices (pre-judgments). These are critical. As a would-be judge must spend time working through my biases and predilections, not to necessarily purge out every vice (since that would be both impractical and impossible) but rather to know myself, to know where I am weak and where I need to be extra careful. I must spend time whittling down the log in my eyes so as to be able to help others with their specks.

I also must have some understanding of truth and reality. I must believe there is such as thing as perfect vision (20/20) and that it is objectively quantifiable (in a spiritual way).

You know how eye doctors use those eye charts with letters and numbers to test how accurate your vision is? And then they add some lenses and ask you to look again "Is it better now?" And so on. The process is very similar in spiritual life. We need to test our "normal" vision and find out how bad it is.

So the first test of "correct vision": can you see Jesus and Him only? If you can see Him clearly then your eyesight is fine. If not you need some corrective.

Second test is done in a community of believers where they are able to help you see better. Paul after the events on the road to Damascus needed that. Couldn't Christ, after blinding him and making the point, have healed his blindness? Why would he need to get Ananias (Acts 9) to do the healing? I cannot say what God was thinking but it is very fortuitous that God chose another believer to be the one who brought sight to the new convert. The fellow believer;through prayer;is able to restore my sight, to bring me back into focus. their holy life and example, their faithfulness to the call, their willingness to come to me when I am still far from the church (though, of course already saved by God), and then to pray for me, is what brings out the healing of my sight.

The third test is ongoing. I am going for regular eye checkups. Every Sunday, in fact, I gather with fellow believers and we check each other's eyes. We greet each other in the Lord's name, we gather to worship Him, we share a meal, we study His Word. This helps me make sure I am still seeing clearly.

Now that the seeing part is clearer, now that I am actively engaged in whittling away the log in my eye, now that I have people praying for my vision I am now empowered to be able to judge reasonably another.

Where does your hand go when you make a fist?

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/08/fist-and-hand-statue-and-lump-the-aporetics-of-composition.html

 

Question is it hand=fist, lump of bronze=statue? Or is it hand !=fist, bronze !=statue?

1) If you say hand=fist you are wrong because: “If you say that the fist = the hand, then when you make a fist nothing new comes into existence, and when the potter makes a pot out of clay, nothing new comes into existence.  And when a mason makes a wall out of stones, nothing new comes into existence.  He started with some stones and he ended with some stones.  Given that the stones exist, and that the mason's work did not cause anything new to come into existence, must we not say that the single composite entity, the wall, does not exist?  (For if it did exist, then there would be an existent in addition to the stones.)  

But it sounds crazy to say that the wall the mason has just finished constructing does not exist.”

2) If you say hand != fist you are wrong because: “If, on the other hand, you say that the fist is not identical to the hand, then you can say that the making of a fist causes a new thing to come into existence, the fist. The same applies with the statue and the wall.  After the mason stacks n stones into a wall, he has as a result of his efforts n +1 objects, the original n stones and the wall. But this is also counterintuitive.  Consider the potter at his wheel.  As the lump of clay spins, the potter shapes the lump into a series of many (continuum-many?) intermediate shapes before he stops with one that satisfies him.  Thus we have a series of objects (proto-pots) each of which is a concrete individual numerically distinct from the clay yet (i) spatially coincident with it, and (ii) sharing with it every momentary property.”

Where does your hand go when you make a fist? You get a handful of fist? Or is it a fistful of hand? This kind of thing can be frustrating for some, but for me these questions are delightful. They work on at least two levels – one is a level of language and propositions, then other is the level of phenomenon and perception. As someone who engages the world predominantly through the intellect and others primarily through argument (the good kind, the kind that seeks the truth, not the shouting-until-I-am-hoarse kind) the first level of this puzzle helps me to remember the limits of communication and thought. But also its importance.

It does matter – at some level – whether there is a “hand”, a “fist”, or neither, or both! See in the beginning was the word, and that word was Light…or perhaps that word was “Make light”, or more imperative: “Light – be!”…at any rate there was a creation out of a Godly word. That very same Light at the beginning of Creation is shining in me: “For God, who said ‘Let there be light in the darkness’, has made this light shine in our hearts so we could know the glory of God that is seen in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor. 4:6)

The “very same Light” is shining in my heart. So: is it one light or two lights? How can the Light which started Creation be starting me, a new creation?

Here we bump into language, into the limits of intelligibility. Before I myself received the gracious enlightenment of the Spirit such wordplay was meaningless, but now I have come to see and know that there is no more apt or fitting description of the process. This words are inspired – in the sense that what they describe is fittingly, efficiently and correctly described. Further I have come to understand, to experience that that-which-is-described is protected and incorruptibly transmitted from generation to generation, from culture to culture by the Holy Spirit, who is at work even now in every person and committee which prayerfully seeks the Spirit’s guidance when translating Scripture.

I have frequently said that I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture the same way I believe in the inerrancy of a great poem: it could not be other than it is. But I have come to see this more broadly now. After all, a poem is perfect in its original language. Translation of a poem does it much harm and is inferior (no matter how good). Scripture is perfect in the prayerful reading, or receiving, of it. This means the words flooding a plowed and seeded heart lead to abundant fruitfulness.

In the meantime

In the meantime put on the mind of Christ and go where he is, do what he is doing. Christ leads always by example. Watch him, and then mimic. Imitation is the sincerest form of prayer, to twist a term. But how do we do that? There are some things that need to happen first, and then there are some other things that need to happen always.

* Happen first
To anyone who wants to become a Christian you need to first die in Christ. you need baptism, and you need resurrection as well. You need Easter and Pentecost. You need to step up, or stand up, in a crowd of hostile and indifferent people and sing a new song to Yahweh. A love song, hopefully. But a new song is what is called for here. 

You need to find that you have been found by Jesus.

* Happen always
You need to find a community of believers who want to be what you want to be. 
You need to find a group who is encouraging everyone to greater effort at going where Jesus is going and doing what He is doing. I am not too concerned by the externals, the methods and practices by which this inner practice is achieved. Some like bells & smells, others prefer happy-clappy. It is all good if it is done for God. 
Any serious group of believers will have a good grasp of where they came from and where they are going. This means a good grasp of history, of tradition, or reformation(s). 
They will magnanimous with the past and hospitable to the future. 
You will take time daily to soak in the Word of God. A nice long bath in the waters of Scripture will help melt away all troubles. Are you a morning bath or evening bath person? All times are good. Be diligent and deliberate.
You will take time daily to have a deep conversation with God. The ancient practice of "colloquy" (developed in some more detail by Ignatius) is a good place to start. Perhaps journaling. 

* Eventually as you wait
Eventually, as you wait, you bring all of life to Him. This does not mean pray for intercession in this or that event (Oh please God, oh please God, let me/get me...). Instead this typing on a keyboard, this talking with someone at work, this TV watching - is done for and with Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Life becomes a sacrament. 

Are you not clear yet on what to do? Then do nothing. If Jesus is not doing anything, or if you cannot see Jesus doing anything, then sit contentedly waiting. Waiting is the key here. It is a non-anxious but deliberate and attentive waiting. 

Choices

The serpent
Choice devours itself
Tail to mouth
Eternally
Trapped by its own
Hunger to God
Apples to apples
Choice to choice
From dust to death
If I choose now
If I choose then
I am encircled by Satan
If I choose not
If I refuse, resist
I am encircled by Satan
Ancient wise serpent
Mouth to tail
Eternity of hunger
Trapped in choice

Creativity

Steps in creative thinking:

1)      Fact-finding - divergent - broad inquiry into issues relevant to case. How? What?

2)      Problem-finding - convergent -  focus on possible solutions and design issues (too costly? too big?). Discard least likely to succeed. When? How much?

3)      Idea-finding - divergent - from the possible solutions begin finding ways to implement it.

4)      solution-finding - convergent. Look through possible (implementable) solutions and pick the best (beauty, simplicity, efficiency, cost).

5)      Plan of action. Scale models. Negotiation. Persuasion. Alliances.

 

Divergent/convergent thinking:

·         Divergent: open-ended, broad, wide

·         Convergent: focused, narrow, deep

 

Applying to study of sacred texts:

·         Fact-finding: When was it written? Where else was this written about? What else does it reference? What type of writing is this?

·         Problem-finding: Why was this written? What is the message? What is the purpose? Who is the audience?

·         Idea-finding: What are the possible interpretations of this passage? What are the possible implications of each interpretation? What issues does it address?

·         Solution-finding: of the many ideas identified which one speaks to my current situation? What does it mean to me? Why should I care?

·         Plan of Action: Who else should hear about this? Who else can I engage in this work?

 

Of course this approach can (should?) be applied to all forms of study. Perhaps it could be stretched to include all forms of communication? The first four steps involve active listening - not only not rushing to get a plan of action/advice but also asking questions which are both divergent and convergent. Only the final step involves speaking, i.e. offering suggestions, advice, to-do items.

 

If only I could be silent during four fifths of my conversations!

Poem

It is white
               electric
And boundless - stretching in all directions
She said in the dark after we made love

I touched her curves still moist with sweat
Like a potter running his hands in wet clay

Boundaries, curves, delimitations
Uncovering and recovering hidden sacred grottoes of pleasure
Suffocating, intoxicating
                              closeness

The one word for me is embrace
No         she said         release

On intimacy

False sense of intimacy: Facebook, email, Skype. At what point do we say you are intimate even if you have no physical contact?

Tabloid culture: a recent article in Newsweek taunts, "In defense of our Brangelina-loving, Jon and Kate-hating, Tiger-taunting, tawdry tabloid culture." 

One of the hallmarks of intimacy is that I know both the good and the bad about you. We have shared enough time and words together that I know you in a more rounded way. I know you are wonderful with your kids, for example, but that you are very bossy at work. Or I know that you are incredible good listener, but that you are cold to your spouse and cheat on him. I know you have no fear in defending the poor and the orphans, esp. in other countries, but that you also drive this year's model BMW. 

This is intimacy - I come to see that you have many qualities, some good and some bad, some appropriate and some inappropriate, but I continue to have a relationship with you. I will talk with you, I will share with you, I will go to lunch with you, I will invite you over for dinner.

It seems that the foundation stone of all relationships, and certainly of the ones which claim the title "intimate" is trust. By this I mean that a relationship will be more intimate in direct proportion to the amount of trust I have in you. I have to trust that you will not attack me, turn your back on me, betray me, or share my secrets with others. The more I am certain of this the more intimate our relationship. A second critical part is respect. Even if I expected that you would not ever reveal something about me to others, there is a line of behavior that I find unacceptable (we all do). If you behave in a way I find unacceptable I will have to end the relationship. Where is your line? Adultery? Drugs? Theft? Murder? At what point would you have to say that your trust in me has been broken?

The annoying thing is that most of the conversation about intimacy tends to focus on physical intimacy, which, strangely is the least interesting and least important of all levels of intimacy. Frankly, anyone can get naked with anyone else and exchange bodily fluids. This is trivial to the point of boredom, though the porn industry seems to make a killing out of this most unintimate form of exercise. 
Becoming judges: the difficulty with intimacy is that in becoming more intimate with the case (or person) gives you fresh perspectives on the subject matter, and thus, paradoxically allows you to judge them better. Let us not kid ourselves: we all judge, and harshly, each other. From wardrobes to demeanor to word choice we are constantly judging and being judged. Around our dinner table at home at least half of the conversation with the children tend to be a subtle (and not-so-subtle) way of teaching them to police their own behavior better (sit up straight, chew with your mouth closed, don't talk with your mouth full) so that they will not be negatively judged by others - and therefore bring a bad judgment upon us parents by proxy.

The worse judges are the ones who claim not to judge, because there are only two alternatives to not judging: either you are not judging me because you have no interest in intimacy with me ("I do not care about you"), or you are simply unwilling to share the results of your judgment with me - perhaps saving it as juicy gossip (again showing your lack of respect for me). Of the first kind we see our indifference to the atrocities committed in other countries (most of the African continent for a start). But we do not care about them, so we avoid the complicate dance into intimacy with them by simply refusing to judge, to speak clearly and in love against atrocities against injustice and oppression. We also do not care about the poor, and it will be a very cold day in Hell when I stop my SUV to become intimate with a homeless person. 

Of the second kind they tend to be more personal. they are people whom we think superficially that they are open-minded or loving or good listeners. But there is judgment there. At best they agree with you (i.e. pass a positive judgment), at worse they desire the attention or the information which can fulfill some other of their needs. Those who claim to not judge others are the most profound egotists, at a level that would make even Ayn Rand blush. They are in this life for themselves and themselves only. 

So, assuming you want to avoid egoism and callous indifference, assuming you accept the reality that we are all in this together, in one planet, members of one species, responsible for the future health and well-being of all creatures in this planet. Assuming this, what does the Bible recommend us judges to do?

Born to fear

Any of our ancestors in the African savannahs that were inveterate optimists, constantly underestimating risks (predators, loss of food, aggression from others of their kind) simply and in the blunt calculus of life did not live long enough to pass on their genes.

So which ones succeeded? The pessimists, the paranoid. Perhaps Andrew Grove had it right after all: "Only the paranoid survive". Consider this: we are the many-time removed inheritors of paranoid and pessimistic grandparents. Their fear enabled us to sit comfortably in our 5 bedroom houses and 3 SUV garages watching oil spew in the Gulf on our hi-def TVs.

So, biologically we are wired with super sensitive systems in our brains which monitor our environment for threats. 24-7. Is it any wonder you are tired all the time? But our threats these days tend to be more abstract. Our hearts start racing when our self-esteem is threatened, for example, or during the (mostly) bloodless battles of boardroom and bedroom. These "threats" activate the same circuits that enabled us to successfully flee a saber-toothed tiger: hormonal overloads to activate our fight-or-flight responses.

Of course, as we all know, when we are defensive (or offensive - in more than one way) we immediately activate the same responses from our fellow workers and mates. Having evolved to live in groups it is natural that we also evolved to pick up "vibes" from others and respond appropriately.

The depressing fact is how much energy we all expend on a daily vicious circle of attack and counter-attack, grudges and gossip,  withdrawal and defensiveness. At the end of about 18 hours of such activity we crawl into bed exhausted, only to get up to the alarm clock the next morning berating us for a new day's battle.

But there is another way. It requires less energy that our accustomed way, though at first it will feel more difficult - mostly because you are trying to run your life two ways at the same time. This is similar to what happens when people begin an exercise routine. At first they are more tired, hungry than before. After a while the beneficial aspects of exercise start to percolate, and they find themselves with more energy, sleeping better, and so on. Why would we expect spiritual activity to work any differently.

So here are the 5 exercises in sobriety which, if practiced with diligence, will lead to higher levels of energy being available to be used in more noble pursuits:

1) Fear God
2) Vengeance is mine says Yahweh
3) Think of yourself as last and least
4) Be vigilant ("be sober, be watchful") to your intentions behind thoughts and actions. If these are the wrong intentions then stop and immediately smash them against the Rock, that is Christ.
5) Seek silence. First reduce your speech (spoken and unspoken), then reduce your thoughts.