What are Believers to do when Trumped? One Man’s Answer.

The day after America’s most contentious election left many Believers in dismay – not so much that Hillary Clinton did not win (as many of us found her a non-option in the final analysis) but because so many fellow Christians – particularly white protestant males – came out in droves to vote and support Donald Trump.

My girlfriend, a conservative Republican woke up and said she felt like she wanted to die – she felt sick all day just thinking of Trump in office. This is a pervasive feeling across the country by a large number of Believers while others seem blissfully – even haughtily triumphant about Trump being “God’s pick.”

I found one man, via Facebook (and friend Aaron Smith) who really says everything and more that I want to say. So I am just going to let new friend John Joseph Thompson say it!

“Searching for meaning through the tears. All I have is that sometimes the mask has to be pulled off in order to see the monster beneath. The monster is not Trump. He is just the tiny orange boat riding massive waves of fear, anger, and ignorance. He is the evidence of misplaced bitterness. He is the thug hired to forestall the decay of white privilege. He is the surface blemish that grows over a massive internal tumor. He is not the monster. The monster is the human heart driven by these dark things.

The deepest heartbreak for me is the evidence that so many people who declare that their love for Jesus led them to support the worst candidate for President in my lifetime; a man completely at odds with the Gospel. I hurt for my friends of color as their nation lurches backwards. Please know that more than half of the people in this country did not support this and will not support this and many who voted for him are actually voting against his opponent and not in support of him. The democrats ran a fatally flawed candidate and failed to understand the scope of frustration out there. Please do not read these results as a referendum on your value.

I hurt for the hopeful young people who are trying to make sense of this result as they come to grips with it. Don’t let cynicism harden your heart. We need your passion and energy. I hurt for the immigrants among us who fear for their lives. I hurt for the children who are watching – either fearful and confused about why bad people win, or who gleefully cheer for the same thing as the adults around them celebrate.

Lots of pain and fear out there and we can only combat it on a personal, local level.

Lots of lessons to be learned here, but for now I pray for God’s peace to cover all of us, and for God’s spirit to motivate those who are called by His name to redouble their commitment to love. This campaign offers no answers. The Gospel does. We are truly strangers in a very strange land. Regardless of whomever just purchased the White House, our hope must be somewhere else and there is a lot of work to be done.

We are told that the world will know that we are Jesus people by the love we have for each other – even for those who enabled this disaster. It’s time for that love to be seen. It’s time for that love to move us to live lives that illustrate the difference between the Gospel and empty religion; between grace and power. The mask has been removed and we have to try to love the ugly face beneath, because it is us. If God can find a way to love us – even as we sin against him – then we can do no less.”

““You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.

He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:43-48‬ ‭NIV‬‬”

Thank you John!

 

Dismantling Patriarcy?

This topic has come up twice in our recent service/discussions at Oak Life church on Sundays – first as a discussion via Father’s day and its meaning for participants; the scond in reference to ways in which we feel at odd explaining the faith in light of some embarrassing eras in our collective history.

First let us acknowledge that if people in the general populace have any notions of Church history at all it is a vague sense of where we have catastrophically blown it on the world stage. Thus they pipe up loudly about “The Crusades” or some who used the Bible as a defense for slave ownership  and they often point to it as a means of subjugating women.

All of these things have happened in time and space, but simply ignore that at the same time other things were transpiring that were equally as powerful and which contradicted these abuses of power like the Abolitionist Movement to risk their lives to free the slaves; the Monastic movement in the 1100-1300s (during the Crusades) as well as the formation of the Carmelites, the Dominicans, the work of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi’s famous crossing of the battle lines in the fifth crusade to sit speak with Sultan al-Kamil and ended up sharing  a meal with him before being returned unharmed.

People will always misuse the Gospel – will always make its “Good News” into “Bad News” via power. But this is not the way of Jesus, nor is it taught in scripture. It is the way of the world plain and simple. And it is important to get used to it – and get used to parsing the clear difference between the two if you are to be a thinking Christian and not just a dumb sheep playing after every cultural whim.

John Newton was a slave-ship owner until he read closely the Gospels and Paul. Then he repented and stopped sinning as a slave-trader and wrote “Amazing Grace” – which we all know and love.

Being Chosen by God; not Choosing Who God will be

In a Postmodern context I am not surprised that people feel they can choose Who God will be for them. One wonders how this is supposed to work. If one cannot find success in doing this with a mate (and one surely cannot -despite all attempts to conform them) – what possible success can we have with God? “I Am that I AM” can also be translated “I will Be What I will Be.” and if God has chosen to reveal God’s own self as “Father” – well we just have to deal.

Is His “fathering” anything like our own fathers? I doubt it. If so my experience would be very different. No, most often God’s way is utterly counter-cultural: Everything we expect is out upside-down on its ear.

The “First shall be last;” the “way up is down:” “Blessed” are all the wrong people – not he rich, powerful and famous.

Deal.

And this happens fast.  I blinked at 32 and now I am almost 59. I’m not gonna blink again anytime soon – I have a few last things to do and I am still too young.

But let’s take men – husbands for example. They are supposed to be leaders right? Well most of them are simply not at all. So fearful of being domineering they simply either never grew a pair or had them removed. But the problem is that they were never here for dominance – they are here for service – as “Christ loved the Church” – you see that kind of “dying-to-self” commitment takes cajones. It takes grit and a steely-eyes toughness with the world – not with a woman.

The result is joy. A man alone can draw out the glory of God/female out of his wife just as she alone can draw the glory of God/male out of him. They are both image-bearers male/female.

As for cosmological placement? Oh this is really fun! Every one of those male misogynist men in church leadership? They all have to wear a white wedding dress in the final banguet – the Wedding Feast (Rev. 19). I once did an article on this (I cannot find the art) where I depicted Dr. James Dobson in a stunning  wedding dress (he was quite fetching)- because that is what all us men have to show up in given the Final Wedding where we – as the Church – are given to the Bridegroom (Christ).

You see our earthly wedding are really not as big a deal as we make them out to be. The are meant to simply be a snapshot – a Polaroid of the Big Event  – or so says Paul,

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church andgave Himself up for her, ²⁶ so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷ that He mightpresent to Himself the church ^[q]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.²⁸ So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; ²⁹ for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, ³⁰ because we are members of His body. ³¹ For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. ³² This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. ³³ Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she ^[r]respects her husband. ~Ephesians 5:25-33. 

This mystery is great “but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the Church.” (v.32)

So all this talk of “loving each other forever,” and then reading 1 Corinthians 13 out of context  (as if it were about romance) is all fine and good for show..but the guy still has to die to himself and love as Christ loves and that never means lording it over his wife – ever.

He is called to the greatest humility – that of the cross.

And that requires really being a man – not the fear-driven kind of dominance expressed by men who have never matured.

Now as to the outside world and how it creeps into the Church – we have all seen it and it always has to do with power and never love, faith or hope.

There any number of passages that people need to hold in a kind of tension or stasis for a richer biblical understanding for they present differing contexts. It would seem the ones which urge silence for women (and also for some men and false teachers in the same letters) are communities in some real chaos (like Corinth or Ephesus) where the instructions should be localized not made universal.

This is especially true when we elsewhere clearly see women actively functioning in leadership as deacons (Pheobe), Julia, Priscilla and others as “co-workers,” and Junia, an actual apostle. Most notable (from the Gospel of Luke) we learn that the early ministry of Jesus was supported by women (no mention of men at all). That women were leaders in the early Church is really beyond question.

Enter a caption

La Jeunesse de Bacchus – William Bouguereau

 Bit in certain circumstances like Corinth where the cult of Diana had taken especially deep root, and the Dionysian frenzies of Bacchus led to utter confusion when compared to those now “speaking in tongues” in a chaotic order – it was all too confusing and Paul shuts it ALL down. He wants a clear demarcation between things like temple prostitution (in the name of Diana) and the chaste call to women now free in Christ.

To other communities he says nothing at all.

Logic dictates that Paul would not work with women in leadership roles – and certsainly not call them out but name (sometimes repeatedly) if he had any problem with them speaking out and leading in general).

His vision is, of course far beyond this. He sees that sexual differences is temporary, as are ethnicities.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is ^[a]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ~Galatians 3:28

That men have taken these few passages for specific situations and codified them for universal application – and that we have – as the Church – accepted such is really on US.

Why us?

Because we as “the Church” have allowed and accepted being biblically illiterate as a way of life.

We have accepted that we can actually pick and choose what we like and don;t like in the Bible at first glances rather than study it at exactly those points where we find ourselves at “seeing” conflict with it. I say “seeming” because we will find most often that there is no conflict at all – just a deeper truth behind a superficial reading.

It is exactly at that the point where we find a “problem” that we are on the verge of the most exciting discoveries! It is right THERE that we stop and put on our scuba gear and dive down and explore!

I can assure you, the Fundamentalists will never do this. They will keep twisting scriptures to make them conform to their bad ideas – bad ideas like male dominance, war, greed, a success-oriented/betterment selfish “Gospel” all about them.

If you don;t like something in the Bible I suggest you may not have dug deep enough – or you may be asking the wrong questions. And the beauty is this is a church where you can ask pretty much any question you like and no one will ever think badly of you in the least.

Hey – I am wrong all the time. I like it. I like the exploration. I like the discovery and the “ah-ha!” experiences. And it matters because I might get married next year – and as such I need to be a servant leader who loves like Christ loves His Church – and He never dominates, abuses or disrespects my personhood. No one treats me better than Jesus.

 

 

Global Christianity & the Arts

Introduction to Global Art & the Church

Take away the Christian faith and one wonders what would be left artistically, architecturally – in almost any concrete area there would be an almost Pascal-sized abyss where once there were richness almost beyond measure. 

But what have we done lately? And what are we doing in the face of the steamrollars of Postmodernism who deconstruct more often than construct? This is not just “The falcon cannot hear the falconer” (Yeats), it’s that the falcon has been captured and is being dissected and the falconer has been brought up on charges for endangering other birds with his bird.

The “centre” holds fine – it is just being ignored, and as such we unravel and it’s unsurprising that we cannot find the horizon.

Into this mess comes “Christian Art” most often in the form of safe Christian music in the church, and safe Christian art in the Church (like having someone paint during a sermon  that’s artsy -flatulensy). So bad CCM “art” (evangelists with guitars and a drumkit) “happens.” And we would compare this with other eons of the Church if we had any sense of history and be ashamed – but we don’t have any sense of history so we are generally very sure that we are onto something very new and exciting!

Against this backdrop of course God is always at work in His Church. If, as Andre Malraux says “art is the last defense against death,” (Voices of Silence) then Christ goes beyond that – defeating death and opening up whole new possibilities for art.

____________________

“But wait, there’s more! In addition to two conferences and two artists, no quick overview of Global Christian art would complete without examination of an art form that is currently gaining attention for its potential theological  implications: the Asian art of Kintsugi!”

____________________

This report is small. Like a biopsy it can only take a small sample here and there to determine some areas of health. I have chosen to swiftly highlight two art conferences (one in Europe where the Church is in trouble; and one in Asia where it is thriving) that happen every few years.

Then I will turn specific attention to the current Asian influence on Christian art through the works of artists like Makoto Fujimura (in the U.S) and Nyoman Darsane (in Bali).

But wait, there’s more! In addition to two conferences and two artists, no quick overview of Global Christian art would complete without examination of an art form that is currently gaining attention for its potential theological  implications: the Asian art of Kintsugi – which repairs broken earthenware with actual gold resin, producing  not only wonderful pieces of new art, but ones which are emblematic of the work of God in people’s lives through their personal suffering, loss and brokenness.  

Representative Art Conferences

Christian Artists Seminar 2016 – Germany 

This group, which originated in 1980 with an ecumenical vision, took time to bring allies on board. Roman Catholics and others were suspicious of some of their sacred Protestant forms (as was historical the issue in the early ’80s especially concerning sacred music)

  The large-scale organization went through three shifts described below by Susan Snell in her detailed history of the movement:

The three main products of this movement have been the large-scale Seminars (1981 to 1993, promoting artistic quality and integrity, and from 1994 smaller scale and masterclass quality), the Association (founded in 1990, promoting national arts groups) and the Symposia (from 1991, promoting networks and specific socio-cultural studies).[1]

The six day seminar features keynote speakers, performers, workshops and a variety of ways for artists to coordinate their efforts and advance their work and callings.

A brief video explains it well; just click HERE.

 

Christian Arts Conference – Bali

Stephen Scott performing at the 2014 Arts Conference in Bali.

The next conference has historically been held in Bali, but they are trying to have it take place this year in Cambodia instead. Friend, artist and poet Stephen Scott is a usual participant at the conference

Scott, a keynote speaker and performer at  the 2014 conference said,

At the conferences in Bali we saw ways in which the local church explored contextualizing and incarnating the gospel in a culturally rich and spiritually complex culture. Artists, from different places and communities, came together to celebrate culturally diverse expressions of their shared faith. We also reflected together on the truth that the goodness and beauty of God which can be grasped through abundant diversity of (its) expression.[2]

Examples of Christians Who have “Made it” as Artists.

Art conferences – especially Christian ones – seem fraught with all manner of difficulties – the largest one being funding.

I have my own ideas for how an “Arts House” can take place in the Bay Area – but that’s a ways off.

Filmmaker Wim Wenders and Popstar Bono.

It is easy enough to point to people like Bono, Wim Wenders or T-Bone Burnett as Believers whose art has made their faith acceptable to large numbers of people who are often antithetical to the Faith. It is worth noting that none of these (or the others that follow down the list) have any history of Fundagelicalism” (my word) – but tend to be non-violent activists for world peace who will work with anyone in a non-judgmental way.

  Novelist John Green  (Photo by Rick Diamond/Getty Images for Allied)

Which is as it should be for all of us (he said judgmentally).

Turning from the general to the specific, and from forms of art which can easily slide into the category of “entertainment” – we will look at U.S.-based artist Mako Fujimura and Balinese artist Nyoman Darsane.

Makoto Fujimura

Well established in the Art world, Mako Fujimura’s art is recognizable almost immediately. It ranges from the deadly serious (post 9/11) to the whimsical (such as his series his current series in New York; Silence and Beauty.)

Figure 2 A Post 9/11 painting – “Still Point.”

Fujimura , in the following video says that “art is transgressive” and that “we need to transgress in love.” He contrasts this with our Modern language that “celebrates waywardness.”

This is a fabulous FUJIMURA VIDEO. 

Fujimura has a certain fearlessness in both subjects and mediums. He will use gold (in leaf and powdered form) as a medium – which would be unnerving enough on his large canvases, but then he will take on Post 9/11 depictions or do illuminated art for the 400th Anniversary edition of the King James Bible. So while a Modern artist working in New York he is hailing back through time and allowing traditions to inform him – from illuminated biblical texts to his artistic bedrock in Nihonga artistic technique, Fujimura is also a scholar of art with several books and who has earned four honorary doctorates.

Illuinated art for the 400th Anniversary edition of the King James Version produced by Crossways Books.

Bono and T-Bone Burnett.

Recently named Director of Fuller’s Brehm Center in Pasadena, Fujimura has also served on the President’s National Council on the Arts from 2003-2009. Along with Fuller’s new project on the Psalms with U2 frontman Bono (Paul Hewson) new avenues are opening up for crossover between popular art and theology that has some depth.

Nyoman Darsene

The best introduction to Darsene is given by Baltimore writer/blogger Victoria Emily Jones, who says,

Balinese artist Nyoman Darsane was born in 1939 and raised as a Hindu.  At age seventeen, he became a Christian and as a result was ostracized by his family and village community.  But because he so persistently strove, through his art, to give Christianity a Balinese shape, they eventually decided to accept him back in.  They saw that he still loved and respected the culture; he was still “one of them,” even though his religious beliefs took a different turn.  Does he feel that, as a Balinese Christian, his identity is divided, that he cannot fully embrace both at once?  Not at all.  “Bali is my body; Christ is my life,” he says.  In other words, Jesus Christ is his all, but can he not pray to and worship and express his love for Jesus Christ in a Balinese fashion?  And can he not picture Jesus as a fellow Balinese, incarnate in the skin tone and dress and dance poses of his people?[3]

 

“Sermon at the Seaside,” 1988.

Dance is a major aspect of the Balinese culture as perhaps best known by the wayang purwa – or the dance of the shadow puppets.

Figure 3 Nyoman Darsene creates a batique-like rendition of Jesus creating the Sun and Moon. This has all the framing of a Balinese shadow puppet.

Darsene recontextualizes the Gospels within Balinese culture rather than attempting to destroy it. In this way he is an example for those wishing to take the expression of longing and lostness which exist in any culture and inform them with new meaning. In a sense this is no different than what Paul attempts to do in Acts 17 at Mars Hill where he seizes both upon the Athenians art and their poets and then proceeds to tell them that the “unknown God” can actually be known.[4]

Future vision

I agree with Fujimura that “art is transgressive” although the word I choose to use is “subversive” – meaning that it presents a “different text” or series of “verses” – an alternate view of reality to the dominant culture in power (and always will).

In that regard “Gospel” is always good news that the dominant culture, and its metanarrative, is a lie. The Empire has no clothing and it is up to artists of all kinds (musicians, poets, painters, videographers, iconographers, etc…) to keep revealing nature, beauty, truth (in all its forms) and sometimes even the trailing backside of God’s glory after they have been deposited in the cleft if some rock.

This, to a very real degree – always keep the Artist at odds with the Powerful.  

Brokenness

Many artists create out of brokenness – in fact it was Otto Rank in his famous book Art and Artist who said “The difference between the artist and the neurotic is basically talent.” So Kintsugi – presents artists with both a world of beauty and a great metaphor for the human condition and its redemption. Here is a rather fun and humorous video done by a fellow who has really done some research:

KINTSUGI VIDEO!

Not confined to just scriptural images and narratives, global Christian art has the potential to tell new stories as well as unmask the old ones. Surely this is what we have seen in the best authors: Flannery O’ Conner, Walker Percy, Tolkien, and then the countless classics working against that backdrop (like my own personal favorite – Steinbeck’s East of Eden.)

Christendom may have shut down a great deal of the dialog with the Postmodern culture via it’s coercive tactics and tuned others off with its “Gospel as Product” nonsense – but the Arts are still a healthy and wide open venue for theological exploration – if you are any good.

You have to be good – both as an artist and as a theologian.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Christian Art Netork, History, as found at http://www.christianartists.org/node/23, on May 17, 2016

[2] Scott, Stephen. Direct Instant Message Facebook dialog between Stephen Scott and Christopher MacDonald on May 17, 2016.

[3] Jones, Victoria Emily. The Jesus Question: Jesus the Dancer Part 7: The Art of Nyoman Darsene, as cited at https://thejesusquestion.org/2012/03/25/jesus-the-dancer-part-7-the-art-of-nyoman-darsane/, on May 17, 2016

[4] Acts 17:22-31

Thinking Beyond Postmodernism

I have noted over many decades that Americans really have little sense of history. Whatever is happening NOW is easily peddled as having a real sense of permanence. Everyone seems to forget that just thirty years ago the ideas that held court so forcefully have pretty much ben overthrown and rejected. Thus the monolithic experiment that was Modernity has largely been rejected (with all of it’s arrogant versions) in favor of a Postmodern reaction. No one seems to make the logical inference that this reaction too will be questioned in time – and that as a reaction – with little real substance in and of itself – it too will be found wanting.

As we look back over history we find that many ideas are better than others. Some survive and continue to rise to the top despite historical context, different enculturation and problems of language. The truthes and resonance of such teachings and views seem to survive while other views dissipate like, well…like fads.

If Postmodernism is simply a reaction – a rejection of Modernity and its arrogance (and it may well be more than just that) the question becomes “what is beyond Postmodernism?

And let us pause and take stock of the situation in a simple and straight-forward manner. Post-Enlightenment humanity took over the reigns – sans the Divine -in the grandest experiment of self-determination ever. This resulted -planet-wide – was the single bloodiest century in human history christened by the development and double-use of the atomic bomb. In the wake of humanity’s rejection of Modernity (best expressed in the fall of Communism with the dismantling of the Berlin Wall in 1989 – some 200 years after the opening volley of Modernity at the storming of the Bastille in 1789) we have the shock and awe of the technology blitz with almost instantaneously shrunk the world into a truly global village.

Add all those factors together and you can see why people are a bit disoriented.

The term “Postmodern” is certainly en vogue – at least in theological circles (where they are always a good ways behind). But really – it has simply come to mean (practically) that you align with nothing really. That you are subjective/relative and aligned with whatever is poltically popular – not on a search for what is true or resonant. You don’t construct an create so much as you deconstruct and find a narrative current to flow with.

And by all means don;t show any originality or display critical thought. As one who has observed the practical outworkings of both Modernism and Postmodernism I cannot say I really see much difference. One’s taller.

Postmodernism doesn’t really land you anywhere any different than Modernity on a practical level. It is still just as competitive, linear, overly specialized and dogmatic in it’s rejection of all dogma except its own. It is inclusive so long as you accept all that it excludes. It does not encourage open exploration and it possesses the same socio-political minefields that existed under modernity – just maybe not without pointed rifles or a Gulag (which is a definite advantage).

Frankly, we need a new term – and a new direction because simply reacting to Modenity, embracing an exclusive subjectivity that is simply en vogue and committing acts of historical arrogance is not science or the pursuit of knowledge or the truth.

But I have a suggestion.

The Suggestion

Note that it is only a suggestion, and a hopeful one. The trick is to make it truly open ended enough to be inclusive, yet also formative enough to make sense. Then, of course, it has to resonate and be fair to all parties.

The idea first came to me in the late 80s. I was reading Gregory Bateson’s book Steps to an Ecology of Mind and trying to see if I could get his ideas to “talk” with my understanding of Ernest Becker’s world view as presented in The Denial of Death, (which is one of the most important books written in the 20th Century). In order to see how these two great minds might meet I had to do a great deal of translation, in much the same way that you might place the Buddha’s teaching of non-attachment next to Jesus of Nazareth’s teaching about the “lilies of the field”. You expect some divergence but are looking for some legitimate connections and different angles of approach on the same truthes.

In the background of my mind was Becker’s stated desire to form a “uniform science of humanity,” something that would allow for a multiplicity of voices on any given subject, and integrate exploration via all disciplines instead of pitting them against each other. Becker’s vision for this was cut short by his untimely death in 1975, but has always seemed one of the most noble projects set before us.

Imagine for a moment if instead of going into a humanities class and having them exclude some of the great world traditions and the other sciences, they actually included them and looked for correlations? What if they “looked sideways” (as Professor Martin Kemp calls “lateral thinking”) and brought in relevant information from other scientific disciplines?

Now fast forward to 1989 – which means most of us had no idea how the world was going to be changed by this thing we now refer to as “the web”, but ironically it was just that image, the image of a web, that came to mind at the time, just a much simpler image. Instead of the hierarchical and competitive system which Modernity championed, I envisioned an approach that would employ a flexible epistemological web of “lenses” that would be relational to examine any question or phenomenon.

AN EXAMPLE

Here is a simple example within one discipline: psychology (my undergraduate studies). I was a psychology student in the late 70s and was regularly amazed by how zealous and nearly religious were the wars within the department. Each “school” of psychology was a war for dominance in the department, the Behaviorists trying to understand all aspects of human existence within their own narrow view, and the Humanists and Existentialists doing the same. It was an ideological war with no winners because no one was open to other ways of seeing.

But what if the Modernist model of competition and exclusivity had given way to a Postmodern sensibility – or better still – something beyond that? What if those professors had laid down their philosophical armaments and started to talk with one another and look for correlations in their work? What if the Behaviorist could have seen his own view as merely one lens among many and valued the Humanist’s lens, and the Existentialist’s lens? Would they not go deeper with three lenses as opposed to the one? And then what if they had interfaced what they saw through the lenses with other lenses? What if they consulted with the award-winning nutritionist on staff in the biology department, and the social theorist in the sociology department?

I realize that may seem simplistic, but two great sayings by Einstein help here:

“Imagination is more powerful than knowledge,”

and;

“Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

We’ll take the second first. It’s simpler that way.

A Simpler Model

Instead of a highly competition and rationalistic model we have the option of adopting a horizontal and relational model that consists of a flexible web of lenses from which to explore existence and the questions which resonate most for us. These questions can be about anything, from ecological concerns, to deep existential questions about the meaning of existence, to how to create a new pastry or float a toy boat out in the harbor.

I mentioned that this workable model is a flexible web of lenses – that means that it is relational. This is key. It not only does not seek to compete and exclude other ways of seeing and interpreting, it LOOKS for them. Much like search engine “spiders” this flexible web of lenses is always looking for connection, and when it finds it, it celebrates and is able to go deeper.

It is looking for relationship.

Imagination

I promised a new “term” beyond Postmodernism, and now it is tiime to suggest it. Einstein noted that “imagination is more powerful than knowledge” and what we are talking about here requires more imagination than it does brain power.

Post Modern sensibilities have made this possible by rejecting the rigid assumptions of Rationalism, re-introducing irony (and thus humility), and creating a new pluralism that is, potentially, non-reductionist. In other words, we can dream about something both useful and achievable. Postmodernism – at present – does not ave to be a cul-de-sac. .

So imagine that the universe, everything around us, and also us, is essentially relational.

Just sit with it for a moment, and understand that by relational I am not saying “personal.” That’s a whole other matter.

Keep it simple but not simpler.

The Universe as Relational

Twenty years ago, and under Modernity’s iron grip, I would have proceeded to “prove” this to you from a variety of sources, all of them good. I could have argued from almost any platform, from the disquieting notion that human babies die if touch and interaction are withheld, to the fact that astrophysicists talk openly about the relational nature of all energy. Or we could appeal to any Creation myth from any culture and the same relational element would be present.

But in a Postmodern world I am not limited just to such arguments. Just ask yourself “Am I not relational by nature?” Aren’t our days and ways filled up by the question of relationships? And don’t we have a stunning array of them?

So to return to our emerging model, we can take our flexible web of lenses and seek what we can see through them looking for relationship between the pictures they deliver.

I once created a product in the videogame industry called “eGuides” that was patented by Random House. It was based in the philosophy I am now expousing. It was flexible and adaptive. It had a definitive form and objective (to teach a person to conquer a videogame swiftly) but adpated to the narrative and inherent qualities of each game (the lenses recalibrated according to resonance and relevance and informed us as to content as we began each new eGuide). The lawyers (at $300 an hour) kept asking me “how did you think this up?”) Could I explain about Bateson, Becker and a whole different way of doing science?

Prima eGuides, awarded a US and International patent in 2002, Random House. Christopher MacDonald, lead inventor, Team: Wade Smith, Dusty Brown, and Robert Reinhard.

Um, no. This was an online interactive crash course in how to crush opponents in Starseige Tribes. No one would believe my process, or how I had created something new in three months out of thin air with a rag-tag team and only $225k. The next game was Tombraider 3 (Lara Croft) …so it was essentially Bateson and Becker with digital boobs and a shotgun.

I do not mean to be offensive – I am just trying to show how truly ordinary this really is. If it can work for videogames (across all genres without a hitch – and that is just one tiny little application that one little niche industry asked me to employ) and earn an international patent (and has) – it might be worth a look?

A Larger Metaphorical Example

I’ve been trying to think of a modern phenomenon that is both simple and playful to illustrate this. I think perhaps the Super Bowl is just such a model. Well not so much the game itself but the broadcast of the game itself and all the different lenses that are used to bring as full a presentation as possible to as many as possible.

A variety of lenses are used to record data which is then relayed into a central hub. Some of these lenses are able to record more relevant data than others at various times. So some of the main cameras down on the field at strategic spots get hours of emphasis, whereas the camera outside the stadium is only used twice for a few brief seconds, and the camera that views the city in which the event is held is used only once.

To these camera lenses are added work that has been done by other lenses prior to the game. There are interviews with players, with wives of players, and with the high school coach of the superstar quarterback upon who the hopes of the city reside.

What decides which cameras are emphasized?

As I have hinted at, relevance and resonance seem to be the criteria.

How do you determine that? People in their respective fields do that every day of the week. It is a silly question. Do they often get it wrong? Yes – but eventually they get it right because the wrong answers turn into poor results over and over again.  It’s just common sense.

To continue: Two weeks after the Super Bowl, the whole crew and all the equipment are shipped to cover the Democratic National Convention. There are no footballs, and the agenda is completely different (except of course that someone wants to win and others to lose).

The same general parameters are used to cover the broadcast, only now the longer range cameras that were so effective two weeks earlier, are not as useful in a more intimate environment. Other cameras that are more mobile and light weight become the best lenses from which to record and broadcast information.

The choices are fairly easy, and, as before, all the same equipment is used, it’s just that some lenses are more useful in this situation than they were at the Super Bowl.

Now I have little doubt that some part of this illustration may break down somewhere, but it is meant to illustrate really only one point, and that is the effective use of multiple lenses and how they interact to derive as much relevant data as possible in a non-competitive manner.

Apply the Flexible Web

Below is a written description of the flexible web. This model is meant to be an exploration – not normative. Consider it like a simple but extremely adaptable probe. The sort of probe that if sent into the unknown would have the flexibility to mutate, on the fly, as it encountered new and unforeseen environments or phenomenon – much as our eGuides adapted to the differing “worlds” that each videogame presented by its creators.

An example?

Okay, let’s go back to our psychology department, only this time they have gone through Postmodernization and have seen the Enlightenment experiment for what it was…just one lens, and a limited one – a Colonial one. In it’s stead is a new model. It is not called Postmodern, it is called Relational.

And a possible new term is Relational. You can make it an “ism” if you like, but I kinda like it the way it is for reasons I’ll address shortly.

But back to our school. The department has decided that the focus of the program for that year will be depression. Instead of a competitive system with each school of thought trying to out leverage the others, they meet to put forward the best information they each have on the causes and remedies of clinical depression.

The Behaviorists bring relevant data on conditioning; another professor puts forward medical models based upon chemical imbalances; yet another -a Humanist -notes that the philosophical notion of freedom and free will carries with it the inherent problem of trying to sustain meaning, and that the crisis of meaning for human beings is closely tied to depression. The Freudians talk about family dynamics and unconscious urges which effect emotional stability.

All the while they are looking for relationship between this different ways of seeing depression. At the same time, new questions arise about social and environmental factors. For this they will need the Sociology and Biology Departments to help them see more. One student who has been sitting in on the discussion as an aid asks about a culture he read about in his anthropology class that have almost zero cases of depression. Instead of being laughed at, a call is placed to the author of the book.

Other lenses pop up as well. The Biology department also reports that they are doing a study on endorphin and serotonin levels based on new dietary finds. Another best selling book includes remarkable testimonials of those who have been relieved of depression by prayer or meditation.

Every one of these lenses is used to gather as much information as possible which is then brought into the mix looking for relevance and resonance.

The beauty of this model is that it is flexible, malleable, non-competitive and is open to lenses outside of strict rationalism, while not rejecting its benefits.

It is also non-reductive and therefore truly pluralistic in the best sense of the word.

We Are “Relationals”: Beyond Postmodernism

We are not stuck being Postmoderns; we could be Relationals. The universe is inherently relational, and as self-conscious and curious beings within creation we are too. It’s why we care about the meaning of our lives, and how we relate to each other and this universe. It’s why we have children and why love is so important to all of us. It’s what lies at the core of being human and our questions about God’s existence and what our lives mean. It’s what we think about and dream about in some way every day of our lives and are trying to find answers to. Modernity gifted us with many things, but it is time to move beyond it’s confines. There is serious and deep work to be done, and it is relational.

 

Christology Boxes: Adoration Station

One of my big beefs with the current Western Church is that they have made Jesus either commemorative or simply a part of a salvic formula – but pretty much ignored His active Mastery and “holding the universe together” right here and now.

Hey – I didn’t say it – St. Paul does often and well – but nowhere better than when he, er..um – probably borrows an early christological hymn and applies it in his letter to the Colossians in 1:15-20.

I mean just read the audacious things which are said – seriously.

^15 [a]He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.¹⁶ For ^[b]by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. ¹⁷ He^[c]is before all things, and in Him all things ^[d]hold together. ¹⁸ He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.¹⁹ For ^[e]it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the ^[f]fullness to dwell in Him, ²⁰ and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in ^[g]heaven.

 

This is all present and active – not commemorative (past) and passive. Talk about the power of now! We have no idea because we are too small-minded and unimaginative. We are like the disciples who are utterly surprised when Peter and the gang show up fatr the jail has been rocked-open and the others ask “Hey – what are you doing here? We have been praying for your release from prison?”

Doh!

Icon box, Portland 2011. (c) Christopher MacDonald.

Iconography is literally “written (“graphos”) images of theology. It is not “painting” it is “writing theology,” most often for those who did not read. Well we do not read theology much either and when we do it is mostly crap – theologians sunk in the minutiae talking with a few other theologians sunk even deeper in the minutiae about some side point that may or may not even be viable at all (it may simply be en vogue or warrant a grant because it meets a political agenda).

Or it is controversial enough to sell books – and I am thinking of our friends Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels – who have parlayed 3rd and 4th Century Gnostic texts (which are irrelevant to New Testament studies coming hundreds of  years later) into a kind of perpetual cottage industry on truly controversial “controversies,” that the unlearned just love to gobble up.

It doesn’t help that so -called believers are doing essentially the same thing – commoditizing the actual Gospels on the other side – and making Jesus either commemorative or just part of their salvic formula on the other side of the fence. In all cases what is by-passed is adoration, openness to the living Lordship of Christ and a sense of awe at His glory.

These are no small things. They impoverish us while we are seeking spiritual riches. It is terribly ironic – and it invokes His words in the book of Revelation to many of the churches there in the opening chapters. I will let you study and apply.

Christology Boxes

Criticism doesn’t work in this postmodern world of ours – but artistic opportunities do. Working artistically off the tradition of “reliquary boxes,” I am modifying and moving from a box which houses past relics to one which invites present-day contemplation as drawn out potentially by iconography, the written word, and various types of sacred art – both visceral and digitally delivered.

Iconography

The front lid features an icon of Christ centering devotion and adoration on the Living One. It is meant to be “written theology” in the iconographic tradition and not a “painting.” It is meant to draw one into a sense of coming before the actual resurrected Christ who “holds all things together” at that very moment (Col. 1:16). It is a place of open adoration if one opens up. Of course God provides the grace and leading.

Written Word

The inside door (or if that does not work, mounted within and removable for easy handling) will be a Kindle “Fire” with an interface especially designed to simplify devotion with no distractions. The main components are a compilation of texts including:

• the Bible,
• contemplative texts:
  • Theresa of Avila
  • John of the Cross’s Dark Night of the Soul
    

    Kindle Fire with Colossians Commentary.

  • Brother Lawrence Practicing the Presence of God
  • Catherine of Siena
  • Thomas A Kempis The Imitation of Christ
  • Bernard of Clairvaulx On Loving God
  • The Cloud of Unknowing (author unknown)
  • Merton’s Book of Hours
• My own exegetical/devotional commentary on the Christological hymn of Colossians (1:15-23 with original art from my longer commentary)
• Selected poems of a “Christ the Center” nature.

Sacred Art

“diakonos” – “Deacon” – the “hands and feet of Christ. with “Azotus” seal in cinnabar.

Inside the box this consist of modified “Kanji” style scrolls – New Testament words and texts done in Greek in a Asian Kanji style on Joss (funerary) paper. An unintentional move on my part (I just liked the paper and it was cheap at my Asian market) I learned later that it was used as “Money Paper” to write messages to dead ancestors and then burned in an urn to reach up into the heavens. I simply wanted to take the Word of God – so opaque and overused/misused in American culture and present it in a different artistic form so it could be seen in a different way. Thus, the box will have a small number of mini-scrolls with significant terms like kenosis, pistis, agape, didiskalos, kerygmata, etc…I am not sure just yet.

Of course the form requires a red cinnabar seal made from an original “chop” and I have been wrestling carving a new one as my “Azotus” one was lost in Santa Cruz (seen in the art to the left). There was a elderly man in Chinatown who did that for me after much negotiation (he spoke no English and I no Chinese o it was rather hilarious). Now he is gone so I am somewhat forced to attempt this myself. I have acquired a dremel with attachments to help (hopefully – it might still be dreadful).

A painted stone, incense (with a note of explanation for many an American thinks incense is simply an Eastern metaphysical phenomenon and to be rejected – quite superstitious), perhaps a tea candle in a holder (I need to experiment).

Normally I would do a long paper along with this, but I feel the addition of my actual poems, long N.T. exegetical commentary (which will need editing) and additional original art) should be quite enough as all of it has to tie together as a whole in one small 9” x 9” x 2.75” deep box.

I would like to do a small write up like a museum piece that gives small instructions on “how to use it” in a gentle/general sense (a spiritual formation sense). Just  suggestions.

At first I bucked a little at the use of technology (and also –haha – the price..I am a very poor student financially). I heard Ellul in the back of my head on the use of technology – and I am a big fan.[1] But having access to Christologically central texts, poems, art and also audio overruled.  I am a hybrid in so many ways – perhaps more than most anyone I have ever met – so why not here?

I hve done a “kanji” from Colossians 3:4 :Who is our life,” referring to Jesus as depicted. and laid it in as an alpha layer (no pun intended).

As always, I am utterly open to suggestion. I do think it has to be Christological because the Church is not and is suffering because of it. I came to seminary to do Christology and somehow it seems fitting that while the GTU seems to have thwarted me exegetically and theologically – artistically I would have a green light. This is a very good thing and fits my nature  – as I have spent most of my life creating in a secular context and done quite well.

I am, of course, scared out of my mind to begin the icon. Everything else is easy.

[1] My Summer project is a series of large oil paintings – cityscapes working off of Ellul’s The Meaning of the City where I do very Wayne Thiebauld-esque paintings wherein a crucifixion is inlayed within the city itself – if you have eyes to see it. Each painting will be a reflection of an Ellul quote. I had hoped to get a teacher behind this and get credit – but now I am just going for it and will hopefully get credit for it after and a good gallery showing.

The Way: A Pilgrimage of the Heart

Martin Sheen plays “Tom” – an ophthalmologist from California who travels to  France to  retrieve the body of his now dead son  Daniel Avery ( who has died on the first day of his planned Camino de Santiago pilgrimage in a storm in the Pyrannes).  But Tom ends up doing the pilgrimage himself (also known as “the Way of St. James”) to Galicia (Spain).

One of Sheen’s sons, Emilio Estevez, wrote the screenplay (from the book by Jack Hitt [1] ) and directed the film. He also has spot appearances as Daniel Avery, Tom’s son. Renee Estevez, Sheen’s daughter, also acts in the film.

The film opens on the golf course where Tom quite noticeably doesn’t want to walk a few feet to make his next golf shot, preferring to golf cart his way instead. Moments later he receives the call informing him of his son’s tragic death and he quickly leaves the course with no explanation.

This is indicative of Tom for the first half of the film. A man of few words who is used to making up his mind and pretty much everyone else can go to hell – he doesn’t care.

When Tom arrives in St. Jean Pied de Port (France) he has to deal with memories of conflicts with Daniel and a decision. Daniel’s life had been about engagement it would seem – and choosing to experience the world rather than just study it.  The two of them had conflicts over this. Tom decides rather stubbornly that he will walk the pilgrims trail to the Cathedral of  Santiago de Compostela in Galicia and plans to spread his son’s ashes along the way.

It is a film primarily about “compassion” – the ability to “come alongside.” It starts with the police captain just as his journey starts. Tom, very aloof, is headed in the wrong direction for the pilgrimage, the captain stops him and says “Tom, I too have lost a child,” This stops Tom and makes him reconsider the captain. This is important because the captain tells him he is going the wrong way.

This is just the first incident of many that will begin to change Tom and de-layer him and re-humanize him along the pilgrim’s trail.

Previously he had met Joost (played by Yorick van Wageningen of the Netherlands), a gregarious man from Amsterdam who simply wishes to lose weight. He is as loose-lipped as Tom is tight. He befriends Tom whether he likes it or not, meeting up with him later on the Way of St. James.

At first Tom is slow…he is the last one to make it to the Inn the first night. This changes as he becomes more resolute.

When Tom meets Sarah (played by Canada’s superb actress Deborah Kara Unger – who is reminiscent here of Ava Gardner as Maxine Faulk in Night of the Iguana) things do not go well. She is angry with a massive chip on her shoulder and used to attention. Tom doesn’t care at all. He simply walks off. She attempts to apologize the next morning but he is still aloof and remains so through much of the first half of the film.

Tom is a classic Californian. He is used to living in a cocoon of sorts.

On his own a bit later on the first real crisis point occurs when he takes off his pack at a bridge and it drops accidently into the river below. Frantic, he runs and follows it from the side of the river before finally diving in to retrieve it. He does so only when it becomes obvious it is his only choice. It is a decisive moment where Tom has to act.

Cold, wet, and tired he hauls his gear up the bank and makes camp. His well-contained world has been busted-up a bit.

The next day, Tom comes into town and meets up with Joost and Sarah again who meet each other for the first time. Tom is still distanced, noticeably picking up his pace – walking alone.

Tom meets a priest on the road with many other pilgrims (Joe Torrenueva). It was difficult for me to see exactly what he gives Tom – perhaps a rosary. Tom plays a lapsed Catholic, but it is well known that Sheen is quite an active Roman Catholic himself. Estevez describes the film as “pro-people, pro-life, not anti-anything”[2]

When they meet the Irish poet Jack (Irishman James Nesbitt) who does a marvelous monologue on “the road,” then complaining of “writer’s block” asks if he can tag along.

Not long after, one of the three last crucial events (the first of four being the fallen pack into the river) occurs when Sarah, trying to see what is in the box Tom carries, slugs him when he grabs her arm. It’s a shocking moment. Later we learn that she had been in an abusive marriage- and had terminated the pregnancy of her daughter – not wanting to bring her into the same potential abuse.

Beyond the politics of the issue (which people rush too immediately into, it seems) I watched a scene played out that I have witnessed many times in my life – the deep regret that women carry with them over aborted children. It is a wound that I have consistently seen with no exceptions. It seems well depicted in this film for Sarah says she still hears her daughter’s voice.

The film treats it non-politically (which is truly wise). Tom turns and engages her for the first time really and says he is sorry that she lost her child. She says she is sorry he lost his. It is a serious and touching moment on their journey.

From then on they both seem to walk alongside each other with some very real compassion.

Estevez said that he borrowed heavily from The Wizard of Oz in a thematic way.[3] It seems clear though that Tom is not inviting anyone to join him – they invite themselves or rather attach themselves to Tom and his journey whether he likes it or not. This will play out significantly later in the film in dramatic fashion. But for now, it seems clear that Tom is Dorothy – a stranger in a strange land (to him). The only real difference on his journey is that there are no external enemies – only enemies within.

For Tom – this pilgrimage is one of being broken down chunks at a time only to be rebuilt into something different and new.

The third significant “act” comes when they reach the next town and purchase four bottles of wine. Tom gets drunk and his resentments boil over. He goes on a rant – verbally taking apart his companions. First the poet (Jack) – who he calls a “bore,” and then accuses of not being a “true pilgrim,” calling him a fraud. Then he turns to the Dutchman and dresses him down. He is angry, drunk and falls down. The police come and arrest him.

As they haul him off he is shouting and singing “God bless America” doing his best to embody the classic “Ugly American” image. There is a prefiguring of this when he is introduced earlier as an American in a village and they throw food at him and start-up with the “Star-Spangled Banner” – all in good fun.

The Irish poet bails him out the next morning (using his credit card – which Tom had berated him for using) and from this point on in the film they really become a noticeable unit. They no longer walk apart – or at least with Tom apart. They often walk four abreast or in a tight line. They have become companions on the Way of St. James now that Tom has dropped all pretenses. The road has humbled him – he has regained a greater sense of humanity and connection.

I believe the fourth major event in Tom’s transformation comes when his backpack (with his son’s ashes) is stolen by a Gypsy boy. They chase the boy into the Gypsy part of town where all hope is lost. Joost compels Tom to leave saying that it is hopeless and dangerous.

Back in the main part of town Tom despairs and plans to return home without finishing the pilgrimage. It is then that a remarkable thing happens. The young boy’s father (Ishmael, played by Antonio Gil) has discerned what has happened and has brought the boy and the pack (undisturbed) to the bar to return it. Better still he invites Tom and his entourage to come and dine and “make merry” with his Gypsy community that evening. To this man, it is a matter of honor (and a matter of faith as we see him “cross” himself quickly). Tom and his friends are allowed into this somewhat secretive and highly relational community. It is a world away from the cocoon-ish lifestyle employed by people in California. Tom is being challenged on many levels.

The next day the boy’s father makes his son carry Tom’s pack for him all the way to the outskirts of the province. Tom objects but the father is insistent that his son do this. It is a scene vaguely reminiscent of Robert DeNiro’s carrying his burden up the falls for a time in The Mission. Tom’s burden is temporarily carried by the boy whose sin almost stopped his pilgrimage – but in so doing the boy’s penance may be a part of his salvation.

The father – who is also mystical – tells Tom that after reaching the intended goal of the Cathedral – that he should continue on to Muxia, “and the sea” to spread the rest of his sons ashes there. That it will be good for Tom and his son.

Tom has an intense discussion with the Gypsy Ismael who tells him he needs to travel to Muxia to complete his pilgrimage.

“Ishmael, I am not a very religious man,” says Tom.

“Religion has nothing to do with this, nothing at all,” says Ishmael (one wonders about the choice of that name).

It is here that I should mention the soundtrack. Normally one wouldn’t think that Alanis Morrisette’s song Thank U – one couched in Eastern mysticism would work in a scene moving towards Catholic mysticism – but it really does in the overall context of the film up till this point. It is really a near perfect song at this juncture in the film:

How ’bout me not blaming you for everything

How ’bout me enjoying the moment for once

How ’bout how good it feels to finally forgive you

How ’bout grieving it all one at a time

 

Thank you India

Thank you terror

Thank you disillusionment

Thank you frailty

Thank you consequence

Thank you thank you silence

 

The moment I let go of it was the moment

I got more than I could handle

The moment I jumped off of it

Was the moment I touched down[4]

 

Tom is in this process as he journeys down the pilgrims trail. What started as a way of perhaps honoring his son – or trying to understand him better – has now become Tom’s own pilgrimage – but in a more and more tightly knit group or community of four.

As the song plays you can see Tom is no longer aloof. He is huggable, smiling and stays close. The day before they arrive in Santiago de Compostela in Galicia, Tom splurges on rooms at a nice hotel for everyone. One by one – late at night – they each show up at his room. Soon, as they have been all day, they are all together.

Tom has already changed his tune with the poet/writer. In the beginning nothing was “any of his business.” Now he is free to write what he will – but Tom is hopeful it will be the truth.

They stop at one point where there is a pole and a huge pile of stones left by previous pilgrim travelers. This is one of many traditions of the pilgrimage and apparently the belief was “that by placing a stone on the pile, [the person] …would be granted a wish.”[5]

Sarah’s wish is rather agnostic, but Tom’s is that of a lapsed Catholic making his way back to a living faith.

Who are the various characters in light of The Wizard of Oz?  I don’t think anything like an exact  correlation can really be found. I think it was a formative idea that Estevez worked off of. But If I was to hazard a guess, I would say Joost is “The Cowardly Lion” (extroverted and kind but lacking backbone), Sarah the “Tin Man” (a damaged heart), and Jack is the “Scarecrow” (he is inherently brilliant but uses his mind to write travel books and has writer’s block for anything really expansive).

As they enter the Cathedral we already know that the poet (Jack) doesn’t like churches. But he knows that the posture in the Cathedral of St. James is one of coming on your knees. As the one most likely to be the Scarecrow…he holds off – perhaps out of skepticism. But in the end as the giant censer swings and fills the grand cathedral he hits his knees and inches inside.

At each major township along the pilgrim’s trail when they check in they receive a stamp marking their journey’s progress until they get their final stamp at the Cathedral.

It is things like this (and pilgrimages and art) that most of us Protestants do not understand – many choosing to live in the long shadow of people like the humorless and unimaginative John Calvin. But for those who take a more “worldly” Christian view – meaning simply that the Church is much larger and deeper – all of this is ours and to be celebrated.

After the mass and the blessing at the Cathedral, they are “given their compostela certificates, the official paper that certified their completion of the pilgrimage.”[6] Many of the stamps they receive along the pilgrim’s way have the form of a scallop shell worked into them as the scallop – an early Christian symbol – is also:

the traditional emblem of James, son of Zebedee, and is popular with pilgrims on the Way of St James to the apostle’s shrine at Santiago de Compostela in Galicia (Spain). Medieval Christians making the pilgrimage to his shrine often wore a scallop shell symbol on their hat or clothes. The pilgrim also carried a scallop shell with him, and would present himself at churches, castles, abbeys etc., where he could expect to be given as much sustenance as he could pick up with one scoop. Probably he would be given oats, barley, and perhaps beer or wine. Thus even the poorest household could give charity without being overburdened.[7]

 

When receiving his certificate Tom is asked about the pilgrimage and he says “we walked…” then corrects himself and says “I walked.” It is a telling moment for Tom is now a part of an “us.” And when they are sitting around after and it is time to disband looks are traded (no words) and it is simply understood that they will all continue on together to the sea in Muxia.

Early on in the film, Tom had tried to sort of “order” the police officer to accompany him on the pilgrimage. The man cared – but ignored the arrogant directive. Now, without words, Tom has engendered real love and respect out of humility from his companions. They want to see him through to the end of his journey.

Tom has the man who is providing the certification for his now completed pilgrimage change the name from his to Daniel’s. He has done the walk in Daniel’s stead. At Muxia he has an experience where Daniel stands beside him.

“I don’t have anything to take back,” he says to him.

“Yeah you do,” is Daniel’s ghostly reply.

Then Tom distributes what are left of Daniel’s ashes on the rocks by the sea.

It is not a sentimental film, nor commercial or formulaic. There are no tearful goodbyes. We never see the other three after they leave Tom alone at the rocks near the sea. At the end we only see Tom moving towards us with a seemingly clearer perception and movement in his “way.” It also seems that he came to France, and finally Spain, as an utter outsider and an “Ugly American” but at the end of the film his attire marks him as a more natural inhabitant of the region – or at least he doesn’t stand out quite so much. In fact he is marked as belonging by two well-known symbols – the walking staff that is sticking up out of the back of his pack, and the metallic scallop shell pendant hanging down from around his neck symbolizing his completing the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela.

He has received compassion and learned to give it – as they all walked alongside each other – the root meaning of the word.

 

 

 

 

[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1441912/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2 taken April 21, 2016.

[2] Primary sources quoted in Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_(film) as found on April 21, 2016.

[3] Emilio Estevez and Martin Sheen on Faith and Filming The Way, http://www1.cbn.com/movies/emilio-estevez-and-martin-sheen-faith-the-way as found on April 21, 2016.

[4] Metrolyrics.com, http://www.metrolyrics.com/thank-you-lyrics-alanis-morissette.html as found on April 21, 2016.

[5] Pilgrimage to Santiago De Compostella: Rituals and Traditions, http://caminoways.com/pilgrimage-to-santiago-de-compostela-rituals-and-traditions#.VxkX6N9ovIo as found on April 21, 2016.

[6] Ibid.

[7] The Shell of Saint James, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_of_Saint_James as found on April 21, 2016.

Face to Face with Professor Martin Kemp on Lateral Thinking, The “University” and “Structural Intuition.”

Thanks to a grant from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Professor Martin Kemp, art historian and the world’s leading authority on Leonardo Da Vinci (which is just one of his many astounding credits) was delivered live via Skype from his studio in England to our “50 Sacred Objects” class at the Jesuit Seminary at the GTU.

I arrived early to get a front row corner seat so as to have a much more face to face encounter with Prof. Kemp who was on big screen about eight feet away.

I had been asked by my superb professor, Kathryn Barush (who was mentored by Kemp at Oxford) to prepare two questions and also submit photos of a pice of art from the 15th Century for Kemp to comment on. I had already sent on pictures of  Lorenzo Ghiberti’s amazing “paradise” door in Florence – and I had reviewed probably 3-4 hours of Kemp lectures on neuroscience, Leonardo, perception, art history and ways of “thinking.”

We had already done one of these “Webinar’s with Iconographer Aiden Hart – and it had been unreal. So I knew what to expect.

I cannot say that Kemp actual lecture to us yielded many surprises because I had watched so many lectures of his and soaked it all in already.

(I will list a brief bio at the end of this, but it is by no means exhaustive – like it doesn’t mention his work helping construct Leonardo’s “flying machines” – which apparently worked a lot better than anticipated; or his work on the “Codex Leicester” – which Bill Gates bought a few years back for $30 million – the single highest amount EVER for a book – and has engendered a friendship between the two) .

I digress. I got to engage Kemp directly not on art but on THINKING, the University system and how we do both Science and Art.

It was kind of thrilling.

This is the view from my seat and the camera in return is pointed at us and we can talk back and forth.

My first question:

“The University system seems quite linear, competitive and high;y compartmentalized. Your presentations happily promote “lateral thinking” – although you don’t like that term and prefer “looking sideways” as a better way of putting it I believe – and seem to move across disciplines eagerly. I find this compelling. In fact, it is what my M.A. is supposed to be about at the GTU – but I am not sure is possible. My question: How can this view be promoted at ground level?”

KEMP:

“Well I quite agree that the University system is highly compartmentalized…it has been getting more and more so since the turn of the Century even to the point now where many disciplines have their own language that is not decipherable to others. It is quite a problem. 

But there is a balance. We must have experts in their fields of study. Some people think they can just waltz right in and get an immediate grip. That being said it is often the Outsider who does bring in the new perspective. Look at Watson and Crick and DNA. One a chemist, the other a biologist and they change the who world of molecular biology. 

If a person has the discipline of knowing how to do science – how to ask the right questions and then follow through they can learn a great deal about a new discipline in a short period of time. “

I am sure he said quite a bit more. I think they are, no?) I think the thing that impressed me so was – and I had found this in his lectures too – was the measured response. I could have been a crackpot or zealot (I do not think I am either but then crackpots and zealots usually do not, no?)

Yet – the wise and measured response that encouraged further exploration – but with caution.

No one else was asking questions (he can be a tad intimidating given his brilliance I suppose – I am too old to be intimidated – plus I lived on the streets of West Oakland for  year)…so I asked a follow-up (related):

“Leonardo had an uncanny boldness and you describe the normal ‘six degrees of separation” as – in Leonardo – as ‘one degree of separation’ in pretty much all he did. This touches on your talk of ‘Structural Intuition” – as that intuition about the pursuit of a truth that is prior to its investigation or production. I have experienced myself many times – like when I was once asked to produce a product that was patent-able in a few months. I just kinda ‘knew’ it could be done and how to do it – then – as you say – you have to do the work. Can you comment on this idea of Structural Intuition as it relates both to the Scientist (in our case as theologians) and then then Artist?

:

KEMP:”Well we have all had this experience starting as children observing things in nature. We see how water swirls down a drain, or the shape of a nut and we are fascinated and ask ‘why?” 

(Kemp then quotes from memory from a letter from Einstein on many of his ideas coming prior to even language – being “somatic.”  This is in a lecture online which I will add here later – it is amazing.)

Professor Kemp then gave a few other examples which my notes (grrr) will not help with. One was the invention of Carbon 16 (or “Q-Carbon”) which could have only “have arrived at by intuition as a start.”

Again he counseled boldness – but responsible boldness. He said it had worked for him, but that he had started early simply in the hard sciences.

When it came time to do the slides of the art…my slides (the doors) was second (hey…hey chose the order) and Prof. Barush asked me if it was okay if we skipped me.

I mean I had kinda been the only one to really engage Kemp in a spirited back and forth and taken enough time.

I heartily and readily agreed (and asked later if I had overstepped? – No, not at all.)

I dearly love Prof. Barush as she is the only Prof. I have really had at the GTU who allows for “free speech.” The days of that in Berkeley are OVER. It’s really much more like daily walking through a minefield.

But yesterday was an extraordinary day – and I got some great answers from a truly great man of faith, intellect and vision..

******

Martin Kemp

Kemp was trained in natural sciences and art history at Cambridge University(Downing College) and the Courtauld Institute of Art,University of London. He was British Academy Wolfson Research Professor (1993–98). For more than 25 years he was based in Scotland (University of Glasgow andUniversity of St Andrews). He has held visiting posts in Princeton, New York, North Carolina, Los Angeles and Montreal.

Kemp has written books about Leonardo da Vinci, including Leonardo (Oxford University Press, 2004, rev. 2011). He has published on imagery in the sciences of anatomy, natural history and optics, including The Science of Art: Optical Themes in Western Art from Brunelleschi to Seurat (Yale University Press).

Kemp has focused on issues of visualisation, modelling and representation. He has written a regular column called Science in Culture in Nature (an early selection published as Visualisations, OUP, 2000). The Nature essays are developed in Seen and Unseen (OUP, 2006), in which his concept of “structural intuitions” is explored. His most recent[when?] book is Christ to Coke: How Image becomes Icon (OUP, 2011). Several of his books have been translated into various languages.

He has curated a series of exhibitions on Leonardo and other themes, includingSpectacular Bodies at the Hayward Gallery in London, Leonardo da Vinci: Experience, Experiment, Design at the Victoria and Albert Museum in 2006 andSeduced: Sex and Art from Antiquity to Now, Barbican Art Gallery, London, 2007. He was also guest curator for Circa 1492 at the National Gallery of Art inWashington in 1992.

In 2000, he advised skydiver Adrian Nicholas as he constructed a parachuteaccording to Leonardo’s drawings from materials which would have been available in his day. In 1485 Leonardo had scribbled a simple sketch of a four-sided pyramid covered in linen. Alongside, he had written: “If a man is provided with a length of gummed linen cloth with a length of 12 yards (11 m) on each side and 12 yards high, he can jump from any great height whatsoever without injury.” In June 2000, Nicholas launched himself from a hot air balloon 10,000 feet (3,000 m) over South Africa. He parachuted for five minutes as a black box recorder measured his descent, before cutting himself free of the device and releasing a conventional parachute. Leonardo’s parachute made such a smooth and slow descent that the two jumpers accompanying Nicholas had to brake twice to stay level with him.

The Christmas Gift

[The following is a short story from the collection (book): In These Last Days: Shorts Stories of Humor and Whoa. Each story is the last day of a person’s life only they have no idea at all. Some or humorous; others not so very much so. This one is hopeful.]

Brenton Sax felt foolish the day he died. But the first thing you should know about him was that he was a Christian man, a deacon in fact, who was well known and respected an the North Hill Presbyterian Church. He served on a committee every Tuesday evening, and he gave his 10 percent (albeit begrudgingly, but his wife insisted, and it was, after all, tax deductible) to the stewardship committee.

He woke up that morning, ate a silent breakfast with his wife and read the paper. His children had already trudged off to catch the bus for their last day of school before Christmas vacation.

It was the 21st of December, and he was sitting at the breakfast table  thinking very hard  about the exact location of his battery cables. The reason he did this, was because he had done something the day before that he was still uncomfortable with. He thought about yesterday morning, and tried to piece together what had happen.

He remembered he had been late for an important meeting. He was cursing a small cloud, and sweating a little on the forehead and around the collar as he gingerly crunched across the crystaline turf toward his car. After putting his briefcase and lunch on the passenger side seat of his late modeled Chevy sedan, he shut the door and turned around just in time to see a large black man approaching him.

This worried him a little. Not many black men lived in his neighborhood. This man wasn’t one of them; he wasn’t dressed well, and he seemed to be agitated.

“I’m going to get robbed,” he had thought to himself, “ oh shit.

“Heh Man. . “the man started to say.

“Is there something I can do for you?” Sax said sharply, a hint of aggression in his voice.

“Yeah. I’m from out of town visiting a friend,” the man said rubbing his hands together for warmth, “and I left my car lights on. The battery’s dead. Could you give me a jump?”

Brenton Sax had felt relieved because it looked very much like he would not  be robbed, but he was annoyed because he was very late as it was. “I’m sorry, I don’t have time to give you a jump. The best I can do is give you my battery cables so someone else can jump your car. When you finish, you can put them over by the fence, behind the garbage can.”

“Hey, that would be great man,” the man said.

“Why did I say that?” Brenton Sax thought as he opened his trunk and extracting the twisted pile of greasy cables.  “Oh well,” he thought “I said it, so I can’t do anything about it now.” He gave the man the battery cables, and the black man put out his hand, and Brenton Sax shook it and said, “Good luck.” Then they parted ways.

After he was hurrying down the freeway, Brenton Sax thought about his battery cables, and the fact, as he saw it, that he would never see them again. “Well, treasure in heaven, I suppose,” he said to himself, and he felt a little better, although still a little angry over the fact that he had been so unwise as to just hand the man his battery cables.

He thought at the time about the black man, and that he had nothing against blacks, it was just that he had never been around any (with the exception, he thought, of the black family who attended his church. He always noticed them, because they were dark, and that stood out in the congregation that was very white). So, he didn’t know anything about them. “It was dumb, but I’m late. And besides that he could  have robbed me.”

That evening, Brenton Sax arrived home at 11:30 p.m. He was very tired, but he had not forgotten the battery cables he had given to the man. As he pulled the big sedan into the driveway, the lights creased the frosted garbage cans and the fence, and Brenton Sax saw that the battery cables were right where he had asked the man to leave them.

“Well, if that doesn’t beat all?” he laughed to himself. Then he did the second uncharacteristic thing of the day: he left them there.

Two things about Mr. Sax were laid deep in his character: He never gave things to strangers, and he never left his personal property unguarded. This day had been like every other day, with the exception of these two battery cable-related incidents.

The reason for the deviation was fatigue. Brenton Sax was tired, “and besides that, it’s cold and I haven’t got enough arms,” he said to himself as he balanced his briefcase, lunchbox and leather portfolio in his arms and walked quickly towards the front door. “I’ll just get’m in the morning,” he told himself.

The Next Morning

In the morning, when he went out for his paper, he also went out to the garbage cans by the fence to retrieve the battery cables. “Dammit, they aren’t here,” he said to the half-empty cans. Then he turned and went back into the house.

And that was what Brenton Sax was thinking about as he finished his coffee, and left for work.

He would have been on time this morning, since he left good and early figuring the traffic would be heavy – which usually cost him about twenty minutes – but as he was waiting in heavy traffic under an overpass, he had no idea what was about to befall him.

Neither did Rex Richardson, who had heavily overloaded his semi-truck earlier that morning.

To make a short story shorter, the weight of Rex Richardson’s over-weighted semi-truck, combined with the weight of the cars waiting on the overpass which had been weakened by recent earthquakes, was just enough to break the overpass supports and send the whole lot of them (and most of the huge cement overpass),  raining down on the cars below, including Brenton Sax’s Chevy sedan.

Later, it would be up to an L.A. coroner to instruct his team on how to subtract Brenton Sax from what used to be his sedan; but Brenton Sax was not at all concerned about this because at that very moment he had been welcomed to heaven after what seemed to be a very quick trial .

The charges had been viewed in front of a host of twelve judges and God Himself, who, by the way, didn’t look anything like how Brenton Sax had imagined Him. But , there was no mistaking his being God. Everyone in that immense and glorious room knew who God was, and because of this, they also knew who they were.

Brenton Sax’s life was reviewed pronto.  And just as everyone had certain and living knowledge of  God’s person;  everyone also knew that Brenton Sax was guilty of a great number of things; certainly a lot more than he himself had been aware of. “I am guilty.” Brenton Sax said, without doubting or disputing.

Then One called the Son of Man appealed on Brenton Sax’s behalf. “He is guilty,” he said, “ but he has given me permission to pay his penalty. The defense rests.” And with that Brenton Sax was welcomed into heaven.

“Let’s go for a walk,” the Son of Man said.

“Lord, when did we meet, when did I give you the permission you spoke of?” Brenton Sax asked.  “It all seems like so long ago.”

“You were a boy of fifteen, and You were at a campfire meeting at the end of a church retreat. The preacher said a lot of things about Me; and the Father wanted you to be with Him very much. At the end, the preacher asked if anyone wanted to meet Me. He said that if they did, they should “throw their faggots in the fire.”  At the time, that meant  you should  throw a small stick into the campfire to signify an opening of life and heart to Me, and not at all what Jerry Falwell used to mean.”

Brenton Sax didn’t know if it was okay to laugh or not.

The Son of Man laughed and said “It’s okay to laugh for we dry away every tear most especially those caused by ignorance or hate.”

Then the Son of Man said, “You know, don’t you, that you have a reward?”

Ah no. . . ahem, but , ah . . .it really isn’t necessary, but if you say so,” said Brenton Sax.

“Some who come have great treasures and riches, and others have only their residency here; but all are full,” said the Son of Man. And at that moment Brenton Sax realized that he felt full and complete in the radiance of God Himself. He knew he lacked nothing, and would never lack again, or feel homeless or strange.

“I used to say that men and women should lay up treasure in heaven, and not on earth,” said the Son of Man. “I meant they should give their lives away like I did. Needless to say, treasure is hard to come by, especially this year. It’s a bad year for treasure. But  you did send one thing here ahead of you.”

And there, on the Onyx table, was a pair of battery cables.

And God, and the Community of Heaven all began to laugh lovingly, and Brenton Sax understood,  for he was laughing the fullest of all.

 

Athanasius: A Man For All Seasons

St. Athanasius

Athanasius: The True Man for All Seasons

(a paper to be turned in tomorrow..make comments)

By Christopher C. MacDonald  

As impressive as Paul Scofield was in his portrayal of Thomas More in the 1966 film A Man For All Seasons, the man of conscience depicted there cannot really hold a candle to St. Athanasius who was once known as “Athanasius Contra Mundum (Latin for Athanasius Against the World).”[1]

My assertion is that in the middle of our relativistic Postmodern landscape in which we have either commercialized Jesus into a form of “Betterment Gospel” or dispersed him in some form of idealized semi-Gnostic way it is exactly with Athanasian clarity that we need to re-frame – or at least refresh – our Christology in significant ways.

The following are four short snapshots from Athanasius’ brilliantly compact booklet entitled On the Incarnation. Each was selected expressly for its relevance to the current Postmodern situation.

Let us admit from the outset that while Athanasius had enemies it was a smaller pool. He did not have to answer an unending number of critics coming from all sides. Nor did he have to deal with the legacies of centuries old “theologies” and traditions (as he was writing in the Fourth Century.)

Context

Athansius sees the controversy or question over the “Word made flesh” in terms straight out of 1 Corinthians 1:18-23 concerning the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God:

Now, Macarius, true lover of Christ, we must take a step further in the faith of our holy religion, and consider also the Word’s becoming Man and His divine Appearing in our midst. That mystery the Jews traduce, the Greeks deride, but we adore; and your own love and devotion to the Word also will be the greater, because in His Manhood He seems so little worth.[2]

 

Firmly rooted within St. Paul’s rubric which understands an inherent blindness on the part of both Jews and Gentiles to the “mystery” of  Christ’s true dual nature, Athanasius sets out to boldly make the case to both audiences nonetheless. The motive seems to be adoration, devotion and truth-telling.   

1. The Word Incarnate is the Agent of Creation and of Salvation

Athanasius is utterly clear where we are so utterly vague and confused on the utter connection between Creation and Redemption:

“the first fact that you must grasp is this: the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word Who made it in the beginning.”

 

One of the things which is striking in reading Athanasius is how he weaves scripture artfully through his presentation – not proof-texting as we so often do (like hanging a hat on a peg), but rather lacing his presentation with strains of well-chosen passages that are placed almost organically within his argument.

 

He sees the beauty and seamlessness of Christ as the Agent of Creation Who now is also the redemption of that Creation once fallen.

    

2. Human History has Meaning and Corruption is Thwarted.

Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection…You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses; because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honored, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it. Even so is it with the King of all; He has come into our country and dwelt in one body amidst the many, and in consequence the designs of the enemy against mankind have been foiled and the corruption of death, which formerly held them in its power, has simply ceased to be. For the human race would have perished utterly had not the Lord and Savior of all, the Son of God, come among us to put an end to death.[3]

 

When the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) human history had been more than simply “tampered with.” Any talk of a Creator winding up Creation and walking off to let it do its thing was off the table. This was a God willing to gestate in a womb for nine months and spill out of a womb. This was the Word willing to take on sin, the devil and death. What happened in time and space mattered because as T.S. Eliot so eloquently would later write:

Then came, at a predetermined moment, a moment in time and of time,
A moment not out of time, but in time, in what we call history:

transecting, bisecting the world of time, a moment in time but not like a moment of time,

A moment in time but time was made through that moment :

for without the meaning there is no time, and that moment of time gave the meaning.

Then it seemed as if men must proceed from light to light, in the light of the Word,
Through the Passion and Sacrifice saved in spite of their negative being;[4]

 

Biblical faith is one of incarnation not reincarnation. That God came into the world as flesh and blood in time and space means what happens here and now matters. IT also demonstrates the extraordinary love of God.

3. We Die a Different Death Overshadowed by Resurrection

Having set out the dilemma for a fallen and corruptible humanity in chapters 2-3  Athanasius begins to turn to the results of the Word made Flesh’s redemptive rescue operation saying:

We who believe in Christ no longer die, as men died aforetime, in fulfillment of the threat of the law. That condemnation has come to an end; and now that, by the grace of the resurrection, corruption has been banished and done away, we are loosed from our mortal bodies in God’s good time for each, so that we may obtain thereby a better resurrection.[5]

 

This seems a more cavalier attitude than the one we Postmoderns carry with us in our near silence on bodily resurrection as a reality and our avoidance with the rest of culture on mortality. Athanasius, along with the New Testament writers (especially Paul) see the resurrection hope as particularly powerful. Some modern authors do to. I am reminded of sociologist Peter Berger’s comment that “given the resurrection of Jesus “nothing is ultimately tragic.”[6] That can certainly be a game-changer in planning and living out one’s life and faith. What he means is simply that the power of death was sin and that died with Christ as sacrifice and then He was raised up from the dead, “Death used to be strong and terrible, but now, since the sojourn of the Savior and the death and resurrection of His body, it is despised; and obviously it is by the very Christ Who mounted on the cross that it has been destroyed and vanquished finally.” (On the Incarnation, p. 45).

4. The Word Made Flesh leads to Peace Not War-Like Militarism

Athanasius, in his refutation of the Gentiles and his evangelistic appeal, writes something we dearly need to hear today as we attempt to join military might to religious agendas (specifically Christian):

While they were yet idolaters, the Greeks and Barbarians were always at war with each other, and were even cruel to their own kith and kin. Nobody could travel by land or sea at all unless he was armed with swords, because of their irreconcilable quarrels with each other. … as I said before, they were serving idols and offering sacrifices to demons, and for all the superstitious awe that accompanied this idol worship, nothing could wean them from that warlike spirit. But, strange to relate, since they came over to the school of Christ, as men moved with real compunction they have laid aside their murderous cruelty and are war-minded no more. On the contrary, all is peace among them and nothing remains save desire for friendship. (52) Who, then, is He Who has done these things and has united in peace those who hated each other, save the beloved Son of the Father, the common Savior of all, Jesus Christ, Who by His own love underwent all things for our salvation? Even from the beginning, moreover, this peace that He was to administer was foretold, for Scripture says, “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into sickles, and nation shall not take sword against nation, neither shall they learn any more to wage war.”[7]

 

One of the things that set the Gospel a world apart from the idolatrous Heathen states was How Jesus and His Gospel of love lead to peace and a new way. The Kingdom of God and Christ’s Lordship took precedence over former idolatries and one supposes even ethnic ties as the faith went world-wide. We seem to be arming-up and attaching a religious agenda (alibi) to it at exactly the point where Athanasius says Christians were laying down weapons and turning them into plowshares. To him this was evidence of God’s presence in their lives.

 

Athanasius goes on to strengthen the point saying,

 

“The barbarians of the present day are naturally savage in their habits, and as long as they sacrifice to their idols they rage furiously against each other and cannot bear to be a single hour without weapons. But when they hear the teaching of Christ, forthwith they turn from fighting to farming, and instead of arming themselves with swords extend their hands in prayer. In a word, instead of fighting each other, they take up arms against the devil and the demons, and overcome them by their selfcommand and integrity of soul. These facts are proof of the Godhead of the Savior, for He has taught men what they could never learn among the idols. It is also no small exposure of the weakness and nothingness of demons and idols, for it was because they knew their own weakness that the demons were always setting men to fight each other, fearing lest, if they ceased from mutual strife, they would turn to attack the demons themselves.”

 

It’s a point well taken (about keeping us fighting each other) . If we hope to stand out as truly different than an barbaric world which knows only violence, idolatry and fear then we have to act in active faith hope and love. Apparently the believers in Athanasius’ time did just that.  

 

____________________

[1] Wikipedia article on Saint Athanasius, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria.  Cited on 12/8/2015.

[2] Athanasius, On the Incarnation (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei) St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church, Jersey City, NJ. 1999. Available in PDF. p. 4

[3] Athanasius, Ibid., p. 16

[4] Eliot, T.S. T.S. Eliot Collected Poems 1909-1962 “Choruses From the Rock,” (Harcourt Brace & Co., New York, 1963) p. 163.

[5] Athanasius, Ibid., p. 34.

[6] Berger, Peter L. The Precarious Vision. Doubleday & Co., 1961

[7] Athanasius, ibid., p. 82-83.

Exiles and Strangers…They are Us.

Syrian internally displaced people walk in the Atme camp, along the Turkish border in the northwestern Syrian province of Idlib, on March 19, 2013. The conflict in Syria between rebel forces and pro-government troops has killed at least 70,000 people, and forced more than one million Syrians to seek refuge abroad. AFP PHOTO/BULENT KILIC (Photo credit should read BULENT KILIC/AFP/Getty Images)

For much of the last decade I have been trying to figure out what keeps rubbing me the wrong way about Christianity and the politics of power. I have heard all sides that present a reasonable presentation (both Liberal and Conservative) and both have a certain rationale that is consistent once you buy into the a priori assumptions.

Of the two, there is no denying that it is the more “Liberal” view that puts more food, clothing and attends more wounds – and is more aligned with the overwhelming concerns of both the Old and New Testaments – a dominant concern whether you read the Bible as the Word of God or as simple literature.

But then the Liberal agenda has it’s own downfall. I find its zealots just as dogmatic and extremist as those on the Right. Usually it involves eradicating God. Yeah, good luck with that (oh and how “open-minded of you” by the way).*

It’s why I stopped writing about politics altogether six years ago and started serving people face to face.

I like it; they like. The rest of you can go hang flapping your gums and doing absolutley nothing.

This is not writing about politics. This is theology.

I really don’t care about Liberal/Conservative politics at all. Having just spent nearly a year on the streets of West Oakland right in the heart of the actual mess I only really care about getting food, bedding, clothing, medical supplies and fresh water to actual people.

You will humor me if I am a stickler for that.

No with this recent controversy over Syrian refugees coming to the United States and all the posturing and usual partisan war of words I was once again thrown into that uncomfortable place of asking about Christianity and power and the place of the State and authority and faith and the whole dang mess.

Then it came to me – it is so simple. I am a Christian, and as such I am, by definition one of them: a stranger and an exile.

In fact it is what I am to aspire to as my highest achievement.

The author of the New Testament book of Hebrews has a list of what we now call the “heroes of faith” in chapter of eleven. This is the “who’s who” of the Bible – the cream of the crop; the All Star team: Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Samuel, David…the list goes on.

He says of them,

13All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.

St. Augustine would seize on this contrast (and also find it throughout scripture) between the “City of Man” and the “City of God” and expound on it.

My point is simpler: We are them. We are the strangers and exiles here who live by faith.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot live by fear and the exercise of power in response AND then claim to live by faith and love.

You must choose. Let the world choose to live by fear and coercion, but you – if a believer, must not.

And it does take faith  and a gutsy one. I have looked down the barrel of a gun inches from my nose and I have gone (recently) toe to toe with drug lords in West Oakland and told them that my camp was off limits.

Two weeks later one of them came to me to barter a peace deal with a guy he could not handle.

I am not talking passivity, nor turning any kind of blind eye.

But those people fleeing Syria are US…exiles and strangers.

Do you see yourself – as a Christian as an exile and stranger looking for another country which is truly your home; or are you really trying to make this your final destination with some mild hope of some ethereal afterlife?

We have had our Hollywood fill of these ridiculous End Times movies and Tim LaHaye’s long-term book deal telling us the world can end at any moment (how’s that?) – but really Jesus spelled out the real end where He separates the sheep from the goats in Matthew 25:31-46.

31“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.32“All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

34“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them,you did it to Me.’

41“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44“Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45“Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

No political, ethnic or other criteria are imposed. In fact the word “stranger” is deliberate.

I think it is telling that most every healthy churches I have attended have had vibrant ministries to the poor and a great concern for them. My current church cannot yet even sustain its own operating budget yet (it is barely a year old) – yet was gladly a ready resource for me in the Tent City when I was there laboring and has continued to look after the guys and maintain a relationship.

I will no longer have an irritation when it comes to the question of Christianity and political power. I get it. Our Political allegiance is to the Kingdom of God, our manifesto is the Sermon on the Mount. Anything else is some form of idolatry plain and simple. It may have some pragmatic value and be worthwhile in many ways. Good – but let’s stop venerating it for that is idolatrous – especially if the fuel of that veneration is fear and anger.

___________

Note: I was watching a video recently sent to me by a friend with four famous atheists (of which I only knew Dawkins and Hitchens) and they were speaking about the fire they had drawn for their views from religious people.

This made me think of the reverse and how Christians complain of “persecution” in this country. I hardly know what they are talking about having been one for over 40 years. Sure, I have been disliked, criticized – possibly misjudged by people due to my faith, but one can hardly call this “persecution.”

Christians in America are utter wimps. And atheists, by and large are too. In academia, the atheist has the upper hand most of the time and it is up to the Christian to simply make a better case – to work harder. I know this well – I am pursuing an M.A. in Berkeley where the “hermeneutic of suspicion is King, er…Queen.”

Criticism or being disliked or misjudged is hardly persecution. More often than not it is bore out of ignorance from people whose notion of Christianity stopped at about Jr. High (if they are my age) when they were given the option of attending church or not. Or there is simply an utter vacuum and they know as much about it as they do Lacrosse.

Now if you were a Lacrose player and someone started criticizing you for playing  sport that employed ponies would you get all bunched up about that or have a good laugh?