Sacred/Secular and Other False Dichotomies

Some older posts ...

Maybe you've seen this video or the others in the series. These parodies of the Mac/PC commercials pit a stereotypical conservative Evangelical-ish Christian in suit and tie against a jeans/t-shirt/hoodie clad "Christ-follower". Obviously one is cool and one isn't. Now, I am sensitive to insulting people who aren't "cool" - and the video series does bug me a bit in that regard. However, the point I want to cull from this video is important - at least in my opinion.



Here's the deal. I think it is our tendency to create false dichotomies. We make two piles when there could be many. We limit ourselves to two choices, when there may be...oh...at least three.

But what troubles me is when we pull this tendency into the arena of faith and religion - specifically, the sacred/secular dichotomy. Who draws the lines? Do we have to draw lines? I have a friend, Jewish by birth and culture, who had a spiritual awakening sitting in his car listening to U2 in his high school's parking lot. My husband found God on a cliff overlooking the Pacific. My life as a Christ-follower has been shaped by Pulp Fiction and Crash - two movies that might not pass muster in many a "sacred throng".

I am sure that MY life has been most influenced by the Bible and the discourse I've been a part of in church communities and relationships with other Christians. But what I don't buy into this idea that God is restricted to "sacred" media. I can't say "everything is sacred" - I have a hard time finding anything uplifting in pornography for example. But I'm leaning hard toward beauty - whether art, music, or my sons large yet perfectly proportioned four year old hands - as an echo of divine wonderment. Wouldn't our lives be richer if we looked for Truth and Love in every nook and cranny of existence?

Speaking of False Dichotomies...Condemn/Condone

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Speaking of False Dichotomies...Condemn/Condone

Do ya'll remember about 10 years or so ago when Ellen Degeneres came out? (seems like a different world then, huh?) Well, I remember at the time being absolutely steamed by a comment that Jerry Falwell made, calling her "Ellen Degenerate". I seriously wanted to write her an apology and him a plea to SHUT UP. But I digress.

The point, and I do have one, is this - I recently found an article on the web which was written shortly after the Degeneres/Falwell thing. It asked this -"Would Jesus condemn or condone Ellen Degeneres?" Kudos, by the way, to the author. His answer was "neither - Jesus would LOVE her".

Why is it that we force ourselves into this categorical response? Are we for or against? In particular, as Christians, do we condemn or condone? Will we speak out against the evil or say nothing, which is just another way of saying it ain't evil at all...or so it is interpreted.

What I love about Jesus is that he was uber-clever. He always knew how to find the third way. I wish I were so creative. Since I'm not, I guess I'll default to the position of love. What can it hurt? Am I called to point out sin or love my neighbor? I think it is far easier to point out sin, to separate myself from really having to relate to anyone who is "misbehaving". I think I've done that a lot in my life.

When I look at the Gospels, I see Jesus relating to sinners who are transformed by his love and willingness to be a part of their lives where they live. It is the religious who are most often chastised for their sinfulness. What would happen if we made it our mission to truly love and left the condemning and condoning out of the equation? Do you think our love would draw anyone toward God, toward wholeness, toward freedom?

If we are going to do God's will here on earth as it is in heaven, we'd better start loving with reckless abandon. When is the last time you expressed love to someone whose behavior you would never condone?

God at Work in Russian Revolution?

Here's another post from the blog for our former congregation, reverb. I just want to have some of the record of my thoughts on the journey here for my new friends....

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

a people's tragedy

My husband reads books. I read them too, of course. But I read books. He reads BOOKS. You know, the big thick history books about English kings and Russia. He reads them over and again until the binding breaks and chunks fall out like first graders' teeth.

One of those chunks has been migrating around our house lately, moving from kitchen table to bathroom, bedroom to living room floor. Pages 363 through 452, if you care.

"Listen to this," Ray called from the other room. He began to read.

"There was also a new stress on the workers' own sense of dignity...and they were no longer willing to be treated with any disrespect by either foremen or managers...Domestic servants marched to demand that they should be addressed with the formal 'you', as opposed to the familiar 'you', previously used to address the serfs. Yardmen demanded that their degrading title should now be changed to 'house director'. Women workers demanded equal pay to men, an end to 'degrading body searches', fully paid maternity leave and the abolition of child labour. As the workers saw it, these were basic issues of morality...Many workers spoke of founding a 'new moral life', based on law and individual rights, in which there would be no more drunkenness, swearing, gambling or wife-beating."

"Do you get it?" He asked. "I know exactly what you're thinking. I got it in about the second sentence." (Married people are like that sometimes) "Sounds a lot like the Kingdom, huh?"

I find it interesting that God's kingdom rises up in unlikely places at times. That was Russia in 1917 - around the time Americans were fighting for suffrage and prohibition. About the time that our denomination was gaining legs. Here's my question. Does God's kingdom rely on religious people to cause it to happen or could it possibly move at Divine impulse through means the religious do not sanction or call their own?

* the painting is titled "Revolution" by Marc Chagall

Where are the Republicans?

I spent an hour or so watching some of the Brown & Black Forum from Des Moines - a presidential candidate forum focusing on minority issues. Seven of the eight Democratic candidates were there. NO REPUBLICANS. All were invited.

I don't get it. Why would you decline an opportunity to discuss minority issues on a national stage? The explanation given by the moderator was that the Republican party thinks they do not have any chance of winning the racial/ethnic minority vote in Iowa, so they didn't go.

There it is. It is about winning, not about public discourse. Not about saying to Iowa minorities, "you matter - your concerns matter - your burdens are my burdens - minority issues are issues we all must face together as one country, black, white, brown, and any shade in between".

I want a political leader who cares about all Americans, not just the wealthy whites. Don't tell me any of the Republican leaders truly cares - they weren't there.

Namaste reruns

* Last year I used to blog about deep things - this was one post from my previous blog - I think I'll snatch some of those posts and put them up here...sorry if it's a repeat for some of you friends.

OK, so if you read my profile or spend any time with me, you'll know I'm a LOST geek. (And thanks to Donald Miller, I am now a shameless TV watcher!) So last week's episode had a young Benry arriving on the island with his dad, Roger Workman. Ah, yes - we see Benry is a liar. He was NOT born on the island...wait, let me get back to my point...As they walked up the pier to the beach, they were greeted with the word "Namaste". "Hmm," thought I to my self, "what does that mean? Have I heard that before?"

And then today, in a serendipitous moment, as I sat waiting for Ray to arrive for lunch at Exotic India I notice a small banner on the wall behind the cash register - "Namaste - the divine greeting...Namaste" (I couldn't read it all because I'm in need of an upgrade on my current vision prescription...) There it was in my real life - my LOST world colliding with my Iowa City world!

Being curious, I went to the definitive source of all knowledge - Wikipedia - and found this -

"The gesture used when bowing in Namaste or Gassho is the bringing of both hands together, palms touching, in front of the person -- usually at the chest, or a higher level such as below the chin, below the nose, or above the head.

This gesture is a mudra; a well-recognized symbolic hand position in eastern religions. One hand represents the higher, spiritual nature, while the other represents the worldly self. By combining the two, the person making the gesture is attempting to rise above their differences with others, and connect themself [sic] to the person they bow to. The bow is a symbolic bow of love and respect.

Particularly in Hinduism, when one worships or bows in reverence, the symbolism of the two palms touching is of great significance. It is the joining together of two extremities -- the feet of the Divine, with the head of the devotee. The right palm denotes the feet of the Divine and the left palm denotes the head of the devotee. The Divine feet constitute the ultimate solace for all sorrows -- this is a time-honoured thought that runs through the entire religious ethos."

A month or so ago, I listened to a podcast called "Finding Our God in the Other" by Samir Selmanovic. One of his points was that as Christians we arrogantly presume that God is at work only through "us" "His people" "the Church". Our idolatrous ownership of God and the work of God's Spirit is confronted when, among other questions, Samir asks something like this "If God can speak to us through 'The Matrix' then why not through Hinduism or Islam?"

I have to admit - His question first encounters my fundamentalist Christian layer of "we have the truth". I'm a bit uncomfortable with his question, but more uncomfortable with my defensive reaction to it. For so many years, I have held to a narrow understanding that other religions are false and contain no truth - their tenets are in opposition to Christian belief - they mislead and are man's inventions or even worse, lies of Satan.

But, it is exactly this kind of belief that has made me feel incompetent to genuinely engage in conversation about spiritual matters with people who are not Christians but who are spiritual. You have those people in your life, don't you? They are the people who in many ways make the bumper sticker "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" seem like a lame excuse for Christians to be selfish, judgmental, abusive, arrogant..blah, blah, blah... because as "non-Christians" (noun) who are loving, gracious, peaceful and forgiving (yet imperfect and not forgiven?) they seem more Christian (adjective).

That was an awkward sentence - sorry. But I hope you understand. Right there, staring me in the face (as I look in the mirror!) is a "born-again Christian" who looks and sounds little like Jesus and right beside, a Hindu/Pagan/spiritual person who looks and sounds a lot like Jesus. How do I make sense of this?

Somewhere I've had to hold onto my "exclusive truth" belief, thinking it represents Christian orthodoxy. But somewhere it also has felt shabby, vulnerable, a thin tissue paper belief - susceptible to being easily poked through.

When I read about "Namaste" (admittedly a very superficial explanation in Wikipedia - hardly a worthy source!) I am struck by the beauty of it. Something rings true in it for me. Honoring one another deeply - image bearers of the divine, temples of the Holy Spirit.

Too often my Christian world view has reduced people into us/them, lost/saved, sinners/Christians. Too often that world view has left me feeling not human in a way - disconnected from people who aren't like me in belief. I admit this with a bit of a blush at first. But the blush wanes and I'm left admitting this with a sorrowful, repentant heart.

I who want to love others, who preach about loving others - I am afraid of others. What am I afraid of? Afraid of being out thought? Afraid that their lives make more sense, hold more water, are more solid than mine? Afraid that if we start to talk, I will really have to wrestle with a lot of holes poked in my shabby tissue paper dogmatic religion?

I want to be fearless when it comes to poking holes in my religion. Maybe ripping down some of my beliefs will get me closer to Jesus. I want to learn to love as Jesus loved. Somehow "Namaste" teaches me to do that - to love humbly, openly, and connected to others - not above them - one of the humans who get it wrong, but want to get it right - one who needs divine solace, comfort, forgiveness, hope - needs Divine Love in me and needs to be bathed in and transformed by Divine Love.

PS - I know that I am prone to making connections via superficial generalizations (a blessing and a curse). I admit I haven't read a lot about Hinduism or this element of it. I suspect that both Hindus (possibly) and Christians (probably) might point out distinctions that make the beliefs contradictory - places where I'm overlooking the real meaning, etc. But does that mean the superficial parallels are completely useless? I don't think so...but this is fodder for another post, right?

* Speaking of superficial parallels..."the worlds largest praying hands" pictured here stand at the entry of Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I think I'm going to have to explore the universality of prayer postures and gestures. (more fodder...another post)

And I was taught that good little Christians folded their hands for prayer so they wouldn't be tempted to poke the other kids in the back of the neck...hmm...I think I may have to go with the Hindus on this one!

A Political Confession

So, I've never really been much for politics. But I've found someone I really believe in. Primarily, I believe in Barack because he has a long history of doing the right things for the right reasons. If you don't know about him, please check him out and consider who he is and how he has lived out his values as a community activist and political leader.

I just started reading "The Soul of Politics" by Jim Wallis. This 13 year old book calls for leadership that gets past partisan interests, political power plays, and pandering to special interest groups. I couldn't help but think of Barack - a man who is leading from his belief in the good that comes only from a political system which is built on values and not dollars.

Recently stats were released that showed the amount of PAC money each candidate had received - Barack Obama has taken $25. (Hillary Clinton, on the other hand has taken over $250,000.) In an age where candidates will do anything to get elected, it seems, (almost anything is probably more fair) it is heartening to see a presidential candidate who will not sell out in order to get the seat of power.

I gotta get to bed.

yippee ki-yi-yeah

Tonight was the Briarcliff Fall Party. Titus was super cute in his cowboy outfit. There were lots of other kindergarten boys & girls there who had loads of fun running around the gym.

Just in time for Halloween, Titus has decided that he is allergic to candy. I suppose this better for his health, but it means that Mom & Dad now have carte blanc to raid the stash for chocolate.

It is past my bed time by an hour. Good night.