"Sheilaism" vs. Evangelism
I was brought up in the Episcopal denomination of the Christian Church. During my formative years, this particular denomination seemed to occupy a place of balance between Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism -- a place defined as much by theological reason as by tradition or fundamentalist ideologies. Indeed, the long-accepted metaphor for the structure of the Episcopal Church is that of the "three-legged stool," illustrating the equal necessities of Reason, Scripture, and Tradition to stand.
The point of all that preamble is to establish that my "home church" was always a place I perceived to be a refuge for those who'd been disenfranchised either by the rigid doctrines and preponderance of ritual in the Roman Church or by the rigid dogma and lack of ritual coherence in the more Protestant branches of Christianity. A haven, if you will, for those folks who were too intellectually and spiritually savvy to subscribe to untenable, literalistic interpretations of Scripture on the one hand, yet who embraced the Protestant notion of establishing and maintaining a personal relationship with Jesus Christ without the need for an institutional intermediary on the other, with a nice mixture of formal ritual (especially for "high holy days") and informal, contemporary worship and fellowship. The Episcopal denomination has consequently been, as an institution, a bit more comfortable with theological or doctrinal "uncertainty" than some other denominations. By "uncertainty," I mean essentially "room for individual interpretation," within the contexts of Scripture and the Tradition of the Church.
Given that, when I was growing up it was rare, indeed, to hear of "Episcopalian evangelism." As Eddie Izzard brilliantly pointed out in his satirical observations regarding the Church of England, the Inquisition would never have worked in such a context. But in recent years, social and political ... challenges ... have sparked some reactions and consequent changes within the denomination that would have seemed impossible to me a decade ago.
For example, a few years ago, there was an article in the monthly newsletter from my local church which exhorted us, as members of the Church, to be on guard against "Sheilaism." Now, the article defined Sheilaism using a quoted passage from the Very Rev. Peter Cook, who had commented on the so-called phenomenon of Sheilaism in an editorial piece tracing the "failures" which the Rev. Cook sees as having contributed to the current state of the Church (and one can only assume that he does not feel the current state of the Church to be especially positive). Here is the quoted passage:
"Here's how Sheilaism goes: Church beliefs or doctrines are fine, as long as they agree with my own opinion. The bible [sic] is fine, as long as it says what I want to hear, or what relates to me. I believe in God, as long as he's [sic] kind, loving, and supportive, not if he [sic] is judgmental or what I consider vindictive. The only moral ethic we need from the Bible is that we love and are kind to our neighbor; that, and perhaps a list of "social justice" issues to provide an agenda for church programs or church mission. You see, life changes, culture changes, cultural needs change. What the Old Testament or St. Paul says was immoral in their day need not be immoral today." (from The Living Church, 23)
Now, there are several significant problems with that passage. The first and most glaring is that it is a textbook example of the "straw man" fallacy -- a fallacy of logic which involves setting up a fictitious version of an opposing argument in order to tear down that fictitious argument, thus making one's own argument seem stronger than it actually is. It's a fallacy because it allows the writer to dodge the *actual* argument of his opponent.
Folks, the term "Sheilaism" was first coined in the context of a book by communitarian sociologist Robert Bellah, entitled Habits of the Heart: Individualism in American Life, in which Bellah explores the ways in which religion both contributes to and detracts from America's common good. What Sheila (Larson, a woman interviewed by Bellah for his book) actually says of her own religious experience is this:
"I believe in God. I'm not a religious fanatic. I can't remember the last time I went to church, but my faith has carried me a long way. It's Sheilaism. Just my own little voice."
Obviously, that's a far cry from what the Very Rev. Peter Cook *claims* that Sheilaism is. Of course, I and my fellow Christians can find just grounds for criticizing Sheila's actual statement, but it takes an awfully vivid imagination to leap from what she's saying to the "I like the Bible as long as it agrees with my personal whims" picture painted by Rev. Cook. The good reverend is attempting to criticize an "-ism" that he himself seems to have created out of whole cloth.
However, there are other, even more profound problems with Rev. Cook's comments that thoughtful Christians ought to notice. First and foremost is the disdainful tone with which he dismisses the fundamental Biblical moral ethic that we should "love and [be] kind to our neighbor..." Rev. Cook claims that, if we accept Sheilaism (as he defines it), then that is the only moral ethic we need to take from Scripture.
I cannot help but wonder, what other moral ethic does Christ Jesus charge us with? Does our Lord not explicitly tell us that the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves is second only to that which calls us to love God? Christ tells us plainly that the first and greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, all our mind, and all our soul; the second is "like unto it," and instructs us to love our neighbors as ourselves. And then Christ goes on to tell us that all other commandments -- indeed, the entirety of the Hebrew Law and Prophets -- rest on these two injunctions. Thus, if one adheres fully to these two commandments, he or she will inevitably live in accord with every other commandment, Divine Law, and moral ethic sanctioned in the Bible. Yet the Rev. Cook dismisses the second of those commandments as if it's not really worth considering.
And he employs the same disdainful, dismissive tone when he mentions that those who practice so-called "Sheilaism" might also draw from the Bible a "list of 'social justice' issues" with which to guide individual or corporate (i.e., church) activity. That is disturbing as well, given the portion of His earthly ministry which Christ devoted to such trivial "social justice" issues as feeding the hungry, tending the sick, and ministering to prisoners, outcasts, lepers, tax collectors, etc. Indeed, one could make a very compelling argument that, unless one devotes oneself to social justice, one is quite likely missing the point of Jesus's Gospel and ministry. Yet the Rev. Cook dismisses the very concept of social justice as if it is negligible, as if it is at best irrelevant to Christianity ... as if it's a bad thing.
Rev. Cook also casually dismisses the notion that cultures -- and thus, cultural needs and cultural definitions of concepts like "morality" and "immorality" -- have changed over time. Let me assure you, cultures do indeed change over time, and those changes include the definitions of culturally-determined values such as what is socially/morally acceptable behavior and what isn't. Anyone who's taken Anthropology 101 can confirm that fact.
In the Hebrew culture that eventually produced the texts of the Old Testament, a man was morally obligated to marry his brother's widow. Such a practice would hardly be seen as acceptable, much less "moral," in our society today. Likewise, the Old Testament is riddled with examples of polygamy, the use of concubines, the owning of slaves, assassination, etc., practices which are both illegal and generally considered to be immoral by our current societal standards. One must wonder if the Rev. Cook is picking and choosing which bits of Biblical culture should be preserved and which should be "allowed" to change...
My point there is not to suggest -- as the straw-man version of Sheilaism would, according to Rev. Cook -- that the defined morality of the Old Testament (or of St. Paul's epistles) should be tossed aside by the modern, "educated" Christian. Not remotely! My point is that if the modern Christian wants to understand what these texts are actually saying about morality, then one must study the texts themselves within the cultural contexts in which they were composed. Once cannot simply take "the morality of the Old Testament" and try to stamp it onto modern American (or any other) culture -- not without doing some cultural translating, first.
Now, why should that be? Is God's Word not eternal and unchanging? Of course it is! However, our human ability to understand God's Word can -- and does -- change all the time (hopefully for the better!). The Bible gives extensive evidence of that fact. There is but One Truth; however, it is revealed in different ways and to different degrees at different times and to different peoples. The Truth of God never changes, but the human capacity to perceive Truth definitely does. Thus, it is absolutely deadly, in a spiritual sense, to lock oneself into a one-sided, literalistic (i.e., fundamentalist) interpretation of morality. Doing so severely restricts the possibility of spiritual growth.
And that is a concept that traditionally makes fundamentalists pretty uncomfortable, because it requires both the Church and the individual to have the courage to say "I do not know, with absolute certainty; this is what I believe to be the Truth right now, but my understanding can certainly change down the road." The intelligent reader will no doubt see the vast difference between that attitude, and the straw-man version, which would say "Well, since I can't know for *certain*, I guess anything goes! Hey, it's all 'moral,' right?" But fundamentalists often have trouble seeing the distinction between those two.
And now there are voices within the Episcopal Church, the refuge for those who would leave behind such rigid and short-sighted misinterpretations of Scripture and theology, who are making it difficult even for non-fundamentalists to hold that distinction clearly in mind. And that is a sad thing, indeed. For it is fundamentalist attitudes, more than anything else, which have the effect of insulting intelligent and spiritually perceptive individuals out of the Church, much to the detriment of the Church itself.
But that is actually a microcosm of the larger-scale troubles that mainstream Christianity is currently facing. Rapid social change (upheaval, really) tends to generate a backlash in the form of the resurgence of fundamentalism, as people struggle to find some bit of surety to latch onto in the context of an unpredictable present (to say nothing of a less predictable future). However, that is the last thing that Christianity as an organized faith needs to give in to just now.
Indeed, the Church needs to redefine its current circumstance, not as a time of unsettling social upheaval, but as a time of unprecedented opportunity to redress those stances and viewpoints which are not tenable, to revise the voice through which it seeks to speak to humanity, to dig in and perceive a greater portion of God's unchanging Truth than has previously been possible, not by rejecting changes outright, but by earnestly seeking to perceive the Hand of God within the constant change that defines our human existence.
So, that's what I think. Let me know what you think!
Peace,
Chris
Friday, December 2, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Fundamentalist Literalists and Pseudo-Intellectual Atheists Are Actually the Same Species!
Some years ago, I came across a blog entitled "The End of Christianity." Being a Christian myself, I supposed I should check it out.
Imagine my disappointment to discover that this blog, rather than being an astute socio-political analysis of development and likely future of Christendom, in general, and the institution of the Church Proper, in particular, was merely the ranting of a self-righteous atheist who apparently believes that biological science ~ specifically, the study of evolution ~ somehow "invalidates" the entirety of Christian Scripture. I actually laughed out loud, until I saw that not only was this fellow serious, but that there were some thousands of comments from readers who actually bought into his glaringly flawed "logic." My reaction turned from amusement to deep and profound disappointment at the mass-stupidity being displayed.
But I read further, and I discovered that there were also thousands of comments from self-proclaimed "Christians" (yes, I realize the irony of the fact that I fall into that category, too... more on that in a moment) who took the original blogger's stupidity regarding Scripture and heartily returned the favor in regard to science. In other words, these folks tried to claim that "there is no evidence to support evolution" (a false assertion of such magnitude that I lack the hyperbole to describe it accurately) and that "to be a Christian is to take every word in the Bible literally" (a falsehood of equal magnitude to the previous one).
So I posted a few replies and comments of my own, in an attempt at least to introduce some modicum of sanity to the discussion, but I soon realized that conversation was too far gone for me to make much difference. But I did come away from the experience with what I believe to be a valuable bit of insight, one I hope that you might find interesting, as well.
In order to share that insight with you, let me begin by presenting a pair of observations that I first noticed in that blog discussion years ago, and which I have since seen repeated many, many times in subsequent discussions of the same topic ~ observations which tend, I think, to be completely overlooked by many of the who participate most passionately in such conversations.
Observation 1: Many of my fellow Christians claim (either overtly, or tacitly by way of their own interpretations) that the only valid way to read Holy Scripture is literally. In other words, they believe that the words of the Bible must be taken at face value, and that any other way of deriving meaning from the text (such as interpreting Scripture symbolically or allegorically, for example, or examining the historical and/or cultural context in which a particular piece of Scripture was written) is not only invalid, but constitutes a twisting or perverting of God's Word. It's not that folks in this camp reject interpretations of Scripture that differ from their own; rather, these folks deny that they themselves are even interpreting Scripture in the first place ~ instead, they claim that the meaning is clear on the surface of the text.
Of course, when I encounter brothers or sisters in Christ who hold this view, I'm generally disappointed to find out that they typically are not fluent in ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek, the languages in which the texts of Holy Scripture were originally recorded ~ so I end up wondering how, indeed, they manage to take such texts "at face value," having to read them in translation as they do ... but that is beside the point, at the moment.
The point is that for my fellow Christians to claim, as some surely do, that the only conceivable way to interpret Scripture is literally (i.e., superficially, treating the sacred text as if it is, itself, a scientific textbook or a literal history) is an atrocity. To limit Scripture in that way is to heap contempt upon the millions of Christians, past and present, who have dedicated (and in many cases given) their lives to the service of the sublime, Divine Truths which Scripture preserves in symbol, parable, and allegory ~ not to mention heaping contempt upon the remarkable sages who found ways to represent, in the frail and inadequate medium of human language, the keys that allow us, as mere human beings, to enter into the transformative contemplation of God's ineffable Mysteries. "Literalists" who make this claim do unimaginable damage to the soul of Christianity, in essence raping the Divine teachings, degrading them and reducing them to profane absurdities.
Observation 2: There are some atheists who not only seem to think that modern sciences, such as geology, evolutionary biology, astronomy, etc., have "disproven" Scripture, but who also seem to take a great deal of pride in the belief that "science is on their side," so to speak, justifying their rejection of spirituality in general and Christianity in particular.
Now, those self-righteous atheists who mistakenly think, as some surely do, that, as one banner advertisement once claimed, "the major claims of Christianity are demonstrably false" and that modern geological and biological science in any way "disproves" the Bible or Christianity are apparently so galactically stupid that they not only lack any understanding of the major claims of Christianity or of the nature of the Bible, but they also fail to understand the nature of the modern science which they purport to admire in the first place.
These folks have no clue what spiritual texts are or how they work whatsoever, so they treat such texts as if they were intended to be scientific manuals or textbooks from a history class, such as we would teach in our modern culture. They have no concept of abstraction, symbol, or allegory, and they have zero understanding whatever of anything resembling a coherent philosophy. They have bought into the demonstrably false assumption that only those things which are tangible to the five senses are "real," and based on that false presumption they misinterpret Scripture, and then they proudly crow about how erroneous their own misinterpretations (which they mistake for actual Scripture) are.
More importantly, they abuse and pervert the scientific method in the process. The scientific method, the foundation of empirical investigation, is unsurpassed when it comes to examining the tangible, physical world. But it is only useful because of its rigid limitations. And one of those limitations is that only things which can be observed and/or measured tangibly are subject to scientific investigation. One cannot do better than the scientific method when it comes to discovering facts. But science is ~ by its own definition ~ useless when it comes to discovering truth. Abstractions, philosophies, theologies, etc. ~ these are all, by definition, beyond the purview of science.
And here is the key insight from these two observations: both parties, the fundamentalist/literalist Christians AND the self-righteous, materialistic atheists, are making the exact same mistake: they are taking Scripture literally, exclusively literally. Thus, both parties are galactically wrong, and for precisely the same reason. Yet, they remain at each other's throats, each thoroughly convinced of the other's error and of their own rectitude. Unbelievable.
It seems to me that both these "perspectives," if they can be called that, are a gross disservice to the viewpoints which they claim to represent:
Good scientists, for example, are well aware that empirical science by definition does not ~ CANNOT ~ address any question which cannot be tested by empirical (i.e., tangible, material) means. Thus, the question of whether or not god/a god/gods exist(s), for example, is clearly beyond the scope of science; science does not even ask that question, since there's no material way to test it. That question must perforce take us to the realm of philosophy.
Likewise, intelligent, educated Christians are acutely aware of the difference between the allegorical creation story in Genesis and the sciences of geology and biology. The latter concern themselves with facts; the former, with Truth.
And that last distinction may be the most important one, the one that's most often overlooked in our modern, western culture: that facts and Truth are not the same thing.
I welcome your comments, folks ~ let's get our own, and hopefully more enlightened, discussion going here, if we can.
Peace,
Chris
Imagine my disappointment to discover that this blog, rather than being an astute socio-political analysis of development and likely future of Christendom, in general, and the institution of the Church Proper, in particular, was merely the ranting of a self-righteous atheist who apparently believes that biological science ~ specifically, the study of evolution ~ somehow "invalidates" the entirety of Christian Scripture. I actually laughed out loud, until I saw that not only was this fellow serious, but that there were some thousands of comments from readers who actually bought into his glaringly flawed "logic." My reaction turned from amusement to deep and profound disappointment at the mass-stupidity being displayed.
But I read further, and I discovered that there were also thousands of comments from self-proclaimed "Christians" (yes, I realize the irony of the fact that I fall into that category, too... more on that in a moment) who took the original blogger's stupidity regarding Scripture and heartily returned the favor in regard to science. In other words, these folks tried to claim that "there is no evidence to support evolution" (a false assertion of such magnitude that I lack the hyperbole to describe it accurately) and that "to be a Christian is to take every word in the Bible literally" (a falsehood of equal magnitude to the previous one).
So I posted a few replies and comments of my own, in an attempt at least to introduce some modicum of sanity to the discussion, but I soon realized that conversation was too far gone for me to make much difference. But I did come away from the experience with what I believe to be a valuable bit of insight, one I hope that you might find interesting, as well.
In order to share that insight with you, let me begin by presenting a pair of observations that I first noticed in that blog discussion years ago, and which I have since seen repeated many, many times in subsequent discussions of the same topic ~ observations which tend, I think, to be completely overlooked by many of the who participate most passionately in such conversations.
Observation 1: Many of my fellow Christians claim (either overtly, or tacitly by way of their own interpretations) that the only valid way to read Holy Scripture is literally. In other words, they believe that the words of the Bible must be taken at face value, and that any other way of deriving meaning from the text (such as interpreting Scripture symbolically or allegorically, for example, or examining the historical and/or cultural context in which a particular piece of Scripture was written) is not only invalid, but constitutes a twisting or perverting of God's Word. It's not that folks in this camp reject interpretations of Scripture that differ from their own; rather, these folks deny that they themselves are even interpreting Scripture in the first place ~ instead, they claim that the meaning is clear on the surface of the text.
Of course, when I encounter brothers or sisters in Christ who hold this view, I'm generally disappointed to find out that they typically are not fluent in ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek, the languages in which the texts of Holy Scripture were originally recorded ~ so I end up wondering how, indeed, they manage to take such texts "at face value," having to read them in translation as they do ... but that is beside the point, at the moment.
The point is that for my fellow Christians to claim, as some surely do, that the only conceivable way to interpret Scripture is literally (i.e., superficially, treating the sacred text as if it is, itself, a scientific textbook or a literal history) is an atrocity. To limit Scripture in that way is to heap contempt upon the millions of Christians, past and present, who have dedicated (and in many cases given) their lives to the service of the sublime, Divine Truths which Scripture preserves in symbol, parable, and allegory ~ not to mention heaping contempt upon the remarkable sages who found ways to represent, in the frail and inadequate medium of human language, the keys that allow us, as mere human beings, to enter into the transformative contemplation of God's ineffable Mysteries. "Literalists" who make this claim do unimaginable damage to the soul of Christianity, in essence raping the Divine teachings, degrading them and reducing them to profane absurdities.
Observation 2: There are some atheists who not only seem to think that modern sciences, such as geology, evolutionary biology, astronomy, etc., have "disproven" Scripture, but who also seem to take a great deal of pride in the belief that "science is on their side," so to speak, justifying their rejection of spirituality in general and Christianity in particular.
Now, those self-righteous atheists who mistakenly think, as some surely do, that, as one banner advertisement once claimed, "the major claims of Christianity are demonstrably false" and that modern geological and biological science in any way "disproves" the Bible or Christianity are apparently so galactically stupid that they not only lack any understanding of the major claims of Christianity or of the nature of the Bible, but they also fail to understand the nature of the modern science which they purport to admire in the first place.
These folks have no clue what spiritual texts are or how they work whatsoever, so they treat such texts as if they were intended to be scientific manuals or textbooks from a history class, such as we would teach in our modern culture. They have no concept of abstraction, symbol, or allegory, and they have zero understanding whatever of anything resembling a coherent philosophy. They have bought into the demonstrably false assumption that only those things which are tangible to the five senses are "real," and based on that false presumption they misinterpret Scripture, and then they proudly crow about how erroneous their own misinterpretations (which they mistake for actual Scripture) are.
More importantly, they abuse and pervert the scientific method in the process. The scientific method, the foundation of empirical investigation, is unsurpassed when it comes to examining the tangible, physical world. But it is only useful because of its rigid limitations. And one of those limitations is that only things which can be observed and/or measured tangibly are subject to scientific investigation. One cannot do better than the scientific method when it comes to discovering facts. But science is ~ by its own definition ~ useless when it comes to discovering truth. Abstractions, philosophies, theologies, etc. ~ these are all, by definition, beyond the purview of science.
And here is the key insight from these two observations: both parties, the fundamentalist/literalist Christians AND the self-righteous, materialistic atheists, are making the exact same mistake: they are taking Scripture literally, exclusively literally. Thus, both parties are galactically wrong, and for precisely the same reason. Yet, they remain at each other's throats, each thoroughly convinced of the other's error and of their own rectitude. Unbelievable.
It seems to me that both these "perspectives," if they can be called that, are a gross disservice to the viewpoints which they claim to represent:
Good scientists, for example, are well aware that empirical science by definition does not ~ CANNOT ~ address any question which cannot be tested by empirical (i.e., tangible, material) means. Thus, the question of whether or not god/a god/gods exist(s), for example, is clearly beyond the scope of science; science does not even ask that question, since there's no material way to test it. That question must perforce take us to the realm of philosophy.
Likewise, intelligent, educated Christians are acutely aware of the difference between the allegorical creation story in Genesis and the sciences of geology and biology. The latter concern themselves with facts; the former, with Truth.
And that last distinction may be the most important one, the one that's most often overlooked in our modern, western culture: that facts and Truth are not the same thing.
I welcome your comments, folks ~ let's get our own, and hopefully more enlightened, discussion going here, if we can.
Peace,
Chris
Monday, October 3, 2011
Initiations & Introductions!
The past few years for me have been full of initiations of one kind or another; I thought it fitting that my first blog entry should reflect upon some of the recent initiations I've experienced, as well as touching on the nature of initiation itself...
The more linguistically-minded of you out there no doubt tend to think of "first-ness" when you hear the word "initiation," given the etymology involved. And as I mentioned above, this has been a time of "firsts" for me: In the past four years I have gotten married; I began the process of recording and rough-mixing the raw tracks for my first full-length album of original music; I taught my first online classes; I became a father; I passed through the first stage of the discernment process in the Episcopal Church, in hopes of becoming a priest; and last but certainly not least, I established a presence on the Internet.
Obviously, some of these firsts are more life-altering than others. Yet, they all share the quality of beginning, of taking a preliminary step the consequences of which will expand exponentially with each further step. Each step in a journey may thus be viewed as an act of creation, if one keeps in mind the cumulative impact of each such step. Seen in this light, a first step (an initiatory step) takes on special significance as the beginning point of a new creation.
And what is it that's being created? Well, not to be too melodramatic, but LIFE! At this point, having passed through so many firsts, there's no telling whose life I'll be living tomorrow, to say nothing of next week/month/year! And I have to tell you, that is an exciting feeling--the realization that I am crafting an entirely new life with each decision that I've made and that I'm making.
Which leads to the more traditional implication of the word initiation: the ending of an old way of life and the entering into of a whole new way of living and being. In the "olden days," such life-transitions were inevitably marked by religious ritual and ceremony combined with social acknowledgement (and usually celebration). Much of that sort of thing has faded from the forefront of Western culture, but those of you who are married know that marriage is *definitely* a good example of just the sort of initiation I'm talking about! It's only been a little over four years for me, and I can already see plainly that Christopher-the-Husband is a rather different man that Christopher-the-Single-Guy was. And that's a very, very good thing, in my humble opinion. Growth and evolution are the essence of the natural order of things, and it's exhilarating to feel a part of that natural order.
Of course, the other traditional aspect of initiation involves testing: as soon as the initiate enters his or her new life, circumstances readily conspire to test his or her committment to it. Situations arise which seem to encourage him or her to cast off this new life and return to former habits and practices, to older ways of seeing. That's as it should be--a new way of life is nothing to enter into lightly. And if the person were truly ready for the initiation in the first place, then he or she will see the folly and basic undesireability of returning to the old way of living & seeing.
So, what does all that have to do with the real world? Hey, that's your (the reader's) job to figure out! ;~p For my part, I'm excited about the new lives I've begun. I'm profoundly grateful to my wife for wanting to initiate a new life with me, and I'm humbly grateful to the Source of all life for entrusting a daughter to us, and for continuing to nurture my creativity and sense of wonder.
I look forward to conversing with you, the entire world, and sharing the insights that you bring to the discourse!
As a way of initiating that conversation, here is a brief, desultory introduction to me:
Twenty-Five Random Things About Me
1. I own the entire run of the Marvel comic "Rom," issues 1 - 75, including four Annuals.
2. I use the same brand of guitar strings as Ty Tabor of King's X.
3. Plato is my favorite philosopher.
4. I got my Master's in English (MFA) without ever taking a Chaucer or Milton class.
5. I've been engaged twice, but married only once (got it right the 2nd time).
6. I have a step-dog named Jasper who's the best dog in the universe.
7. I'd rather be a werewolf than a vampire.
8. I'd rather be a socialist than a fascist.
9. In high school, I was a black-belt in Tae Kwon Do.
10. I once saw moonshine actually bleach a brown stone kitchen floor white.
11. I believe that Led Zeppelin owe at least part of their success to The Who.
12. I once got choked up by Peter, Paul, and Mary's "Puff the Magic Dragon."
13. I think "Hudson Hawk" is one of the funniest movies ever made.
14. My closest friends and I can converse for a solid 2 hours using no original language ~ only quotations from films, t.v. shows, and songs.
15. I think grades do more damage to education than any other single factor.
16. The best band I was ever in only played 3 shows before disbanding.
17. I'm seriously exploring the possibility of becoming an Episcopal priest.
18. Even so, I do not think C. S. Lewis is the "end all-be all" of Christian theology.
19. I would love to play Hamlet just once, even though I'm too old.
20. Roller-coasters, womens' purses, and fundamentalists all frighten me.
21. I've never taken an illegal drug.
22. But having 4 wisdom teeth out at once taught me why some people do.
23. I can beat you at air hockey, even if I play left-handed.
24. I was the Star Student for my high school in 1989.
25. I was once complimented by someone from New York City on my ability to swear.
So, that's one or more aspects of me, in a nutshell. We'll get to some more serious topics shortly, so please check back soon. In the meantime,
Peace to your path,
Chris
The more linguistically-minded of you out there no doubt tend to think of "first-ness" when you hear the word "initiation," given the etymology involved. And as I mentioned above, this has been a time of "firsts" for me: In the past four years I have gotten married; I began the process of recording and rough-mixing the raw tracks for my first full-length album of original music; I taught my first online classes; I became a father; I passed through the first stage of the discernment process in the Episcopal Church, in hopes of becoming a priest; and last but certainly not least, I established a presence on the Internet.
Obviously, some of these firsts are more life-altering than others. Yet, they all share the quality of beginning, of taking a preliminary step the consequences of which will expand exponentially with each further step. Each step in a journey may thus be viewed as an act of creation, if one keeps in mind the cumulative impact of each such step. Seen in this light, a first step (an initiatory step) takes on special significance as the beginning point of a new creation.
And what is it that's being created? Well, not to be too melodramatic, but LIFE! At this point, having passed through so many firsts, there's no telling whose life I'll be living tomorrow, to say nothing of next week/month/year! And I have to tell you, that is an exciting feeling--the realization that I am crafting an entirely new life with each decision that I've made and that I'm making.
Which leads to the more traditional implication of the word initiation: the ending of an old way of life and the entering into of a whole new way of living and being. In the "olden days," such life-transitions were inevitably marked by religious ritual and ceremony combined with social acknowledgement (and usually celebration). Much of that sort of thing has faded from the forefront of Western culture, but those of you who are married know that marriage is *definitely* a good example of just the sort of initiation I'm talking about! It's only been a little over four years for me, and I can already see plainly that Christopher-the-Husband is a rather different man that Christopher-the-Single-Guy was. And that's a very, very good thing, in my humble opinion. Growth and evolution are the essence of the natural order of things, and it's exhilarating to feel a part of that natural order.
Of course, the other traditional aspect of initiation involves testing: as soon as the initiate enters his or her new life, circumstances readily conspire to test his or her committment to it. Situations arise which seem to encourage him or her to cast off this new life and return to former habits and practices, to older ways of seeing. That's as it should be--a new way of life is nothing to enter into lightly. And if the person were truly ready for the initiation in the first place, then he or she will see the folly and basic undesireability of returning to the old way of living & seeing.
So, what does all that have to do with the real world? Hey, that's your (the reader's) job to figure out! ;~p For my part, I'm excited about the new lives I've begun. I'm profoundly grateful to my wife for wanting to initiate a new life with me, and I'm humbly grateful to the Source of all life for entrusting a daughter to us, and for continuing to nurture my creativity and sense of wonder.
I look forward to conversing with you, the entire world, and sharing the insights that you bring to the discourse!
As a way of initiating that conversation, here is a brief, desultory introduction to me:
Twenty-Five Random Things About Me
1. I own the entire run of the Marvel comic "Rom," issues 1 - 75, including four Annuals.
2. I use the same brand of guitar strings as Ty Tabor of King's X.
3. Plato is my favorite philosopher.
4. I got my Master's in English (MFA) without ever taking a Chaucer or Milton class.
5. I've been engaged twice, but married only once (got it right the 2nd time).
6. I have a step-dog named Jasper who's the best dog in the universe.
7. I'd rather be a werewolf than a vampire.
8. I'd rather be a socialist than a fascist.
9. In high school, I was a black-belt in Tae Kwon Do.
10. I once saw moonshine actually bleach a brown stone kitchen floor white.
11. I believe that Led Zeppelin owe at least part of their success to The Who.
12. I once got choked up by Peter, Paul, and Mary's "Puff the Magic Dragon."
13. I think "Hudson Hawk" is one of the funniest movies ever made.
14. My closest friends and I can converse for a solid 2 hours using no original language ~ only quotations from films, t.v. shows, and songs.
15. I think grades do more damage to education than any other single factor.
16. The best band I was ever in only played 3 shows before disbanding.
17. I'm seriously exploring the possibility of becoming an Episcopal priest.
18. Even so, I do not think C. S. Lewis is the "end all-be all" of Christian theology.
19. I would love to play Hamlet just once, even though I'm too old.
20. Roller-coasters, womens' purses, and fundamentalists all frighten me.
21. I've never taken an illegal drug.
22. But having 4 wisdom teeth out at once taught me why some people do.
23. I can beat you at air hockey, even if I play left-handed.
24. I was the Star Student for my high school in 1989.
25. I was once complimented by someone from New York City on my ability to swear.
So, that's one or more aspects of me, in a nutshell. We'll get to some more serious topics shortly, so please check back soon. In the meantime,
Peace to your path,
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)