Behold . . .

Thursday, July 24, 2008

  • Quote of the Day - religion

    Were one asked to characterize the life of religion in the broadest and most general terms possible, one might say that it consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.

    From The Varieties of Religious Experience.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

  • Dark Night of the Soul

    This is a poem, and commentary on the poem, by 16th century Spanish mystic John of the Cross. Everything you need to know about it is succinctly explained here. It can also be read online if you're interested (a different translation than the one I read, of course).

        The way of perfection demands a surrender of personal will and pleasure for the sake of God. Some beginners, trapped by their own laziness, may trade in this perfection for the sweet satisfaction of their own spiritual urges, more interested in following their own will than in trying to discover the will of the divine.
        Many find themselves wishing that God would only be aligned with their desires! It makes them sad to have to want what God wants. They have an aversion to adapting their will to God's. They may even have convinced themselves that if something does not please them and correspond with their will, then it must not be God's will, either, and that if they are satisfied, then God must be too. They measure God by themselves and not themselves by God.
        This is not in harmony with the teachings of the Gospel which say: "He who loses his will for God shall gain it and he who desires to gain it shall lose it."
        Beginners also become irritated when they are directed to do something that holds no pleasure for them. Obsessed by the tasty treats of the spiritual path, they lack the fortitude to engage in the labor demanded by the way of perfection. They resemble those raised in luxury who run away, sad, from everything difficult. The more truly spiritual something is, the more it bores them. Determined to walk the sacred path in accordance with their personal inclinations and the pleasure of their own will, it stirs great pain and resistance in them to embark on that narrow way which is the way of life.


    Ouch, that sounds an awful lot like me! And yet I'm not sure this is as simple as it seems. Is the Christian life about abandoning your natural desires, or about channeling them in productive ways?
    Currently Reading
    Dark Night of the Soul
    By John of the Cross
    see related

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

  • The Four Noble Truths: Fundamentals of the Buddhist Teachings

    I checked out this little book because, although I've of course heard before of the Four Noble Truths and the Buddhist path to enlightenment, I felt like I didn't have a grasp on what they actually mean to their adherents, how they connect to everyday practice of the religion, etc. I found it quite interesting and a worthwhile read.

    Quotes:

        Whether or not we like the philosophy of other religions isn't really the point. For a non-Buddhist, the idea of nirvana and a next life seems nonsensical. Similarly, to Buddhists the idea of a Creator God sometimes sounds like nonsense. But these things don't matter; we can drop them. The point is that through these different traditions, a very negative person can be transformed into a good person. That is the purpose of religion - and that is the actual result. This alone is a sufficient reason to respect other religions.


    To this we must add that in Buddhism, there is an understanding that consciousness cannot arise from nowhere or without a cause; and, at the same time, that consciousness cannot be produced from matter. This is not to say that matter cannot affect consciousness. However, the nature of consciousness is sheer luminosity, mere experience; it is the primordial knowing faculty, and therefore it cannot be produced from matter whose nature is different. It follows that since consciousness cannot arise without a cause, and since it cannot arise from a material cause, it must come from a ceaseless continuum. It is on this premise that Buddhism accepts the existence of (beginningless) former lives.


        It is therefore crucial to nurture our natural empathy and our sense of closeness with others. One of the methods described in the Buddhist scriptures for doing this is to imagine that all beings are your mothers, or someone else who is dear to you. You awaken the compassion you naturally feel for your mother or someone dear, and extend it to all other beings. In this way you develop a natural and spontaneous empathy. However, empathy cannot arise if your emotions towards others fluctuate due to the fact that you view some as enemies and others as friends. That discrimination has no be overcome first, and for this the practice of equanimity is fundamental.
        A different method is presented by Shantideva in The Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of LifeBodhicharyavatara). He explains a way of cultivating genuine empathy by considering others as equal to oneself. For example, just as you personally wish to be happy and overcome suffering, others too have a similar desire, and just as you have the right to achieve this, so do they. With that sense of equality you reverse your self-centered perspective, putting yourself in others' shoes and relating to them as if they were dearer to you than you are to yourself.


    If you consider yourself a Buddhist and want to really practise Buddha Dharma, then right from the start you must make up your mind to do so untile the end, regardless of whether it takes millions or billions of aeons. After all, what is the meaning of our life? In itself, there is no intrinsic meaning. However, if we use life in a positive way, then even the days and the months and the aeons can become meaningful. On the other hand, if you just fritter your life away aimlessly then even one day feels too long.

    Currently Reading
    The Four Noble Truths
    By The Dalai Lama
    see related

Monday, July 21, 2008

  • Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas

    Not an all-out review, but I thought I might provide some of the more interesting quotes from each book as I read it.

    This one, despite its title, is less about Thomas than about pre-Nicene Christianity as a whole, and the author's take on why doctrine developed the way it did.

    A few quotes:

    Given, then, that Irenaeus acknowledged a wide range of views and practices, at what point did he find "heterodoxy"--which literally means "different opinions"--problematic, and for what reasons? . . . To answer these questions, we should recall that Irenaeus was not a theoretically minded philosopher engaging in theological debate so much as a young man thrust into leadership of the survivors of a group of Christians in Gaul after a violent and bloody persecution. . . .
        As he did so, determined to consolidate these scattered believers and provide them the shelter of a community by joining them into the worldwide network Polycarp had envisioned as a "catholic" church, what concerned Irenaeus was whatever proved seriously divisive. What, then, did prove divisive? Irenaeus would have answered heresy--and because of the way he characterized it, historians traditionally have identified orthodoxy (which literally means "straight thinking") with a certain set of ideas and opinions, and heterodoxy (that is, "thinking otherwise") as an opposite set of ideas. Yet I now realize that we greatly oversimplify when we accept the traditional identification of orthodoxy and heresy solely in terms of the philosophical and theological content of certain ideas. What especially concerned Irenaeus was the way the activities of these "spiritual teachers" threatened Christian solidarity by offering second baptism to initiate believers into distinct groups within
    congregations.



        Irenaeus knew that this claim far oversteps anything found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, where, he notes, each pictures Jesus as a man who receives special divine power, as God's "anointed one." Each of these gospel writers assigns Jesus a somewhat different--human--role. Thus, Irenaeus says, Matthew depicts Jesus as God's appointed king and traces his family back to King David; Luke emphasizes his role as priest, and Mark depicts him primarily as God's prophet. But each of these gospels stops short of identifying Jesus with God, much less as God. For Irenaeus, however, the Gospel of John does precisely that; as the church father Origen said later, only John speaks of Jesus' "divinity." Irenaeus, like Origen, took this to mean that John is not only different but also "more elevated," having seens what the others missed; and from this conviction he apparently concluded that only by joining John with the others could the church complete the "fourfold gospel," which teaches that Jesus is God incarnate.


    I don't know how much to trust Pagels, but here's one thing I appreciate: she looks not just at what ancient authors like Iraenaeus believed but at what they thought was important and why.

    Currently Reading
    Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas
    By Elaine Pagels
    see related
  • Jackpot!

    Friday morning I went with my sisters to the library in the next town over. I came back with:

    The IVP Atlas of Bible History
    Classical Thought, by Terence Irwin
    Oriental Philosophies, John M. Koller
    The Four Noble Truths, the Dalai Lama
    The Essential Talmud, Adin Steinsaltz
    Lost Christianities, Bart D. Ehrman
    Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, Elaine Pagels
    The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, Philip Jenkins
    Dark Night of the Soul, St. John of the Cross (translation by Mirabai Starr)
    Mother Theresa: Come Be My Light -- The Private Writings of the "Saint of Calcutta"
    The Language of God, Francis S. Collins
    Knowing God, J.I. Packer
    The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James
    Animal Liberation, Peter Singer

    There were also a few by John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, which I might go back for later. Then there's Philip Yancey, but I skimmed one of his last spring and it looked boring and intellectually lightweight . . . like most popular Christian books.

    I forgot to look for The Shack, but if the online catalogue is correct they don't have it. Neither does the library nearest my home, nor any in the entire city-wide network of libraries that it is a part of. That I don't understand. I mean, it's a friggin bestseller!

    Oh well, it's high time I started taking advantage of the interlibrary loan system.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

  • perhaps I spoke too soon

    So naturally, in today's sermon the pastor took the time to warn against uncritical trust in those who fancy themselves prophets or great spiritual leaders.

    Maybe, as they say, someone up there has a sense of humor . . .

  • Quote of the Day, and language and power

    [S]ometimes churches are the most spiritually unsafe places in the world! I would love to see a new awakening among the church to these abuses. I would love to see people on guard against manipulation, Christianese, scolds, gossips and power-hungry leaders!


    From commenter MrsDarcy_MrsDarcy_MrsDarcy, here.


    I'd never thought about Christianese in connection with spiritual abuse, but it does seem rather appropriate. After all, its purpose (and that of other vague or loaded language that we so often use) is to get you to judge things by a different rubric than you would normally use. Of course that may be the case with all powerful rhetoric, but I think there are some ways of speaking that are more deceptive than others.

    Anyway, why don't churches teach about spiritual abuse? Do they think it's not a problem? Do they assume that it's not their problem, since they themselves aren't committing it? . . . or is there something they're afraid of?


    [[Bonus points: analyze the spin I put on that last set of questions, and explain how I worded them to lead in a specific direction.]]

Thursday, July 17, 2008

  • OT Salvation

    Several years ago I attended an Abrahamic religions panel with representatives from Judaism, Christianity and Islam. At one point the Jewish representative was stating in strong terms the Jewish rejection of Christian ideas of salvation, saying, as well as I can remember, "Nowhere in our scriptures does it say we need to be 'saved'." The Christian responded simply by opening his Bible to the Psalms and reading a verse, I don't remember which, but one of any number which speak of salvation.

    Pwned!

    But I couldn't help thinking that, while the Christian had the rhetorical advantage, the Rabbi still had a point. "Salvation" in the Hebrew Scriptures has a completely different meaning from the Christian concept of salvation from eternal punishment. It usually refers quite obviously to this-world salvation from danger.

    So, evangelicals, where in the Old Testament do you see taught our need for salvation? Everyone, what overall soteriology (doctrine of salvation) do you see in the OT, and how do you relate it to the teachings of the New Testament?
  • Quote of the Day - Lewis on when to study

    There are always plenty of rivals to our work. We are always falling in love or quarreling, looking for jobs or fearing to lose them, getting ill and recovering, following public affairs. If we let ourselves, we shall always be waiting for some distraction or other to end before we can really get down to our work. The only people who achieve much are those who want knowledge so badly that they seek it while the conditions are still unfavorable. Favourable conditions never come.

    Grabbed from here.

    He's probably right that "favorable conditions never come", but it kind of blows my mind to think of learning as the duty and everyday life as the distraction. If only . . .


    (While I hesitate to class my own theological investigation as "study" when really, I'm quite the dilettante, I do think I've spent the last several years learning vastly more about the world outside of class than in.)

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

  • Quote of the Day - bloggers

    Since we started the blog over a year ago I've come across the network of theology blogs out there in the world. As most of you know, I love theology so getting into the mind of those asking great questions and engaging in conversation seemed like a great thing.

    Those which I tap into a lot are the musings of a post-liberal person usually emerging from evangelicalism, usually with some advanced theological education. But these blogs aren't written by a "person," they are written by, from what I can gather, white men. It's also interesting that they have all read practically the same books: Lindbeck, Hauerwas, Rowan Williams, Newbigen, Yoder. They spend a lot of time working through these writers, all of whom are also white men. Many of their blogs have completely bombastic names.


    Actually I very much like the way that educated, white males think and communicate. Post-liberals, on the other hand, do get a bit tiring after a while.