For some technology is the enemy. For me it is a seductress. I love the latest gadgets and gizmos. I am certain that in among the pile of “must have and don’t need” items touted in the pounds of magazines and newspapers I wade through every week, there is at least one item that, if used creatively, can turn the spiral of human consciousness up a notch toward God-realization. Today I think that technology is text messaging.
I can remember not very long ago reading that the computer was going to ruin our children’s capacity to write. Yesterday morning’s USA Today (Tuesday, May 30th) tells us that IM-ing and text messaging have given writing a new cache, and frets that text messaging will ruin our children’s capacity to speak.
I am not much of a fretter. If people are communicating more and more through text messaging over computers, cell phones, BlackBerrys, etc., I want in on it. I want to bring them the Word along with the word. But how?
The Word I care about is the Word high jacked by John 3:16. What John imagines as Jesus, God’s Son, was originally Chochma, God’s Daughter (see Proverbs 22:8). I want to share her teachings, the teachings of the world’s perennial wisdom literature, with people. Wisdom speaks through proverb, parable, and koan— written forms perfect for IM-ing. In Proverbs she sends her apostles (all of whom are female) to call to us from the towers and invite us to the feast of wisdom, the feast that is this life lived with justice, compassion, humility, grace, and humor. Today these towers could be cellular towers, and the feast and the way to it have not changed.
This is my calling (pun intended), but I don’t know how to answer it. I have written about Wisdom in my book “The Divine Feminine,” and I am working on creating a Wisdom Academy to study her teachings during five-day retreats. But I suspect that something more immediate and simple is called for. Something using today’s communication technology and the already ingrained custom of text-message communication. I want to reach the IM generation with the timeless wisdom of Wisdom.
I will wrestle with this and see if something is given to me. If you have any ideas, let me know.
* 160 characters is the maximum text message length.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Monday, May 29, 2006
Borderline Insanity
Both Israel and the United States are debating border issues. In Israel the talk is about building a wall separating Israel from Palestine. In the US the talk is about building a wall separating the America from Mexico.
I don’t have a problem with either wall. While some liberals use President Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall” (referring to the Berlin Wall), to turn us against wall building, they have allowed rhetoric to trump reason. The purpose of the Berlin Wall was to keep East Germans in, not to keep West Germans out. The walls in the US and Israel are not meant to keep people from leaving these countries, but to keep people from entering them illegally. The difference is huge.
To be pro-wall, of course, I have to address the three major obstacles that building such walls present. Here they are:
1. OBSTACLE: cost. SOLUTION: sell the wall as advertising space. In Israel one side would advertise in Hebrew and the other in Arabic. In the US both sides would advertise in Spanish. I am certain both walls would pay for themselves within a year or two.
2. OBSTACLE: tunnels. SOLUTION: Whack-o-Mole. It is true that enterprising people will build tunnels as they have in Gaza and Arizona. My solution is to build a giant Whack-o-Mole game that would slam massive hammer blows on any head that pops up on our side of the wall. The hammers would run on high speed magnetic railroad tracks, the kind the Japanese use to move people, and be triggered by sensors that would pick up the sounds of people digging toward the surface. People could access the Whack-o-Mole via the internet and bet on where the strike will take place and how many will be hit. 75% of the monies bet will go for prize money similar to state lotteries. The rest will be used to train English and Spanish speaking Americans to speak Chinese. A similar Whack-o-Mole would be built in Israel. This Whack-O-Mole solution will have the added benefit of encouraging Americans and Israelis to experiment with new high speed train technology, which might be used to alleviate traffic and pollution problems.
3. OBSTACLE: human casualties. SOLUTION: faith and manifest destiny. When the walls are completed, there will be tens of thousands of Israelis on the Palestinian side of the Israeli Wall and millions of illegal aliens on the American side of the American Wall. What do we do with all these people?
The Israelis are contemplating using their military to forcibly remove the West Bank settlers. As we saw in Gaza, this is very dangerous and emotionally painful. The US is considering making the “wrong siders” felons, but that would clog our courts and jails even more then they are now, a very bad prospect. I have a better idea.
Israel should complete their wall and withdraw their army to the Israeli side. Don’t even try to move the settlers. Simply announce that the army will no longer be used to protect Israelis who choose to live on the Palestinian side of the wall. Most settlers will suddenly find reasons to move to Israel, and those who insist God wants them in Palestine will have to rely on God to protect them. They have tried this before, and it doesn’t work, but that is their problem.
Solving the population problem in the US is just as easy. We can’t forcibly repatriate eleven million illegal aliens, and even if we could they and tens of millions more will continue to seek illegal entry into the United States. So rather than build the wall along the northern Mexican border, I suggest we annex Mexico and build it along the southern tip. This will have tremendous benefits.
First, the wall will be much smaller and cheaper to build.
Second, all those Mexicans who want to come to the US will suddenly be in the US without having to leave home.
Third, all those Americans who want to hire Mexicans to do jobs that Americans won’t do, can now simply send buses to pick them up—and the “them” will be Americans. This, of course, may cause a new problem.
As soon as these Mexicans become Americans they too will no longer want to do those jobs, so we may have to build the wall further and further south until the whole hemisphere is American and no one will do those jobs and we will be forced to live without all the goods that illegals make which will reduce us to a third world country encouraging most of us to move illegally to Switzerland in order to find work doing jobs that Swiss won’t do for themselves. I am not sure what these jobs may be, but I for one am practicing shouting Ricola into a huge horn just in case.
As Frost said, good fences make good neighbors. Of course he was being sarcastic, but no one ever reads the whole poem, so don’t let that fact bother you.
I don’t have a problem with either wall. While some liberals use President Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall” (referring to the Berlin Wall), to turn us against wall building, they have allowed rhetoric to trump reason. The purpose of the Berlin Wall was to keep East Germans in, not to keep West Germans out. The walls in the US and Israel are not meant to keep people from leaving these countries, but to keep people from entering them illegally. The difference is huge.
To be pro-wall, of course, I have to address the three major obstacles that building such walls present. Here they are:
1. OBSTACLE: cost. SOLUTION: sell the wall as advertising space. In Israel one side would advertise in Hebrew and the other in Arabic. In the US both sides would advertise in Spanish. I am certain both walls would pay for themselves within a year or two.
2. OBSTACLE: tunnels. SOLUTION: Whack-o-Mole. It is true that enterprising people will build tunnels as they have in Gaza and Arizona. My solution is to build a giant Whack-o-Mole game that would slam massive hammer blows on any head that pops up on our side of the wall. The hammers would run on high speed magnetic railroad tracks, the kind the Japanese use to move people, and be triggered by sensors that would pick up the sounds of people digging toward the surface. People could access the Whack-o-Mole via the internet and bet on where the strike will take place and how many will be hit. 75% of the monies bet will go for prize money similar to state lotteries. The rest will be used to train English and Spanish speaking Americans to speak Chinese. A similar Whack-o-Mole would be built in Israel. This Whack-O-Mole solution will have the added benefit of encouraging Americans and Israelis to experiment with new high speed train technology, which might be used to alleviate traffic and pollution problems.
3. OBSTACLE: human casualties. SOLUTION: faith and manifest destiny. When the walls are completed, there will be tens of thousands of Israelis on the Palestinian side of the Israeli Wall and millions of illegal aliens on the American side of the American Wall. What do we do with all these people?
The Israelis are contemplating using their military to forcibly remove the West Bank settlers. As we saw in Gaza, this is very dangerous and emotionally painful. The US is considering making the “wrong siders” felons, but that would clog our courts and jails even more then they are now, a very bad prospect. I have a better idea.
Israel should complete their wall and withdraw their army to the Israeli side. Don’t even try to move the settlers. Simply announce that the army will no longer be used to protect Israelis who choose to live on the Palestinian side of the wall. Most settlers will suddenly find reasons to move to Israel, and those who insist God wants them in Palestine will have to rely on God to protect them. They have tried this before, and it doesn’t work, but that is their problem.
Solving the population problem in the US is just as easy. We can’t forcibly repatriate eleven million illegal aliens, and even if we could they and tens of millions more will continue to seek illegal entry into the United States. So rather than build the wall along the northern Mexican border, I suggest we annex Mexico and build it along the southern tip. This will have tremendous benefits.
First, the wall will be much smaller and cheaper to build.
Second, all those Mexicans who want to come to the US will suddenly be in the US without having to leave home.
Third, all those Americans who want to hire Mexicans to do jobs that Americans won’t do, can now simply send buses to pick them up—and the “them” will be Americans. This, of course, may cause a new problem.
As soon as these Mexicans become Americans they too will no longer want to do those jobs, so we may have to build the wall further and further south until the whole hemisphere is American and no one will do those jobs and we will be forced to live without all the goods that illegals make which will reduce us to a third world country encouraging most of us to move illegally to Switzerland in order to find work doing jobs that Swiss won’t do for themselves. I am not sure what these jobs may be, but I for one am practicing shouting Ricola into a huge horn just in case.
As Frost said, good fences make good neighbors. Of course he was being sarcastic, but no one ever reads the whole poem, so don’t let that fact bother you.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
ID and Evolution: Variations of Dumb
I was on retreat in Alabama with fifty faith-filled Christians this past week. I had a wonderful time, as I always do when hanging around people of faith. One afternoon I found myself in a discussion on Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. I was expected to defend evolution, but I couldn’t. Both ID and evolution are variations on the same theme, I said. They both argue that the world is dumb, and I just don’t agree.
Evolutionary theory tells us there is no plan or Planner to the universe. The universe just does what it does and then repeats what it does if what it does survives to do it again. Mutation happens randomly, and when a given mutation makes survival easier, the mutant reproduces. Which is how we got X-Men III.
Intelligent Design argues that life is too complex to be random. There has to be a Designer behind it all pushing tab A into slot B to create something new. Who this Designer is, of course, the ID folks refuse to say. If they did they would have to admit to being closet Creationists and forced to live in Kansas.
I never argue with Creationists, by the way. I always agree with them that God created the universe. My only fossil of contention is Who this Creator God is. They say Jehovah, I say Krishna. They pull out the Bible; I pull out the Bhagavad Gita. They try to sell me salvation; I try to sell them incense. It makes for interesting conversation. That is before the yelling starts.
Anyway, I am not a Creationist and only trot Krishna out to make a point. The point being that the classic notion of a Creator, whether Jewish or bluish, makes the creation dumb.
Evolutionists say life is stupid, the result of chance and time. Creationists and ID folks agree that life is stupid: without God blowing life into adam, humanity is just a lump of clay. I find the notion of a dumb universe to be, well, dumb.
I think the universe itself is intelligent and striving to be more so. Why? There is no why. Reality, as the Chinese language tells us, is what is of itself so. Asking why misses the whole point. It is like asking a baby why it babbles and coos. It does it because it's fun. The universe is forever dancing on-off-on-off-on-off just for the fun of the dance. This is the binary code of reality. Ones and zeros playing out in seemingly infinite variation. And it does so for the sheer joy of it. If there is a Creator he isn't sitting on a throne, she is dancing on air.
Life is not stupid. Life is and has always been intrinsically intelligent, and driven to become more so (see Amit Goswami’s “Self-Aware Universe” for the math). At the moment we humans may be the most awake of all species on our planet. I doubt that the dance ends with us, however. I think that our purpose is to reach a point of consciousness where we can melt the polar ice caps with greenhouse gasses. In this way we will be reduced to a small island-dwelling sideshow while dolphins inherit the earth, which is what Jesus told us two thousand years ago. After all, who is more meek that a dolphin?
Evolutionary theory tells us there is no plan or Planner to the universe. The universe just does what it does and then repeats what it does if what it does survives to do it again. Mutation happens randomly, and when a given mutation makes survival easier, the mutant reproduces. Which is how we got X-Men III.
Intelligent Design argues that life is too complex to be random. There has to be a Designer behind it all pushing tab A into slot B to create something new. Who this Designer is, of course, the ID folks refuse to say. If they did they would have to admit to being closet Creationists and forced to live in Kansas.
I never argue with Creationists, by the way. I always agree with them that God created the universe. My only fossil of contention is Who this Creator God is. They say Jehovah, I say Krishna. They pull out the Bible; I pull out the Bhagavad Gita. They try to sell me salvation; I try to sell them incense. It makes for interesting conversation. That is before the yelling starts.
Anyway, I am not a Creationist and only trot Krishna out to make a point. The point being that the classic notion of a Creator, whether Jewish or bluish, makes the creation dumb.
Evolutionists say life is stupid, the result of chance and time. Creationists and ID folks agree that life is stupid: without God blowing life into adam, humanity is just a lump of clay. I find the notion of a dumb universe to be, well, dumb.
I think the universe itself is intelligent and striving to be more so. Why? There is no why. Reality, as the Chinese language tells us, is what is of itself so. Asking why misses the whole point. It is like asking a baby why it babbles and coos. It does it because it's fun. The universe is forever dancing on-off-on-off-on-off just for the fun of the dance. This is the binary code of reality. Ones and zeros playing out in seemingly infinite variation. And it does so for the sheer joy of it. If there is a Creator he isn't sitting on a throne, she is dancing on air.
Life is not stupid. Life is and has always been intrinsically intelligent, and driven to become more so (see Amit Goswami’s “Self-Aware Universe” for the math). At the moment we humans may be the most awake of all species on our planet. I doubt that the dance ends with us, however. I think that our purpose is to reach a point of consciousness where we can melt the polar ice caps with greenhouse gasses. In this way we will be reduced to a small island-dwelling sideshow while dolphins inherit the earth, which is what Jesus told us two thousand years ago. After all, who is more meek that a dolphin?
Sunday, May 21, 2006
I Believe
During one of my weekend seminars, I facilitated an exercise where people are challenged to articulate their answers to ultimate questions as clearly and as succinctly as possible. To model what I was looking for, I invited people to ask me 10 questions. I had fifteen seconds to respond to each one. I am sharing them with you here as a way of suggesting you try the exercise yourself. Don’t get hung up on my answers, seek instead in formulate your own.
1. What is God? God is the source and substance of all reality. Whatever is, is God.
2. Do you believe in evolution or intelligent design? Evolution is intelligent design. I don't believe there is a designer behind the design, I believe the design is itself intelligent, conscious. It is God exploring ways to know itself.
3. Does God care about you? Does God have a plan for your life? That's two questions, but yes to both. God cares about me the way a tree cares about its branches. God’s plan or all life is to manifest beings complex enough to realize that all is God. God’s plan for my life is to move toward that realization.
4. Which religion is true? All and none. A religion is true to the extent that it leads us toward the realization of God as all, and teaches us to live justly, compassionately, and humbly. A religion is false to the extent it does anything else.
5. Is Israel the holy land? No. God is not a realtor. The universe is the holy land. Israel is for some the motherland, for others just another tripwire for the apocalypse.
6. What happens when you die? You stop pretending to be other than you are: God extended in time and place. Death is the great awakening. But it is more fun to wake before you die.
7. Are you a Jew? Yes, but not exclusively. First I am human, adam from adamah, an earthling arising the earth the way a bud arises from a branch. Then I am a male, and an American. These are all givens from birth. I am also a Christian, Muslim, Sufi, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Atheist, Humanist, Taoist— the more I know myself the more I know myself to be hyphenated.
8. What scares you most in the world? Ignorance and the fear, greed, anger, and violence that ignorance breeds.
9. What is the purpose of life? Life has no purpose; life is purpose. To suggest that life has a purpose is to make life a means rather than an end. Life is the end; the purpose of life is to live; to live with the awareness that all life is God.
10. What is the one question you cannot answer? That’s it.
1. What is God? God is the source and substance of all reality. Whatever is, is God.
2. Do you believe in evolution or intelligent design? Evolution is intelligent design. I don't believe there is a designer behind the design, I believe the design is itself intelligent, conscious. It is God exploring ways to know itself.
3. Does God care about you? Does God have a plan for your life? That's two questions, but yes to both. God cares about me the way a tree cares about its branches. God’s plan or all life is to manifest beings complex enough to realize that all is God. God’s plan for my life is to move toward that realization.
4. Which religion is true? All and none. A religion is true to the extent that it leads us toward the realization of God as all, and teaches us to live justly, compassionately, and humbly. A religion is false to the extent it does anything else.
5. Is Israel the holy land? No. God is not a realtor. The universe is the holy land. Israel is for some the motherland, for others just another tripwire for the apocalypse.
6. What happens when you die? You stop pretending to be other than you are: God extended in time and place. Death is the great awakening. But it is more fun to wake before you die.
7. Are you a Jew? Yes, but not exclusively. First I am human, adam from adamah, an earthling arising the earth the way a bud arises from a branch. Then I am a male, and an American. These are all givens from birth. I am also a Christian, Muslim, Sufi, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Atheist, Humanist, Taoist— the more I know myself the more I know myself to be hyphenated.
8. What scares you most in the world? Ignorance and the fear, greed, anger, and violence that ignorance breeds.
9. What is the purpose of life? Life has no purpose; life is purpose. To suggest that life has a purpose is to make life a means rather than an end. Life is the end; the purpose of life is to live; to live with the awareness that all life is God.
10. What is the one question you cannot answer? That’s it.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Tubes
I am flying from Nashville to Los Angeles. Something I ate in Nashville is disagreeing with me over Dallas. The roar of the jets is masking the sound of this disagreement, and I have the overhead fan blasting full to diffuse its perfume, but one can only mask so much. My seatmate is asleep, and I image his dreams are a bit more dark than they might be had he been lucky enough to sit next to someone else.
The Sufi poet Rumi wrote that we humans are hollow reeds through which God plays His music. I always found that image compelling. Today I know it to be true. But why this particular sonata, Lord?
Think about it. Are we more than tubes through which air passes? Yesterday I sat next to someone whose lunch proved painfully sour to all around him when he belched in the meeting room we were using. So it doesn’t matter which end of the tube through which the air emerges, there is a good chance it will be foul.
Some of the air we move, of course, is shaped in ways we find more pleasant: words, musical notes, sighs of sorrow and relief, moans of pleasures, squeals of joy. Others are capable of cutting us like a knife: There is a baby in the back of the plane whose screams are of such a pitch that the ears of her neighbors will soon rupture and bleed. I thank God for my Bose noise canceling headphones.
I find it somewhat amusing that all of us tubes are hurling through air in a larger tube, itself propelled by sucking in and shooting out air. I am on my way to push some air at a few dozen tubes who have paid for the privileged of having me do so. I will be sure to leave them time to blow air in my direction as well, and I will do my best to honor their wind with a bit more of my own.
This may depress you. We long to be so much more than mere tubes, yet even Genesis has us as inert clay tubes until God blows air into us. The first air that emerges from Adam is used to name the animals, who are themselves tubes unable to name themselves. Maybe that is the point. We are the Tubes That Name, the tubes that make meaning by naming our fellow tubes. Not a bad designation, as designations go.
I know this may sound absurd; we long to be so much more. But at the moment I just cannot imagine what that more might be. So for now I will simply enjoy the moment when air emerges and the tube relaxes, and hope that most of what comes out of me does more for those I meet then it has for my seatmate whose nose, I pray, is twitching for some other reason.
The Sufi poet Rumi wrote that we humans are hollow reeds through which God plays His music. I always found that image compelling. Today I know it to be true. But why this particular sonata, Lord?
Think about it. Are we more than tubes through which air passes? Yesterday I sat next to someone whose lunch proved painfully sour to all around him when he belched in the meeting room we were using. So it doesn’t matter which end of the tube through which the air emerges, there is a good chance it will be foul.
Some of the air we move, of course, is shaped in ways we find more pleasant: words, musical notes, sighs of sorrow and relief, moans of pleasures, squeals of joy. Others are capable of cutting us like a knife: There is a baby in the back of the plane whose screams are of such a pitch that the ears of her neighbors will soon rupture and bleed. I thank God for my Bose noise canceling headphones.
I find it somewhat amusing that all of us tubes are hurling through air in a larger tube, itself propelled by sucking in and shooting out air. I am on my way to push some air at a few dozen tubes who have paid for the privileged of having me do so. I will be sure to leave them time to blow air in my direction as well, and I will do my best to honor their wind with a bit more of my own.
This may depress you. We long to be so much more than mere tubes, yet even Genesis has us as inert clay tubes until God blows air into us. The first air that emerges from Adam is used to name the animals, who are themselves tubes unable to name themselves. Maybe that is the point. We are the Tubes That Name, the tubes that make meaning by naming our fellow tubes. Not a bad designation, as designations go.
I know this may sound absurd; we long to be so much more. But at the moment I just cannot imagine what that more might be. So for now I will simply enjoy the moment when air emerges and the tube relaxes, and hope that most of what comes out of me does more for those I meet then it has for my seatmate whose nose, I pray, is twitching for some other reason.
Monday, May 08, 2006
National Prayer Day
Last Thursday was National Day of Prayer day. I missed it. Not on purpose, mind you, but simply out of ignorance. Unless there is a specific Hallmark card or retail sale associated with a special day I tend not to notice it.
The theme of this year’s National Day of Prayer (which was established in 1952 by a joint resolution of the United States Congress and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman) is “America, Honor God.” Not a bad theme as themes go. As a retired congregational rabbi with 20 year’s of Bar and Bat Mitzvah experience, I consider myself somewhat of a theme expert, and, honestly, honoring God would be a unique idea when it comes to such events.
My problem is not with the theme itself, but with how one is to understand it. After giving this some thought, I came up with two options.
First, we might take our cue from Deuteronomy 7. Speaking of all the peoples that the Israelites will encounter as they seek to occupy the Promised Land, the Bible says that they are to “utterly destroy them… make no covenant with them, and show them no mercy” (1-2). Since for many America is the new Zion, and Christians have replaced Jews as God’s favorite, and since the Second Americans have succeeded in honoring Deuteronomy’s God by basically wiping out the First Americans, maybe we can continue to honor God by using National Prayer Day as a call to show our latest enemies no mercy.
The second option we might choose is to honor God by doing what the prophet Micah says God requires of us: do justly, love mercy, walk humbly (6:8). Then we could use the Day of Prayer to focus on ending injustice, cruelty, and imperialism. A very different day than that of Deuteronomy, which is the problem we face when it comes to honoring the Judeo-Christian God. The Guy suffers from multiple personality disorder. Maybe that is why Congress suggested we pray to “the God of our understanding.” This way we can all pray to our own god, i.e., the god that turns out to want for us just what it is we want for ourselves.
Since I missed National Prayer Day all together, let me off an idea for next year: Next year let’s hold city-wide prayer workshops inviting liturgists, poets, artists, and musicians from every major faith tradition to share with the community how they pray, and to engage the community in prayer in these many modalities. People would spend the day praying in multiple languages using multiple images of and metaphors for God. It would be one huge cacophony of God-song so powerful and prayerful that for a few moments we might forget the egoic and imperialist gods that drive us to war, and find ourselves falling together into the arms of the One God who calls us to love God by loving one another.
Now that would be a really NATIONAL day of prayer. Of course if there isn’t a card to buy or a sale to shop at I will still miss the event, but, hey, that’s just me.
The theme of this year’s National Day of Prayer (which was established in 1952 by a joint resolution of the United States Congress and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman) is “America, Honor God.” Not a bad theme as themes go. As a retired congregational rabbi with 20 year’s of Bar and Bat Mitzvah experience, I consider myself somewhat of a theme expert, and, honestly, honoring God would be a unique idea when it comes to such events.
My problem is not with the theme itself, but with how one is to understand it. After giving this some thought, I came up with two options.
First, we might take our cue from Deuteronomy 7. Speaking of all the peoples that the Israelites will encounter as they seek to occupy the Promised Land, the Bible says that they are to “utterly destroy them… make no covenant with them, and show them no mercy” (1-2). Since for many America is the new Zion, and Christians have replaced Jews as God’s favorite, and since the Second Americans have succeeded in honoring Deuteronomy’s God by basically wiping out the First Americans, maybe we can continue to honor God by using National Prayer Day as a call to show our latest enemies no mercy.
The second option we might choose is to honor God by doing what the prophet Micah says God requires of us: do justly, love mercy, walk humbly (6:8). Then we could use the Day of Prayer to focus on ending injustice, cruelty, and imperialism. A very different day than that of Deuteronomy, which is the problem we face when it comes to honoring the Judeo-Christian God. The Guy suffers from multiple personality disorder. Maybe that is why Congress suggested we pray to “the God of our understanding.” This way we can all pray to our own god, i.e., the god that turns out to want for us just what it is we want for ourselves.
Since I missed National Prayer Day all together, let me off an idea for next year: Next year let’s hold city-wide prayer workshops inviting liturgists, poets, artists, and musicians from every major faith tradition to share with the community how they pray, and to engage the community in prayer in these many modalities. People would spend the day praying in multiple languages using multiple images of and metaphors for God. It would be one huge cacophony of God-song so powerful and prayerful that for a few moments we might forget the egoic and imperialist gods that drive us to war, and find ourselves falling together into the arms of the One God who calls us to love God by loving one another.
Now that would be a really NATIONAL day of prayer. Of course if there isn’t a card to buy or a sale to shop at I will still miss the event, but, hey, that’s just me.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
If Money Didn't Matter
I was listening to financial guru Dave Ramsey on the radio, and heard him ask one of the most subversive questions one can ask in a capitalist, debt-driven society: “What would you do if money were not an issue?”
This is different than asking, “What would you do if you were rich?” Dealing with being rich continues your focus on finances. Ramsey’s question shifts that focus from wealth to happiness. Happiness is not a capitalist value. Happy people are harder to manipulate, harder to sell to. Ramsey was asking his listeners to think about what they want rather than what they are worth.
Try it. Imagine you did not have to think about money at all. Imagine that your basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, insurance, retirement, etc. were taken care of. What would you do with your life?
I have thought about this for several days, and I discovered I would be doing pretty much what I am doing now. I teach and I write. Sure, if I had no monetary worries I would live in a nicer home, drive a hybrid car, and never worry about the financial woes of illness or retirement, but I would not change what I do. I would simply do what I already do without beating myself up over that fact that I am not making enough money doing it.
Alan Watts, talking about the same issue some three decades earlier, urged his audience to live as if money was not an issue. His reasoning was this: you will never have enough money to do what you want, so you will always be enslaved to doing what you don’t want, in the vain hope that someday you will be able to do what you do want. This slavery makes you miserable. Since you are going to be miserable, anyway (either because you don’t have enough money or because you are forced to work at a job you hate), why not do what you want and just give up the illusion of financial success? Be miserable over your finances rather than over the fact that you are never going to do what you want. At least you can feel good about what you do even as you feel miserable about how poor you are doing it.
I will never make any real money teaching and writing. Adjunct professors like myself are a dime a dozen, and we are paid that way. My book sales, while solid, still don’t put food on the table. And as far as retirement goes, I can neither afford it nor do I desire it. After all, since I am already doing what I want, why would I want to retire?
I am happy doing what I want even if society isn’t willing to pay me what I am worth. There was a time when I made what I was worth but I didn’t like what I had to do to earn it. So, for now at least, I am willing to give up what I am worth in favor of doing what I want.
How about you? What would you do if money were not an issue?
This is different than asking, “What would you do if you were rich?” Dealing with being rich continues your focus on finances. Ramsey’s question shifts that focus from wealth to happiness. Happiness is not a capitalist value. Happy people are harder to manipulate, harder to sell to. Ramsey was asking his listeners to think about what they want rather than what they are worth.
Try it. Imagine you did not have to think about money at all. Imagine that your basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, insurance, retirement, etc. were taken care of. What would you do with your life?
I have thought about this for several days, and I discovered I would be doing pretty much what I am doing now. I teach and I write. Sure, if I had no monetary worries I would live in a nicer home, drive a hybrid car, and never worry about the financial woes of illness or retirement, but I would not change what I do. I would simply do what I already do without beating myself up over that fact that I am not making enough money doing it.
Alan Watts, talking about the same issue some three decades earlier, urged his audience to live as if money was not an issue. His reasoning was this: you will never have enough money to do what you want, so you will always be enslaved to doing what you don’t want, in the vain hope that someday you will be able to do what you do want. This slavery makes you miserable. Since you are going to be miserable, anyway (either because you don’t have enough money or because you are forced to work at a job you hate), why not do what you want and just give up the illusion of financial success? Be miserable over your finances rather than over the fact that you are never going to do what you want. At least you can feel good about what you do even as you feel miserable about how poor you are doing it.
I will never make any real money teaching and writing. Adjunct professors like myself are a dime a dozen, and we are paid that way. My book sales, while solid, still don’t put food on the table. And as far as retirement goes, I can neither afford it nor do I desire it. After all, since I am already doing what I want, why would I want to retire?
I am happy doing what I want even if society isn’t willing to pay me what I am worth. There was a time when I made what I was worth but I didn’t like what I had to do to earn it. So, for now at least, I am willing to give up what I am worth in favor of doing what I want.
How about you? What would you do if money were not an issue?
Monday, May 01, 2006
Religious Progressives
What is a religious progressive? That was the topic at a conference I attended this weekend in Nashville, TN. Most of the participants drew their insights from Jim Wallis (“God’s Politics”) and Michael Lerner (“Left Hand of God”), two wonderful thinkers who find in their respective faiths (Christianity and Judaism) a politics of compassion that surpasses the fear-based religions of the Religious Right.
I could and did nod in agreement. There is little if anything that either Jim or Michael says that I cannot support. But I have a contrarian streak; I need to stand out; to say something different. This is a psychological disorder, I am sure, but it is mine nonetheless. So when asked to define “religious progressive” I suggested that a religious progressive is someone who has progressed beyond religion.
At the heart of religion, or at least at the heart of the three Abrahamic religions, is the illusion of scarcity. God chooses Jews not Christians or Moslems; saves Christians not Jews or Moslems; and gives the one uncorrupted revelation to Moslems not Christians or Jews. Because God’s love is scarce, the religions that compete for that love share a zero-sum theology: for one to win, the others must lose.
Of course there are liberals in all three faiths who have outgrown this, but that isn’t enough. We have to name it and openly reject it. We have to own the fact that scarcity infects all three Abrahamic faiths in a way that makes them intrinsically fear-based and violent, and then we have to reinvent our respective faiths from a position of God’s infinite and timeless love (ahavah rabbah/ahavat olam, to use Jewish terms).
A true religious progressive is one whose faith is not in religion, but in God; not in the known but in the Unknowable; not in this or that belief but in the realization that belief is simply the projection of ones own ego.
The religion of a religious progressive is the religion of radical humility, hospitality, and holiness: admitting to not knowing the nature and mind of God; welcoming all to God’s feast regardless of gender, race, religion, ethnicity, etc.; and using justice and compassion toward all beings as the standard by which to measure the value of any creed or system of belief. Religious progressives can be Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, New Age, etc. What matters is not the label but the ability to hold it lightly, and to transcend it in the greater reality of the One Who is all.
Let us religious progressives stand for that, and we will stand for something invaluable.
I could and did nod in agreement. There is little if anything that either Jim or Michael says that I cannot support. But I have a contrarian streak; I need to stand out; to say something different. This is a psychological disorder, I am sure, but it is mine nonetheless. So when asked to define “religious progressive” I suggested that a religious progressive is someone who has progressed beyond religion.
At the heart of religion, or at least at the heart of the three Abrahamic religions, is the illusion of scarcity. God chooses Jews not Christians or Moslems; saves Christians not Jews or Moslems; and gives the one uncorrupted revelation to Moslems not Christians or Jews. Because God’s love is scarce, the religions that compete for that love share a zero-sum theology: for one to win, the others must lose.
Of course there are liberals in all three faiths who have outgrown this, but that isn’t enough. We have to name it and openly reject it. We have to own the fact that scarcity infects all three Abrahamic faiths in a way that makes them intrinsically fear-based and violent, and then we have to reinvent our respective faiths from a position of God’s infinite and timeless love (ahavah rabbah/ahavat olam, to use Jewish terms).
A true religious progressive is one whose faith is not in religion, but in God; not in the known but in the Unknowable; not in this or that belief but in the realization that belief is simply the projection of ones own ego.
The religion of a religious progressive is the religion of radical humility, hospitality, and holiness: admitting to not knowing the nature and mind of God; welcoming all to God’s feast regardless of gender, race, religion, ethnicity, etc.; and using justice and compassion toward all beings as the standard by which to measure the value of any creed or system of belief. Religious progressives can be Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, New Age, etc. What matters is not the label but the ability to hold it lightly, and to transcend it in the greater reality of the One Who is all.
Let us religious progressives stand for that, and we will stand for something invaluable.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Condom-nation Versus the Army of God
Today the Army of God invaded my campus. Armed with giant photographs of aborted fetuses juxtaposed with those of murdered Jews, blacks, Cambodians, and Rwandans, these culture warriors sought to redefine choice as murder and abortion as genocide. While they also passed out a large pamphlet explaining why they were right, they knew better than to rely on rational argument. Theater is what counts and their posters were good theater.
The Army of God faced off against an ad hoc group of students with slogans written on their bellies who shrilly chanted, “This is what democracy looks like; this is what democracy sounds like.” I assume they meant that their bellies and chants were what democracy looks and sounds like, but the truth is that for this to be a real democracy you need competing theatrics. So the Army of God was the necessary antagonist in this drama.
Politics is theater, and the Army of God had the better theater. When the news cameras come to film the event, the calm and pictorially armed Army of God will make the antics of the students look silly.
I raised this with some of the students who asked me to I join their protest. I refused. It would blur the drama. The Army of God had no students on their side, just some older adults who used their First Amendment Rights to get on campus. The student protest should be just that, a student protest. But I did make a suggestion.
You need to have a better theater when the cameras arrive, I told them. Go get condoms and distribute them to students right after they get the pamphlet from the Army of God. Don’t attack the Army directly. Agree with them that abortion is not our first line of defense against unwanted pregnancy. Abstinence and condom use could make abortion very rare. The Army of God hates condoms, and handing them out while piggy-backing on their message would be a brilliant move, and work better for the news crews who would have to talk to you about safe sex rather than slogans on bellies.
I offered to pay for a couple of cases of condoms, but the students thought the infirmary would make them available for free. I left before the delegation sent to get the condoms returned. I hope they can pull this off. The key to changing minds in this country is theater, and that would be great theater.
The Army of God faced off against an ad hoc group of students with slogans written on their bellies who shrilly chanted, “This is what democracy looks like; this is what democracy sounds like.” I assume they meant that their bellies and chants were what democracy looks and sounds like, but the truth is that for this to be a real democracy you need competing theatrics. So the Army of God was the necessary antagonist in this drama.
Politics is theater, and the Army of God had the better theater. When the news cameras come to film the event, the calm and pictorially armed Army of God will make the antics of the students look silly.
I raised this with some of the students who asked me to I join their protest. I refused. It would blur the drama. The Army of God had no students on their side, just some older adults who used their First Amendment Rights to get on campus. The student protest should be just that, a student protest. But I did make a suggestion.
You need to have a better theater when the cameras arrive, I told them. Go get condoms and distribute them to students right after they get the pamphlet from the Army of God. Don’t attack the Army directly. Agree with them that abortion is not our first line of defense against unwanted pregnancy. Abstinence and condom use could make abortion very rare. The Army of God hates condoms, and handing them out while piggy-backing on their message would be a brilliant move, and work better for the news crews who would have to talk to you about safe sex rather than slogans on bellies.
I offered to pay for a couple of cases of condoms, but the students thought the infirmary would make them available for free. I left before the delegation sent to get the condoms returned. I hope they can pull this off. The key to changing minds in this country is theater, and that would be great theater.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
The Ralph of God
A woman interviewed at the White House Easter Egg Roll was asked about the large numbers of gay and lesbian parents in attendance. She said, “It made we want to vomit. It made God want to vomit.”
While I felt bad for her digestive distress, the idea of God vomiting was far more disturbing. To find out more about this I contacted E. C. Homo an expiring in the Ralph of God.
“Dr. Homo, does God vomit?”
“Vomit is mentioned ten times in the Holy Scripture, but not in relation to God. There are passages that deal with God hating the stench of sacrifice, burnt offerings and the like, but even this does not cause Him to vomit.”
“If God did vomit, what would that be like?”
“It would be very bad.”
“Worse than Noah’s flood?”
“Oh, yes, much worse. Vomit contains chunks of food and that would rain down upon the earth like a giant meteor shower. Pieces that made it through the earth’s atmosphere would most likely kick up enough dust to blot out the sun and kill off most plants and trees. Human life could not long survive a Divine Ralphing.
“What if God was drinking and simply vomited up liquid? How bad could that be?”
“Think global tsunami. If God vomits, regardless of what God vomits, the result of that vomit hitting the earth would be end of life as we know it.”
“Do we have any defense against God’s vomit?”
“The best defense is, as they say, a good offense. So we should be clear as to what makes God vomit and then do our best not to do that in the first place.”
“Do homosexuals make God vomit?”
“There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that they do. God detests homosexuality, but that is not the same as saying homosexuals make God vomit.”
“Do you think the woman at the Easter Egg Roll who said that gay and lesbian parents make God vomit knows something about God you don’t?”
“Of course that is possible. The study of the Divine Digestive System is a specialty and there are intricacies of which I may be ignorant. Vomitheology has become something of a specialty among certain people of faith for whom God’s vomit is central to their own sense of self-righteousness. So I don’t want to judge this woman’s credentials without knowing more.”
“Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate your time.”
“My pleasure.”
So, that is that. There is nothing we can do to save ourselves from the Ralph of God. It is just a matter of time. At least we know whom to blame.
While I felt bad for her digestive distress, the idea of God vomiting was far more disturbing. To find out more about this I contacted E. C. Homo an expiring in the Ralph of God.
“Dr. Homo, does God vomit?”
“Vomit is mentioned ten times in the Holy Scripture, but not in relation to God. There are passages that deal with God hating the stench of sacrifice, burnt offerings and the like, but even this does not cause Him to vomit.”
“If God did vomit, what would that be like?”
“It would be very bad.”
“Worse than Noah’s flood?”
“Oh, yes, much worse. Vomit contains chunks of food and that would rain down upon the earth like a giant meteor shower. Pieces that made it through the earth’s atmosphere would most likely kick up enough dust to blot out the sun and kill off most plants and trees. Human life could not long survive a Divine Ralphing.
“What if God was drinking and simply vomited up liquid? How bad could that be?”
“Think global tsunami. If God vomits, regardless of what God vomits, the result of that vomit hitting the earth would be end of life as we know it.”
“Do we have any defense against God’s vomit?”
“The best defense is, as they say, a good offense. So we should be clear as to what makes God vomit and then do our best not to do that in the first place.”
“Do homosexuals make God vomit?”
“There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that they do. God detests homosexuality, but that is not the same as saying homosexuals make God vomit.”
“Do you think the woman at the Easter Egg Roll who said that gay and lesbian parents make God vomit knows something about God you don’t?”
“Of course that is possible. The study of the Divine Digestive System is a specialty and there are intricacies of which I may be ignorant. Vomitheology has become something of a specialty among certain people of faith for whom God’s vomit is central to their own sense of self-righteousness. So I don’t want to judge this woman’s credentials without knowing more.”
“Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate your time.”
“My pleasure.”
So, that is that. There is nothing we can do to save ourselves from the Ralph of God. It is just a matter of time. At least we know whom to blame.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Second-Hand Prose
Language betrays us. It is the menu to the meal that is reality. But its betrayal is contingent on our insistence that it be other than it is. When we insist that the map be the territory, that the word be the thing, then we are fooled and foolish.
But language betrays us another way as well. It conditions our thinking and leads us to see things that aren’t there.
For example, “It is raining.” We say this often enough, but what does it mean? What is the “it” that is raining? There is no “it,” there is only raining. Or when we say, “It is nice out.” Again, what is this “it?”
The “it” is what Alan Watts calls a linguistic ghost. Its function is to maintain the illusion that there is something constant in the universe, something other than what is happening. “It” is raining, “it” is snowing, “it” is breezy. The it is what matters, and it is permanent, constant. But there is no “it,” there is nothing constant. There are no nouns in nature, only gerunds; only raining, snowing, clearing, shining, etc.
Or take the phrase, “You’ve got to straighten yourself out.” What a horrible idea! Go out into nature and see if you can find anything that is really straight. You can’t. There isn’t anything straight at all. Everything is crooked. To straighten yourself out is to be completely unnatural.
And then there is “Pull yourself together.” Even if you could be asunder, who is the “you” that could pull you together? The implication is that you are other than the you that is asunder, but if that is so, then why bother with the sundered you at all?
Religion falls for this trap all the time. We are urged to empty ourselves, to surrender ourselves, to humble ourselves, etc. Yet who is the self that is to do these things? Can the self empty itself? The logic is lacking. The self can pretend to be empty, but a truly empty self would be selfless and, even if the self could suicide itself, once gone, it would be incapable of knowing it was selfless.
Our reality is so tied up with words that they easily manipulate us. Blasphemies of any sort are simply crimes against words. You are convicted of saying some words that other words say should not be said. And you can die for this. How odd!
Is there a way out of this trap? I think so. Practice silence. Learn to be at home in wordlessness. Then when you speak or when you listen you will see the game for what it is: the endless echo of second-hand chatter.
But language betrays us another way as well. It conditions our thinking and leads us to see things that aren’t there.
For example, “It is raining.” We say this often enough, but what does it mean? What is the “it” that is raining? There is no “it,” there is only raining. Or when we say, “It is nice out.” Again, what is this “it?”
The “it” is what Alan Watts calls a linguistic ghost. Its function is to maintain the illusion that there is something constant in the universe, something other than what is happening. “It” is raining, “it” is snowing, “it” is breezy. The it is what matters, and it is permanent, constant. But there is no “it,” there is nothing constant. There are no nouns in nature, only gerunds; only raining, snowing, clearing, shining, etc.
Or take the phrase, “You’ve got to straighten yourself out.” What a horrible idea! Go out into nature and see if you can find anything that is really straight. You can’t. There isn’t anything straight at all. Everything is crooked. To straighten yourself out is to be completely unnatural.
And then there is “Pull yourself together.” Even if you could be asunder, who is the “you” that could pull you together? The implication is that you are other than the you that is asunder, but if that is so, then why bother with the sundered you at all?
Religion falls for this trap all the time. We are urged to empty ourselves, to surrender ourselves, to humble ourselves, etc. Yet who is the self that is to do these things? Can the self empty itself? The logic is lacking. The self can pretend to be empty, but a truly empty self would be selfless and, even if the self could suicide itself, once gone, it would be incapable of knowing it was selfless.
Our reality is so tied up with words that they easily manipulate us. Blasphemies of any sort are simply crimes against words. You are convicted of saying some words that other words say should not be said. And you can die for this. How odd!
Is there a way out of this trap? I think so. Practice silence. Learn to be at home in wordlessness. Then when you speak or when you listen you will see the game for what it is: the endless echo of second-hand chatter.
Friday, April 14, 2006
The War Against Pesach
Once again the Christian bias of this country and its theocratic administration has shown its ugly anti-Semitic face. I am referring to this Sunday’s Easter Egg Roll at the White House. Some sixteen thousand Easter celebrants will converge on the White House lawn to roll colored eggs in honor of the resurrection of Jesus. While I do not begrudge these Christian holy rollers their day on the lawn, I find it repugnant that there is nothing similar for Jewish Americans whose Passover holy day falls at the same time.
When I contacted the White House and inquired about this I was told that Jewish Americans were welcome to roll eggs along with everyone else. This was a thoughtless and repugnant response. I explained to the administration official that we Jews don’t roll eggs. While the word “roll” is found twelve times in the Hebrew Bible, the word “egg” is not mentioned even once. She not so humbly explained to me that while the Bible may be egg free, the Talmud tells us that Rabbi Abaye (280-339 CE) was famous for his ability to juggle eight eggs (some sources, she admitted, say only four eggs). While I admitted that she was right about Abaye, I reminded her that he did this at Sukkot not Passover, so it her point was irrelevant.
Getting nowhere on the phone, I sent an email to the White House outlining four events that could be held simultaneously with the White House Easter Roll. All they had to do was pick one, and I would be satisfied. Here is what I suggested they consider:
1. THE WHITE HOUSE AFIKOMEN HUNT. The President would hide a piece of matzoh somewhere in the White House and invite thousands of Jewish kids to tear through the place to find it.
2. THE WHITE HOUSE MATZOH BALL ROLL. While clearly derivative, thousands of Jewish families could come to the White House and roll matzoh balls alongside their Christian egg-rolling neighbors. The challenge here would be get matzoh balls that are hard and solid rather than soft and flakey. I suggest the President ask Jewish women to submit sample balls in advance of the event to find those that would serve this purpose.
3. THE WHITE HOUSE MATZOH FLY. Rather than copy the Christian event, Jews could be invited to the White House to toss whole matzoh squares like Frisbees from one end of the lawn to the other. If there is no room on the lawn for this event, or if the President fears that the sharp cornered matzoh squares might take someone’s eye out, the event could be retitled the GREAT AMERICAN MATZOH SKIM and held at the reflecting pool on the Mall where matzoh would be skimmed like flat rocks on the water’s surface.
These are just three ideas that would give Jewish Americans equal standing with their Christian neighbors. Unfortunately, the President has chosen to ignore my suggestions and make it clear that this is a Christian Egg-rolling Nation. I, for one, am very disappointed.
When I contacted the White House and inquired about this I was told that Jewish Americans were welcome to roll eggs along with everyone else. This was a thoughtless and repugnant response. I explained to the administration official that we Jews don’t roll eggs. While the word “roll” is found twelve times in the Hebrew Bible, the word “egg” is not mentioned even once. She not so humbly explained to me that while the Bible may be egg free, the Talmud tells us that Rabbi Abaye (280-339 CE) was famous for his ability to juggle eight eggs (some sources, she admitted, say only four eggs). While I admitted that she was right about Abaye, I reminded her that he did this at Sukkot not Passover, so it her point was irrelevant.
Getting nowhere on the phone, I sent an email to the White House outlining four events that could be held simultaneously with the White House Easter Roll. All they had to do was pick one, and I would be satisfied. Here is what I suggested they consider:
1. THE WHITE HOUSE AFIKOMEN HUNT. The President would hide a piece of matzoh somewhere in the White House and invite thousands of Jewish kids to tear through the place to find it.
2. THE WHITE HOUSE MATZOH BALL ROLL. While clearly derivative, thousands of Jewish families could come to the White House and roll matzoh balls alongside their Christian egg-rolling neighbors. The challenge here would be get matzoh balls that are hard and solid rather than soft and flakey. I suggest the President ask Jewish women to submit sample balls in advance of the event to find those that would serve this purpose.
3. THE WHITE HOUSE MATZOH FLY. Rather than copy the Christian event, Jews could be invited to the White House to toss whole matzoh squares like Frisbees from one end of the lawn to the other. If there is no room on the lawn for this event, or if the President fears that the sharp cornered matzoh squares might take someone’s eye out, the event could be retitled the GREAT AMERICAN MATZOH SKIM and held at the reflecting pool on the Mall where matzoh would be skimmed like flat rocks on the water’s surface.
These are just three ideas that would give Jewish Americans equal standing with their Christian neighbors. Unfortunately, the President has chosen to ignore my suggestions and make it clear that this is a Christian Egg-rolling Nation. I, for one, am very disappointed.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
A Leap of Hubris
In one of my classes the other day a student took issue with the Calvinist notion that salvation was predestined: You are born for heaven or hell, and there is nothing much you can do about it.
“That isn’t biblical,’ my student complained. I replied that John Calvin was quite learned in the Bible, and in his mind predestination was not only biblical it was “gospel.” My student tossed out a few choice biblical quotes to defeat Calvin, and found himself assailed by others who tossed out their scriptural quotes in support of Calvin.
“If you believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, how can there be so many different and opposing understandings?” I asked. “And, while we are at it, how are we decide which of the many books that claim to be the word of God is in fact the word of God?”
We knocked this around for a bit and came to the conclusion that it is ultimately a matter of faith.
“So faith is simply your opinion projected onto God?” I asked. Stunned silence. I waited until someone became uncomfortable enough with the silence to break it. “No, it isn’t my opinion, it is my faith.”
“What’s the difference?” I asked. “For example, there are millions upon millions of bright, thoughtful people who believe God spoke to Mohammed and dictated the Koran. There are even more equally bright and thoughtful people who believe God impregnated a Jewish woman and died on a Roman cross. I believe all of these people are wrong. On what grounds do I assert this? On the grounds that my faith denies it. But how do I know my faith is true rather than simply old and adamant? I don’t.”
“That’s why we call it faith,” someone said.
“Meaning what? That faith is simply synonymous with groundless assertion? Look at this carefully. You take something on faith because you do not know for certain it is true. Yet you choose to label one idea as true and another as false simply on the basis of your own predilection or conditioning. In the end faith is simply a mirror reflecting back your own bias. Because you deny faith is a mirror you imagine the face it reflects belongs to someone else, maybe God. But the truth is you are only seeing yourself, your ego. Faith is simply an affirmation of your own ignorance.”
“This can’t be,” someone half-whispered.
“Don’t take my word for it,” I said. “Find out for yourselves. And when you find a truth that doesn’t require you to choose it as true among competing truths, please let me know.” So far no one has.
“That isn’t biblical,’ my student complained. I replied that John Calvin was quite learned in the Bible, and in his mind predestination was not only biblical it was “gospel.” My student tossed out a few choice biblical quotes to defeat Calvin, and found himself assailed by others who tossed out their scriptural quotes in support of Calvin.
“If you believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, how can there be so many different and opposing understandings?” I asked. “And, while we are at it, how are we decide which of the many books that claim to be the word of God is in fact the word of God?”
We knocked this around for a bit and came to the conclusion that it is ultimately a matter of faith.
“So faith is simply your opinion projected onto God?” I asked. Stunned silence. I waited until someone became uncomfortable enough with the silence to break it. “No, it isn’t my opinion, it is my faith.”
“What’s the difference?” I asked. “For example, there are millions upon millions of bright, thoughtful people who believe God spoke to Mohammed and dictated the Koran. There are even more equally bright and thoughtful people who believe God impregnated a Jewish woman and died on a Roman cross. I believe all of these people are wrong. On what grounds do I assert this? On the grounds that my faith denies it. But how do I know my faith is true rather than simply old and adamant? I don’t.”
“That’s why we call it faith,” someone said.
“Meaning what? That faith is simply synonymous with groundless assertion? Look at this carefully. You take something on faith because you do not know for certain it is true. Yet you choose to label one idea as true and another as false simply on the basis of your own predilection or conditioning. In the end faith is simply a mirror reflecting back your own bias. Because you deny faith is a mirror you imagine the face it reflects belongs to someone else, maybe God. But the truth is you are only seeing yourself, your ego. Faith is simply an affirmation of your own ignorance.”
“This can’t be,” someone half-whispered.
“Don’t take my word for it,” I said. “Find out for yourselves. And when you find a truth that doesn’t require you to choose it as true among competing truths, please let me know.” So far no one has.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Don't Pray For Me
Living as I do in the heart of the Bible Belt, I am often told that people are praying for me. I used to find that comforting. Now I realize they are preying on me.
A new study published today in the American Heart Journal shows that prayer is not only ineffective as an agent of healing, it actually causes harm to patients if they know they are being prayed for: “Hi, Ken, how are you feeling? Not so good, huh. You know my church has been praying for you. Every day we pray… Ken? Hello? Ken? Oh my God, they killed Kenny!”
In trying to figure out why prayer doesn’t work, I came up with four possibilities:
1. God has nothing to do with healing.
2. Kenny lacked the faith to merit God’s healing.
3. God wants Kenny dead, which is why Kenny got ill in the first place.
4. There is no God.
There is no way to know which if any of these is true, so simply choose the one that makes you feel better.
Of course, ineffective prayer is one thing, but why, if prayer can’t heal, does it harm? I came up with three possible reasons for this.
1. Relying on prayer weakens your determination to fight for life.
2. God is annoyed by prayerful challenges to his will, and punishes the person prayed for.
3. The people praying really, although unconsciously, want the other person dead.
Here, too, there is no way to know which if any of these is true, so go with your gut.
Given this new study, should we stop praying? Probably, but I doubt we will. Prayer gives us the illusion of doing something helpful without obligating us to do anything substantive at all. But, now that we know prayer doesn’t work, we are robbed of the illusion and forced either to feel guilty or to do something else like visit the sick, or take care of their dog, or cook them a meal, etc.
So the next time you get the urge to pray for me, don't. Or, if you can't help yourself, just don't tell me about it. And if you plan to pray for someone else don’t tell them either. Better yet, pray for yourself, and ask God to give you the opportunity to be of real service to someone who is ill, and to free you from the notion that prayer is a substitute for action.
A new study published today in the American Heart Journal shows that prayer is not only ineffective as an agent of healing, it actually causes harm to patients if they know they are being prayed for: “Hi, Ken, how are you feeling? Not so good, huh. You know my church has been praying for you. Every day we pray… Ken? Hello? Ken? Oh my God, they killed Kenny!”
In trying to figure out why prayer doesn’t work, I came up with four possibilities:
1. God has nothing to do with healing.
2. Kenny lacked the faith to merit God’s healing.
3. God wants Kenny dead, which is why Kenny got ill in the first place.
4. There is no God.
There is no way to know which if any of these is true, so simply choose the one that makes you feel better.
Of course, ineffective prayer is one thing, but why, if prayer can’t heal, does it harm? I came up with three possible reasons for this.
1. Relying on prayer weakens your determination to fight for life.
2. God is annoyed by prayerful challenges to his will, and punishes the person prayed for.
3. The people praying really, although unconsciously, want the other person dead.
Here, too, there is no way to know which if any of these is true, so go with your gut.
Given this new study, should we stop praying? Probably, but I doubt we will. Prayer gives us the illusion of doing something helpful without obligating us to do anything substantive at all. But, now that we know prayer doesn’t work, we are robbed of the illusion and forced either to feel guilty or to do something else like visit the sick, or take care of their dog, or cook them a meal, etc.
So the next time you get the urge to pray for me, don't. Or, if you can't help yourself, just don't tell me about it. And if you plan to pray for someone else don’t tell them either. Better yet, pray for yourself, and ask God to give you the opportunity to be of real service to someone who is ill, and to free you from the notion that prayer is a substitute for action.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Fewer Pewers
For seventy-five years Gallup pollsters have asked Americans about church attendance, “Did you yourself happen to attend church or synagogue in the last seven days?” And for seventy-five years 40% of those polled have said yes. The number has been steady for three quarters of a century. In today’s numbers, it means that on any given weekend, 118 million Americans are attending formal worship services. Pretty impressive. Or it would be if half of these people weren’t lying.
According to this month’s issue of Christianity Today magazine, a far more rigorous study of church attendance finds that about half of those who said they were in church weren’t. They lied.
I have no problem with people choosing not to go to church or synagogue. I don’t go, but I wouldn’t lie about it. When asked if I regularly attend synagogue I unabashedly say, “God, no!” There is nothing happening in synagogue worship that moves me. While I enjoy the communal aspect, there are better venues for schmoozing than shul. And if it is God I am looking for, I do much better walking along the river near my home than spending three hours in a closed room reading words that, more often than not, piss me off.
I am not alone in finding formal worship less than compelling. Even if 40% of Americans are in church every week, 60% of Americans opt not to be.
But what if they are lying also? After all, is it reasonable to think that only fake church-goers lie? And if half of both groups are lying, weekly church attendance would actually rise to 50%!
But why lie about going or not going to church in the first place? I did a bit of research on this, and while there are lots of opinions no one really knows. I certainly don’t. What I do know, however, is that lying about it is a waste of time. If you enjoy church, go. If you don’t enjoy it, don’t go. Read the Psalms: joy is the criteria God uses to measure the quality of worship. I think the better poll would be, Did you do something joyful in the last seven days? But I fear people would lie about this even more.
According to this month’s issue of Christianity Today magazine, a far more rigorous study of church attendance finds that about half of those who said they were in church weren’t. They lied.
I have no problem with people choosing not to go to church or synagogue. I don’t go, but I wouldn’t lie about it. When asked if I regularly attend synagogue I unabashedly say, “God, no!” There is nothing happening in synagogue worship that moves me. While I enjoy the communal aspect, there are better venues for schmoozing than shul. And if it is God I am looking for, I do much better walking along the river near my home than spending three hours in a closed room reading words that, more often than not, piss me off.
I am not alone in finding formal worship less than compelling. Even if 40% of Americans are in church every week, 60% of Americans opt not to be.
But what if they are lying also? After all, is it reasonable to think that only fake church-goers lie? And if half of both groups are lying, weekly church attendance would actually rise to 50%!
But why lie about going or not going to church in the first place? I did a bit of research on this, and while there are lots of opinions no one really knows. I certainly don’t. What I do know, however, is that lying about it is a waste of time. If you enjoy church, go. If you don’t enjoy it, don’t go. Read the Psalms: joy is the criteria God uses to measure the quality of worship. I think the better poll would be, Did you do something joyful in the last seven days? But I fear people would lie about this even more.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Playing the God Card
In contemporary American politics when your back is to the wall, and you have to distract voters from failed policies, play the God Card. This is what some Christian conservatives are doing when they claim that there is a war against Christianity being waged in the United States today. The idea is a scam.
First of all, given the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christians this “war” is at best an insurgency waged by secularists and liberals. Using the word “insurgency,” however, reminds us of Iraq, and the whole War on Christianity is supposed to distract us from Iraq, so the inventors of this conflict will conveniently forget that America is the most Christian nation in the world, and pretend that Alec Baldwin is the Anti-Christ marshalling the dark forces of Hollywood (notice the blasphemy: Holy Wood, referring to the Cross of Christ?).
Secondly, the insurgency is not against Christianity but against extreme conservative Christianity. Does anyone other than conservatives have a problem with Unitarians, or the Evangelical liberals who support Sojourners Magazine?
Thirdly, the insurgency isn’t against Christianity, the Nicene Creed, the Trinity, or even the divinity of Jesus as Christ. The insurgency, if there is one, is against the right wing conservative politics that seek to legislate a specific brand of Christian moralism.
Case in point is a letter to the editor in today’s USA TODAY by Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, a right wing Christian organization. Here is a bit of what Mr. Scarborough sees as evidence for a war against Christianity.
1. The movie “V for Vendetta,” is set in a totalitarian Christian state, and is therefore anti-Christian. No, the movie is an attack on totalitarianism. It is only an attack on Christianity if we assume that Christianity is by its very nature totalitarian. Maybe Mr. Scarborough is revealing more than he intends.
2. An ad in the NY Times frets that the United States is becoming a narrow-minded Christian theocracy. First of all, all theocracies are narrow-minded. Secondly, the ad attacks the idea of theocracy not Christianity. This is an attack on Christianity only if you insist that Christianity is right wing and narrow-minded.
3. Robert Reich, in an article in The American Prospect magazine, calls conservative Christians “a clear and present danger to religious liberty in America.” Again the attack is on the conservative view of Christianity and not on Christianity itself.
4. Ruling against opening sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives with prayers in the Name of Jesus, U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton’s claimed that they amounted to “an official endorsement of the Christian religion.” In commenting on this ruling Mr. Scarborough says in response to endorsing Christianity as the official religion of America, “AS IF THIS WERE A CATASTROPHE (sic).”
Yes, it is a catastrophe! And it is because the Christian right does not see it as a catastrophe that they are a danger to the very values that makes the United States the creative beacon of liberty that it is meant to be.
If there is a war on Christianity being waged in this country, it is being waged by right wing conservative Christians who reject the Sermon on the Mount in favor of an Apocalyptic agenda rooted in guns, oil, fear, and unfettered capitalism that has nothing to do with the radical and loving message of Jesus.
First of all, given the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christians this “war” is at best an insurgency waged by secularists and liberals. Using the word “insurgency,” however, reminds us of Iraq, and the whole War on Christianity is supposed to distract us from Iraq, so the inventors of this conflict will conveniently forget that America is the most Christian nation in the world, and pretend that Alec Baldwin is the Anti-Christ marshalling the dark forces of Hollywood (notice the blasphemy: Holy Wood, referring to the Cross of Christ?).
Secondly, the insurgency is not against Christianity but against extreme conservative Christianity. Does anyone other than conservatives have a problem with Unitarians, or the Evangelical liberals who support Sojourners Magazine?
Thirdly, the insurgency isn’t against Christianity, the Nicene Creed, the Trinity, or even the divinity of Jesus as Christ. The insurgency, if there is one, is against the right wing conservative politics that seek to legislate a specific brand of Christian moralism.
Case in point is a letter to the editor in today’s USA TODAY by Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, a right wing Christian organization. Here is a bit of what Mr. Scarborough sees as evidence for a war against Christianity.
1. The movie “V for Vendetta,” is set in a totalitarian Christian state, and is therefore anti-Christian. No, the movie is an attack on totalitarianism. It is only an attack on Christianity if we assume that Christianity is by its very nature totalitarian. Maybe Mr. Scarborough is revealing more than he intends.
2. An ad in the NY Times frets that the United States is becoming a narrow-minded Christian theocracy. First of all, all theocracies are narrow-minded. Secondly, the ad attacks the idea of theocracy not Christianity. This is an attack on Christianity only if you insist that Christianity is right wing and narrow-minded.
3. Robert Reich, in an article in The American Prospect magazine, calls conservative Christians “a clear and present danger to religious liberty in America.” Again the attack is on the conservative view of Christianity and not on Christianity itself.
4. Ruling against opening sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives with prayers in the Name of Jesus, U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton’s claimed that they amounted to “an official endorsement of the Christian religion.” In commenting on this ruling Mr. Scarborough says in response to endorsing Christianity as the official religion of America, “AS IF THIS WERE A CATASTROPHE (sic).”
Yes, it is a catastrophe! And it is because the Christian right does not see it as a catastrophe that they are a danger to the very values that makes the United States the creative beacon of liberty that it is meant to be.
If there is a war on Christianity being waged in this country, it is being waged by right wing conservative Christians who reject the Sermon on the Mount in favor of an Apocalyptic agenda rooted in guns, oil, fear, and unfettered capitalism that has nothing to do with the radical and loving message of Jesus.
Monday, March 27, 2006
God's Work
This morning I was asked to participate in a virtual roundtable discussion on how people can do God's work while at work. I have no idea how my remarks will appear in the newspaper, so I thought I would share what I said in its entirety:
Before we can say how we go about doing God’s work, we have to be clear as to what God’s work is. I imagine there are many definitions, I take mine from the Prophet Micah: “You know what God requires: Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). Every moment of our lives we are given opportunities to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly. The jobs we do are simply more of those opportunities. So let’s take up each aspect of God’s work in turn.
Doing justly. No matter what your job, your actions must be just. A recent news story reported a trend among many hospitals to inflate the costs charged to the uninsured sometimes by thousands of dollars. While many who work for such hospitals may say they are doing God’s work— healing the sick, for example— can they say so unequivocally if they are participating in a system that is fundamentally unjust? Doing justly requires that you look not only at your actions, but the system within which those actions take place.
Loving mercy. No matter what your job, your actions must be compassionate. I have met many healers, social workers, and therapists whose job descriptions might lead us to believe they are doing God’s work, but whose attitudes are so lacking in kindness that, by God’s own standard, we would have to challenge that claim. It is not just what you do, but how compassionately you do it that matters to God.
Walking humbly with your God. This is a bit more subtle. Why “your God” rather than simply God? The answer is that God is speaking not about God as God truly is, but about our ideas of God. Each of us has an image of God that we hold true, yet God is beyond imagining. Walking humbly with your God means knowing that your image is only an image, and not God. We don’t like to think of our theologies as idols, but when they are not held humbly, they become nothing less. Walking humbly means walking without idols, trusting in God rather than insisting on our particular image of God. Given this, even clergy who by definition are said to do God's work, may in fact be working not for God but for their cherished idols. Any rabbi, priest, pastor, or imam whose god sanctions injustice and cruelty is not doing God's work, but simply using his or her idol to excuse his or her own fear and violence.
God’s work is done moment-by-moment, at work and at home, in the office and on the roadways, when we meet face to face or over the phone or email. And it is always the same: do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.
Before we can say how we go about doing God’s work, we have to be clear as to what God’s work is. I imagine there are many definitions, I take mine from the Prophet Micah: “You know what God requires: Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). Every moment of our lives we are given opportunities to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly. The jobs we do are simply more of those opportunities. So let’s take up each aspect of God’s work in turn.
Doing justly. No matter what your job, your actions must be just. A recent news story reported a trend among many hospitals to inflate the costs charged to the uninsured sometimes by thousands of dollars. While many who work for such hospitals may say they are doing God’s work— healing the sick, for example— can they say so unequivocally if they are participating in a system that is fundamentally unjust? Doing justly requires that you look not only at your actions, but the system within which those actions take place.
Loving mercy. No matter what your job, your actions must be compassionate. I have met many healers, social workers, and therapists whose job descriptions might lead us to believe they are doing God’s work, but whose attitudes are so lacking in kindness that, by God’s own standard, we would have to challenge that claim. It is not just what you do, but how compassionately you do it that matters to God.
Walking humbly with your God. This is a bit more subtle. Why “your God” rather than simply God? The answer is that God is speaking not about God as God truly is, but about our ideas of God. Each of us has an image of God that we hold true, yet God is beyond imagining. Walking humbly with your God means knowing that your image is only an image, and not God. We don’t like to think of our theologies as idols, but when they are not held humbly, they become nothing less. Walking humbly means walking without idols, trusting in God rather than insisting on our particular image of God. Given this, even clergy who by definition are said to do God's work, may in fact be working not for God but for their cherished idols. Any rabbi, priest, pastor, or imam whose god sanctions injustice and cruelty is not doing God's work, but simply using his or her idol to excuse his or her own fear and violence.
God’s work is done moment-by-moment, at work and at home, in the office and on the roadways, when we meet face to face or over the phone or email. And it is always the same: do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Coo-Coo for Christ
A brief follow-up to my last blog regarding Abdul Rahman, the 41 year old Afghani who converted to Christianity sixteen years ago, and is being tried for this crime against Islam. If convicted he could be executed.
Sarinwal Zamari, a state prosecutor, says that Mr. Rahman may not be mentally fit to stand trial. On what grounds is his sanity being questioned? On the grounds that only a madman would convert to Christianity. Is this the democracy we so proudly hail in Afghanistan? Is this what we fought and died for? Is this the best we can hope from the President Bush’s “crusade” (his words) against militant Islam? True, I believe that the President and many if not most in his party would love to establish their own theocracy in this country, but that just makes the Muslim theocracy in Afghanistan all the more painful.
My wish is that the Afghan government makes a bold and clear statement about the centrality of religious freedom to democracy, and rescinds all laws that limit this freedom. Of course that will never happen. Most likely the Afghan courts will find Mr. Rahman mentally incompetent and hope to Allah that the infidels in America drop the matter.
Having said this, I have to agree with Mr. Zamari: Abdul Rahman is insane, but not because he converted to Christianity, but because he was stupid enough to go back to Afghanistan and announce it.
What was Rahman thinking? Did he imagine that no one would notice when he invited his Muslim family over for baked ham on Christmas? Did he think being the only guy ordering take-out during Ramadan would go unnoticed? Did he think that buying pirated copies of “The Passion of the Christ” to give to friends on Easter was a good idea? If he did, then he is insane. If he didn’t and did these things anyway, he is even more insane.
I sympathize with Mr. Rahman and hope he is freed. But I also have sympathy for his neighbor in Kabul who said, “There is no way we are going to allow an Afghan to insult us by becoming Christian.” Insanity knows no bounds. So I guess I should also have sympathy for our President who thinks that establishing a Muslim theocracy in Afghanistan is somehow in the interest of the United States. Talk about insanity!
Sarinwal Zamari, a state prosecutor, says that Mr. Rahman may not be mentally fit to stand trial. On what grounds is his sanity being questioned? On the grounds that only a madman would convert to Christianity. Is this the democracy we so proudly hail in Afghanistan? Is this what we fought and died for? Is this the best we can hope from the President Bush’s “crusade” (his words) against militant Islam? True, I believe that the President and many if not most in his party would love to establish their own theocracy in this country, but that just makes the Muslim theocracy in Afghanistan all the more painful.
My wish is that the Afghan government makes a bold and clear statement about the centrality of religious freedom to democracy, and rescinds all laws that limit this freedom. Of course that will never happen. Most likely the Afghan courts will find Mr. Rahman mentally incompetent and hope to Allah that the infidels in America drop the matter.
Having said this, I have to agree with Mr. Zamari: Abdul Rahman is insane, but not because he converted to Christianity, but because he was stupid enough to go back to Afghanistan and announce it.
What was Rahman thinking? Did he imagine that no one would notice when he invited his Muslim family over for baked ham on Christmas? Did he think being the only guy ordering take-out during Ramadan would go unnoticed? Did he think that buying pirated copies of “The Passion of the Christ” to give to friends on Easter was a good idea? If he did, then he is insane. If he didn’t and did these things anyway, he is even more insane.
I sympathize with Mr. Rahman and hope he is freed. But I also have sympathy for his neighbor in Kabul who said, “There is no way we are going to allow an Afghan to insult us by becoming Christian.” Insanity knows no bounds. So I guess I should also have sympathy for our President who thinks that establishing a Muslim theocracy in Afghanistan is somehow in the interest of the United States. Talk about insanity!
Monday, March 20, 2006
To Die For
Islamic Democracy At Work
I was in favor of the war in Afghanistan. I am in favor of serious efforts to help the Afghan people create a free Afghanistan. I just wonder if this is possible in a state that is clearly theocratic rather than democratic.
Take the plight of Abdul Rahman who was arrested in February after this family accused him of converting to Christianity. It turns out that rejecting Islam is a crime in Afghanistan, and Adbul could be sentenced to death if convicted.
This should not be a long trial. If I were the defense attorney I would call one witness, Abdul himself, and ask him point blank (may be not the best choice of terms), “Abdul, are you a Christian?” Abdul could then decide what he is at that moment. What would he say? You might hope that Abdul simply tell the truth and, if need be, die for his beliefs. I, on the other hand, would hope that he was smart enough to affirm his loyalty to Islam and save his ass.
When I was growing up during the Cold War (which was only cold if you didn’t happen to be in Korea or Vietnam) I was taught, “Better dead than Red,” red being the color of the Soviet Union. I never really bought this idea. Would I really be better off a dead American than a live Comrade?
The same is true of my Jewishness. Given the choice of dying for Moses’ God or living with Mohammed’s God, I would choose Allah. Christians used to put Jews in similar situations all the time: praise Jesus and live, praise his Dad and die. Praise Jesus!
Am I a coward? Could be. But maybe I just don’t think religious ideas are worth dying for. First of all, I suspect we made them all up. So why die for a fiction? Second, even if they are true, I really have no way of knowing which one is true. What if Islam is true and Judaism is false and I die for Judaism only to have Allah pissed off at me when I get to meet him?
I worry about poor Abdul. I hope the judge has mercy on him for rejecting Sharia law, but I doubt he will. And I am sorry that as a citizen of the United States I am implicated in this theocratic farce.
I was in favor of the war in Afghanistan. I am in favor of serious efforts to help the Afghan people create a free Afghanistan. I just wonder if this is possible in a state that is clearly theocratic rather than democratic.
Take the plight of Abdul Rahman who was arrested in February after this family accused him of converting to Christianity. It turns out that rejecting Islam is a crime in Afghanistan, and Adbul could be sentenced to death if convicted.
This should not be a long trial. If I were the defense attorney I would call one witness, Abdul himself, and ask him point blank (may be not the best choice of terms), “Abdul, are you a Christian?” Abdul could then decide what he is at that moment. What would he say? You might hope that Abdul simply tell the truth and, if need be, die for his beliefs. I, on the other hand, would hope that he was smart enough to affirm his loyalty to Islam and save his ass.
When I was growing up during the Cold War (which was only cold if you didn’t happen to be in Korea or Vietnam) I was taught, “Better dead than Red,” red being the color of the Soviet Union. I never really bought this idea. Would I really be better off a dead American than a live Comrade?
The same is true of my Jewishness. Given the choice of dying for Moses’ God or living with Mohammed’s God, I would choose Allah. Christians used to put Jews in similar situations all the time: praise Jesus and live, praise his Dad and die. Praise Jesus!
Am I a coward? Could be. But maybe I just don’t think religious ideas are worth dying for. First of all, I suspect we made them all up. So why die for a fiction? Second, even if they are true, I really have no way of knowing which one is true. What if Islam is true and Judaism is false and I die for Judaism only to have Allah pissed off at me when I get to meet him?
I worry about poor Abdul. I hope the judge has mercy on him for rejecting Sharia law, but I doubt he will. And I am sorry that as a citizen of the United States I am implicated in this theocratic farce.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Not So Great Expectations
I love stories. One of my favorites is The Tortoise and the Hare.
Tortoise and Hare are to race. Hare is cocky and sure to win. Tortoise is steady and plodding. He has no expectations of winning. He is simply focused on moving. So sure of victory, Hare fools around. He eats, he naps, he gets distracted. And in the end he loses. Yet he is still faster than Tortoise. What happened?
The moral of the story is that the race does not always go to the fleetest, but I don’t think that gets to the heart of the matter at all. The race does always go to the fleetest if the fleetest do their best. All things being equal, the Hare will never lose to the Tortoise. I think the real message of this story is that the Hare lost because he expected to win; and the Tortoise won because he had no expectations at all. Notice I did not say he expected to lose. If the Tortoise expected to lose he would be a fool to race. The Tortoise ran without expectations; and the Tortoise won.
You wake up in the morning filled with expectations. But what happens when things don’t go according to plan? You get anxious, frustrated, worried, angry and upset. You might object that if you don’t make plans nothing gets done, and I agree. By all means plan. But don’t expect Life to follow your plan.
Living without expectation is not living without a plan. It is living with the good sense and humor to know that nobody cares about your plan but you.
You are planning to go to the beach and it rains. You have several choices. You can go to the beach anyway and insist it is not raining. In the end you will be wet and miserable. You can stay home and stare out the window cursing your luck. You will be dry and miserable. You can punish yourself by finding something hateful to do and force yourself to do it. You will just be miserable. Or you can find something else to do that is pleasant. You can simply note the rain and move on to something else, maybe something like an indoor picnic or a movie rental marathon with friends that could only be done on a rainy day. No disappointment, no resentment, no expectations.
Living without expectations is not about being foolish. It is about being realistic. Living without expectations is not about abandoning plans for the future, but about abandoning surety regarding the future. Living without expectations is taking care of yourself and your world here and now, and letting life unfold as it will.
There is no guarantee that you will win the race. It isn’t even necessary that you do so. All that matters is that, if you choose to race, you choose to race wisely, enjoying each step. I promise, the end will come of its own accord, and if you haven’t enjoyed the journey the end holds only terror.
Tortoise and Hare are to race. Hare is cocky and sure to win. Tortoise is steady and plodding. He has no expectations of winning. He is simply focused on moving. So sure of victory, Hare fools around. He eats, he naps, he gets distracted. And in the end he loses. Yet he is still faster than Tortoise. What happened?
The moral of the story is that the race does not always go to the fleetest, but I don’t think that gets to the heart of the matter at all. The race does always go to the fleetest if the fleetest do their best. All things being equal, the Hare will never lose to the Tortoise. I think the real message of this story is that the Hare lost because he expected to win; and the Tortoise won because he had no expectations at all. Notice I did not say he expected to lose. If the Tortoise expected to lose he would be a fool to race. The Tortoise ran without expectations; and the Tortoise won.
You wake up in the morning filled with expectations. But what happens when things don’t go according to plan? You get anxious, frustrated, worried, angry and upset. You might object that if you don’t make plans nothing gets done, and I agree. By all means plan. But don’t expect Life to follow your plan.
Living without expectation is not living without a plan. It is living with the good sense and humor to know that nobody cares about your plan but you.
You are planning to go to the beach and it rains. You have several choices. You can go to the beach anyway and insist it is not raining. In the end you will be wet and miserable. You can stay home and stare out the window cursing your luck. You will be dry and miserable. You can punish yourself by finding something hateful to do and force yourself to do it. You will just be miserable. Or you can find something else to do that is pleasant. You can simply note the rain and move on to something else, maybe something like an indoor picnic or a movie rental marathon with friends that could only be done on a rainy day. No disappointment, no resentment, no expectations.
Living without expectations is not about being foolish. It is about being realistic. Living without expectations is not about abandoning plans for the future, but about abandoning surety regarding the future. Living without expectations is taking care of yourself and your world here and now, and letting life unfold as it will.
There is no guarantee that you will win the race. It isn’t even necessary that you do so. All that matters is that, if you choose to race, you choose to race wisely, enjoying each step. I promise, the end will come of its own accord, and if you haven’t enjoyed the journey the end holds only terror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)