From the Intro to Benedicts Rule
Monks: “Refusing to be the slave of the material universe, he becomes its master. As a result, he moved in serenity. A leisure of spirit marked all he did with the sign of freedom and peace.”
20th century man: “He is swept from the security of a firm place in an ordered universe to the chill dark of an isolated, meaningless existence.”
So I kinda think this prognosis of “modern man” isn’t grounded firmly in reality. Admittedly I end up feeling like his description after I read something by Herman Hesse, or Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and in fact this merciless emptiness, elicited by these kind of romantic individualist books, has a certain appeal. Yet, I’m slowly realizing we aren’t in the 20th century any more, the paradigms of existence have changed. There is talk of a post-secular world, talk of renewed progressivism (which might be a really bad thing if history be the judge), etc.
So my question to the Gnostic community in Exile is this; what kind of quote would you add to the title 21st century person?
Peace,
Chris
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Thought's on geo-politics anyone?
Anyone have any thoughts about where we are and where we are going in a global sense?
Here's my lastest take on things.Peace,
Chris
Here's my lastest take on things.Peace,
Chris
Friday, October 12, 2007
Quote of the Day: Albert Schweitzer
Everything deep is also simple and can be reproduced simply as long as its reference to the whole truth is maintained. But what matters is not what is witty but what is true. -Albert Schweitzer
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
A Patient’s prayer
Good Surgeon, Balm of Gilead. Free me from the fear of pain, impermanence, and uncertainty. Return my rib and renew my heart, that I might live in a resurrection way, spreading life.
Amen.
Amen.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Restraint
I also posted this over at Luthermatrix. What'd you fellow Gnostics think?
Peace,
Chris
Restraint
You likely remember the recent ruling about homosexuality at the ELCA General Assembly that urged leaders to “refrain from or demonstrate restraint in disciplining” people and congregations who call qualified leaders on the professional rosters of the ELCA "who are in a mutual, chaste and faithful, committed, same-gender relationship." Some may also have heard that the Episcopalian church, to keep the Anglican commune from schisming has pledged to “exercise restraint” in approving gay bishops.
Both groups are urging restraint, but different kinds. The former involves restraint of an authority and a law; the latter involves restraint by an authority figure and a use of a law. Those that have moved the Episcopalians to act as they have did so because they understand law derived from canon to be immutable. Those that brought the ELCA to its decision did so because they believe law to be a means to an end, not an end in itself. One quotes Jesus, “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” The other, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
Yet, notice this is not necessarily a “conservative” “liberal” distinction, at least not in our narrow Red State/Blue State sense of these words. After all the Episcopalians hold a much more “liberal” position than the ELCA. Instead, the question of restraint, literally, “to restrict or limit,” becomes a question of whose power should people who try to follow Jesus limit? Do we limit the power of absolutes over humans, or try and enforce the power of absolutes in order to limit humans? There is a good case to be made for both.
We attempt to limit the power of absolutes because absolutes become idols, often masks like the Great Oz, hiding behind them the idiosyncrasies of little men. We often become so enthralled by their power that we do not hear the Spirit blowing.
We enforce the power of absolutes because we are sinners; we fall short of the mark and see only a minute fraction of reality, and will defend that little patch of “truth” to the death. If the rule of God seem strange to us the problem is likely on our end.
Is it any wonder Matthew writes about a “narrow gate”? On one side is a post made of bellybutton gazers, on the other is those who make an ideal their god. “Make straight the path.”
Peace,
Chris
Restraint
You likely remember the recent ruling about homosexuality at the ELCA General Assembly that urged leaders to “refrain from or demonstrate restraint in disciplining” people and congregations who call qualified leaders on the professional rosters of the ELCA "who are in a mutual, chaste and faithful, committed, same-gender relationship." Some may also have heard that the Episcopalian church, to keep the Anglican commune from schisming has pledged to “exercise restraint” in approving gay bishops.
Both groups are urging restraint, but different kinds. The former involves restraint of an authority and a law; the latter involves restraint by an authority figure and a use of a law. Those that have moved the Episcopalians to act as they have did so because they understand law derived from canon to be immutable. Those that brought the ELCA to its decision did so because they believe law to be a means to an end, not an end in itself. One quotes Jesus, “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” The other, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
Yet, notice this is not necessarily a “conservative” “liberal” distinction, at least not in our narrow Red State/Blue State sense of these words. After all the Episcopalians hold a much more “liberal” position than the ELCA. Instead, the question of restraint, literally, “to restrict or limit,” becomes a question of whose power should people who try to follow Jesus limit? Do we limit the power of absolutes over humans, or try and enforce the power of absolutes in order to limit humans? There is a good case to be made for both.
We attempt to limit the power of absolutes because absolutes become idols, often masks like the Great Oz, hiding behind them the idiosyncrasies of little men. We often become so enthralled by their power that we do not hear the Spirit blowing.
We enforce the power of absolutes because we are sinners; we fall short of the mark and see only a minute fraction of reality, and will defend that little patch of “truth” to the death. If the rule of God seem strange to us the problem is likely on our end.
Is it any wonder Matthew writes about a “narrow gate”? On one side is a post made of bellybutton gazers, on the other is those who make an ideal their god. “Make straight the path.”
Sunday, September 23, 2007
And on a lighter note
Paul, Christoph and I are playing Hackie-sack. Anonymous New Testament Professor walks up, she watches us for a while.... continues to watch us.
Then she says, "I haven't seen once of those since we protested the Vietnam war." And then she promptly walks off.
Peace,
Chris
Then she says, "I haven't seen once of those since we protested the Vietnam war." And then she promptly walks off.
Peace,
Chris
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Mother Teresa, atheist
(Liberal Eagle's thoughts about Mother Teresa's "atheism")
I hate to say it but I think the “Liberal Eagle” is a little naïve in his understanding of religious people.
Firstly, the idea that we are bastions of certainty is laughable. The universe is still "cold and unwelcoming" at times, its not as if faith is, or should be, used as a blanket to shield us from the chilling realities of the world. Injustice happens, governments fail, our best intentions are often selfish, and one man’s solution is another’s power play. Further, atheistic thoughts are a common occurrence for people of faith. As we attempt to peer through the great cloud of unknowing and gaze upon the very throne of God we realize the cloud is too thick and the air up there is too thin. We have dark nights of the soul. We shout out there is no God! There is no justice! Religion is the deadening force of ancient autocrats! Yet, these things do not make us believe less, no they are simply part of the journey of faith. As a friend of mine once wrote “the opposite of faith is certainty.” Those that are certain, who rely on some foundation other than trust, be it culturally ingrained religious values, systematic faith statements, or emotional experience, are not as far along in their journey as they would like to claim. It is in fact often times the atheist who is the more faithful to God than the overconfident theist.
Secondly, Liberal Eagle’s statement that an atheist Teresa was acting “with no expectation that she'd actually ever get a thing out of it” is crass on several levels. He undercuts his own experience of reality. Do atheists not feel a core connection with other humans? Can they not project the I-into-the-thou? Can they not see themselves in the gutters of Calcutta? Have they no empathy? Of course they do, of course he does. Why else would Liberal Eagle critique the Bush Administration, except because of how the President’s actions have adversely harmed people! Liberal Eagle’s view also undersells the intentions of religious folk. We do not act altruistically out of want of reward, but out of esteem and thanksgiving for the breath in our bodies and the faith in our hearts.
Peace,
Chris
I hate to say it but I think the “Liberal Eagle” is a little naïve in his understanding of religious people.
Firstly, the idea that we are bastions of certainty is laughable. The universe is still "cold and unwelcoming" at times, its not as if faith is, or should be, used as a blanket to shield us from the chilling realities of the world. Injustice happens, governments fail, our best intentions are often selfish, and one man’s solution is another’s power play. Further, atheistic thoughts are a common occurrence for people of faith. As we attempt to peer through the great cloud of unknowing and gaze upon the very throne of God we realize the cloud is too thick and the air up there is too thin. We have dark nights of the soul. We shout out there is no God! There is no justice! Religion is the deadening force of ancient autocrats! Yet, these things do not make us believe less, no they are simply part of the journey of faith. As a friend of mine once wrote “the opposite of faith is certainty.” Those that are certain, who rely on some foundation other than trust, be it culturally ingrained religious values, systematic faith statements, or emotional experience, are not as far along in their journey as they would like to claim. It is in fact often times the atheist who is the more faithful to God than the overconfident theist.
Secondly, Liberal Eagle’s statement that an atheist Teresa was acting “with no expectation that she'd actually ever get a thing out of it” is crass on several levels. He undercuts his own experience of reality. Do atheists not feel a core connection with other humans? Can they not project the I-into-the-thou? Can they not see themselves in the gutters of Calcutta? Have they no empathy? Of course they do, of course he does. Why else would Liberal Eagle critique the Bush Administration, except because of how the President’s actions have adversely harmed people! Liberal Eagle’s view also undersells the intentions of religious folk. We do not act altruistically out of want of reward, but out of esteem and thanksgiving for the breath in our bodies and the faith in our hearts.
Peace,
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
