The Spirit works in our darkest heart, to make our joy complete.
Though pain rips out from our deepest parts, the punishment is meet.
For no one gets what he doesn't want, though what he wants may burn.
And looking back, no one will think that he recieved less light than he earned.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
The Passion of the Christ!
I must confess the scenes of torture, at first very moving, got a little boring for me, except for when they were mediated through the eyes of the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene. The Virgin truly was co-bearing Christ's sufferings in this movie.
The most affecting part of the movie for me was just before Christ died when he said "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" I have never felt that question to be so apt as when I watched it here. That question before his death brought home to me the whole point of the Christian tradition: to know and love God with our honest rock-bottom heart, the part of us that is beyond physical and emotional suffering, beyond the reasoning mind. If we did not believe with this part of us that Jesus Christ is the way to the Father, then despite all of the suffering and the drama of the story, we would owe it to God to turn elsewhere. When I heard that question in the movie, I felt like I was standing next to the cross with all of humanity asking God the same thing. Not in an angry, rebellious way, and not because my emotions had gotten the best of me but with full sincerity and with the blessing of heaven. It was like all of prayer was in that moment.
Before watching this, I had never realized how radical a charge it was that Christ not only told Mary that the Beloved Disciple was her son, but also told the Beloved Disciple that Mary was his mother. It seems if Christ's only concern had been to see that Mary was cared for, the first statement would have been enough. It would have been like saying(I am writing my own script here): "Mother, I can't take this man's parents away, but if you want protection, you may look to him." In the movie John nodded when Christ said "Behold, your son", and you believed that John knew his responsibility. But Christ also told John(once again writing my own script): "She is now your real mother." Christ, it seems, was concerned that John cut his ties to his parents in a more radical way than John had envisioned when he confidently agreed to care for Mary. In other words, John was being asked to throw his own mother out on the street, if caring for her came into conflict with caring for Mary. To be stewards of the church is to take on a quiet, but strict ascesis: to stop nodding so confidently and naturally when Christ asks us to love the church: we must look deeper in ourselves, to the part of us that does not offer God assurances, that does not know in a natural way how to love, but that trusts God to love through us.
The most affecting part of the movie for me was just before Christ died when he said "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" I have never felt that question to be so apt as when I watched it here. That question before his death brought home to me the whole point of the Christian tradition: to know and love God with our honest rock-bottom heart, the part of us that is beyond physical and emotional suffering, beyond the reasoning mind. If we did not believe with this part of us that Jesus Christ is the way to the Father, then despite all of the suffering and the drama of the story, we would owe it to God to turn elsewhere. When I heard that question in the movie, I felt like I was standing next to the cross with all of humanity asking God the same thing. Not in an angry, rebellious way, and not because my emotions had gotten the best of me but with full sincerity and with the blessing of heaven. It was like all of prayer was in that moment.
Before watching this, I had never realized how radical a charge it was that Christ not only told Mary that the Beloved Disciple was her son, but also told the Beloved Disciple that Mary was his mother. It seems if Christ's only concern had been to see that Mary was cared for, the first statement would have been enough. It would have been like saying(I am writing my own script here): "Mother, I can't take this man's parents away, but if you want protection, you may look to him." In the movie John nodded when Christ said "Behold, your son", and you believed that John knew his responsibility. But Christ also told John(once again writing my own script): "She is now your real mother." Christ, it seems, was concerned that John cut his ties to his parents in a more radical way than John had envisioned when he confidently agreed to care for Mary. In other words, John was being asked to throw his own mother out on the street, if caring for her came into conflict with caring for Mary. To be stewards of the church is to take on a quiet, but strict ascesis: to stop nodding so confidently and naturally when Christ asks us to love the church: we must look deeper in ourselves, to the part of us that does not offer God assurances, that does not know in a natural way how to love, but that trusts God to love through us.
The Most Beautiful Woman In the World!
What is this? How could this be? Is she smiling? Oh God, yes. She's smiling. The sun just broke through. Ouch. Ouch! Damn, that hurts! I wish I could die right now. Back into the cave! Anything but this piercing light! Oh, don't stop! Maybe I died. Did I die? Maybe I was just born. I'll have to find my parents and ask them. They won't recognize me anymore will they? I'll be smiling with her smile, breathing her air. Don't look at me! Don't talk to me! I have nothing to say, just let me look. Stop right there, but keep moving! Just go about your business, nothing to see here!
Oh my gosh, she's petting the dog. She loves him. Pet me please! But she's allergic! Oh, her eyes are watering, she's sneezing and laughing. She's flipping her hair back! It's like in the shampoo commercials! She must be using something better than Pantene though! Here she comes! Quick, behind the tree! What should I be doing? I'm tying my shoe, that's it!
I can hear her walking by. She makes the air whisper! Is it safe to look? Hah! Was it ever safe? Look and look again you fool. Here eyes! Is this what you wanted? Take your fill you gluttons! This will be the end of you and the rest of my senses. No need for you anymore where I'm going. I've seen what I came to see!
She's gone. If she's gone, why does everything look like her? Why is every song about her? Walking living death! Am I resurrected? Then where is she? Where could I be? The sky is still blue. Still blue? It's bluer than that. You're done for, you fool! To the bottle!
Oh my gosh, she's petting the dog. She loves him. Pet me please! But she's allergic! Oh, her eyes are watering, she's sneezing and laughing. She's flipping her hair back! It's like in the shampoo commercials! She must be using something better than Pantene though! Here she comes! Quick, behind the tree! What should I be doing? I'm tying my shoe, that's it!
I can hear her walking by. She makes the air whisper! Is it safe to look? Hah! Was it ever safe? Look and look again you fool. Here eyes! Is this what you wanted? Take your fill you gluttons! This will be the end of you and the rest of my senses. No need for you anymore where I'm going. I've seen what I came to see!
She's gone. If she's gone, why does everything look like her? Why is every song about her? Walking living death! Am I resurrected? Then where is she? Where could I be? The sky is still blue. Still blue? It's bluer than that. You're done for, you fool! To the bottle!
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Terry Jacks - Seasons In The Sun
"Skinned our hearts and skinned our knees?" Great name Mr. Terry Jacks, I don't know about your lyrics.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Why I Think The Internet Isn't That Important!
I have had a couple of conversations lately about how the internet has changed our lives, and how it will change our lives. I don't think it changes our lives all that much. Of course, I lead a strange life, and I am not into social/political thinking so I may be way off base here.
(1) Does the internet make us waste time?
I guess it depends on what you would be doing were you not on the internet. If you were watching TV before and now you are reading more, I think chances are this is a good change. If this takes you away from your family, this is probably bad, but then it's just like everything else-it can turn into a problem if you use it as a substitute for better things. There's no such thing as an internet addiction, or if there is, then you can be addicted to anything. I like the idea of people sticking it to their bosses by reading articles or playing video games instead of filling out TPS reports. I don't think people would have so easily put up with cubicles if there was no internet, but cubicles would be here anyway: it fits so well with the American idea of preferring utility (or nearly anything else) to beauty. As far as shopping goes: I don't buy many gifts so I can't comment, but the internet has definitely increased the amount of time I spend shopping for books since you can't replace the bookstore experience, and the internet book shopping experience is pretty fun, what with the reviews on Amazon and all.
(2) The sharing of knowledge.
Books are still the best place to go to know something deeply, but what about all of these facts that are at our fingertips? Fact lovers will get their facts a little faster, but that doesn't matter much. It is perhaps easier for journalists to put on a show of erudition, but everyone sees through that right? As far as the exchanging of information between cultures: the barriers broke long ago. Iran for example is going to be Muslim and therefore politically different from us, regardless of anything mere information can do. If you wanted to talk about what makes revolutions happen, you have to talk about religion and I can't see the internet as being anything more than a side topic in such a discussion.
(3) Porn and Gambling
It's definitely easier to get porn, and to gamble, which is probably the worst change the internet brings: it's harder to be good, but not so hard that we are excused.
(4) Blogging
Near and dear to me right now, so I'm probably wrong about what I think. Plus the rules I set for the Eleven Posts To Glory preclude me from talking about writing, so I'll leave it for another day.
(1) Does the internet make us waste time?
I guess it depends on what you would be doing were you not on the internet. If you were watching TV before and now you are reading more, I think chances are this is a good change. If this takes you away from your family, this is probably bad, but then it's just like everything else-it can turn into a problem if you use it as a substitute for better things. There's no such thing as an internet addiction, or if there is, then you can be addicted to anything. I like the idea of people sticking it to their bosses by reading articles or playing video games instead of filling out TPS reports. I don't think people would have so easily put up with cubicles if there was no internet, but cubicles would be here anyway: it fits so well with the American idea of preferring utility (or nearly anything else) to beauty. As far as shopping goes: I don't buy many gifts so I can't comment, but the internet has definitely increased the amount of time I spend shopping for books since you can't replace the bookstore experience, and the internet book shopping experience is pretty fun, what with the reviews on Amazon and all.
(2) The sharing of knowledge.
Books are still the best place to go to know something deeply, but what about all of these facts that are at our fingertips? Fact lovers will get their facts a little faster, but that doesn't matter much. It is perhaps easier for journalists to put on a show of erudition, but everyone sees through that right? As far as the exchanging of information between cultures: the barriers broke long ago. Iran for example is going to be Muslim and therefore politically different from us, regardless of anything mere information can do. If you wanted to talk about what makes revolutions happen, you have to talk about religion and I can't see the internet as being anything more than a side topic in such a discussion.
(3) Porn and Gambling
It's definitely easier to get porn, and to gamble, which is probably the worst change the internet brings: it's harder to be good, but not so hard that we are excused.
(4) Blogging
Near and dear to me right now, so I'm probably wrong about what I think. Plus the rules I set for the Eleven Posts To Glory preclude me from talking about writing, so I'll leave it for another day.
The Best Book You've Probably Never Read!
Muhammad: His Life Based On The Earliest Sources
By Martin Lings
Now, I'm not encouraging any of my Orthodox brethren or sistren to read about Islam if they don't want to, but if they do want to, this is the best book I have read on it. I think it might be helpful for a Christian approaching Islam to start with the figure of Muhammad, though he is not the center of their religion: the Quran is. As Christians, we think of religion as centered around a person, so it might be helpful for us to see Islam's most central person from an Islamic perspective. This book is good if you are looking not so much for information, as for meaning, though it has a lot of important information in it too. If you would like to get an idea of why Muslims revere Muhammad, I wouldn't know where better to tell you to turn. Martin Lings, the author of this book, spoke approvingly of Karen Armstrong's book on Muhammad, but she is coming from a mindset which is concerned with maintaining (in my view) a false kind of objectivity, whereas Lings writes from the perspective of a practicing Muslim (albeit a strange kind of Muslim-that's another post in itself).
This book is not easy to get into, because there are a lot of Arabic names and a lot of people to keep track of, but once you get into the story, it becomes easier. The book it most resembles to me is Lord of The Rings, because it tells something of an adventure story, and it has an air of nobility and holiness about it. I wouldn't recommend reading it if you feel weak in faith, because, if it affects you like it did me, it will raise questions about being religious in general and make you think deeply about why you are a Christian and not something else. I read it before I became Orthodox, so I had a lot of convert zeal, some rational, some irrational, to get me through it. I came out of it with a greater appreciation for the holiness of Christ. This book made me want to pray.
Almost There
When will it end?
Too many missed moments have whiled away the days,
While we wait-for what?
Too many hours spent in languishing,
Languishing, and suffering: a muted kind with no glory.
The afternoon is golden.
The dust is floating in the light, out of the light.
There is a sweetness here, down in the waters, down in the reservoir of tears.
But it is a dark sweetness, too real to taste here.
We await your coming, O Lord.
Too many missed moments have whiled away the days,
While we wait-for what?
Too many hours spent in languishing,
Languishing, and suffering: a muted kind with no glory.
The afternoon is golden.
The dust is floating in the light, out of the light.
There is a sweetness here, down in the waters, down in the reservoir of tears.
But it is a dark sweetness, too real to taste here.
We await your coming, O Lord.
Coffee!!!
Coffee is mother earth's brown avenger.
The just fruit of our wanderlust's ambition. (what a bad line)
Each day is a case of the jitters,
When far-flung imports start our ignitions.
Would that we cared about what made for peace.
Then we might start our mornings with water.
Instead we use a filter pulped from trees,
To strain our souls through caffeine's tense grinder. (what a bad line)
And so we owe our thoughts to poor farmers.
Unless our muse is drinking free trade.
In that case we're safe from Karma.
Though I shudder at the price we paid.
It's no wonder that none of us sleep sound
When we start our mornings on shaky grounds. (I apologize for this poem)
The just fruit of our wanderlust's ambition. (what a bad line)
Each day is a case of the jitters,
When far-flung imports start our ignitions.
Would that we cared about what made for peace.
Then we might start our mornings with water.
Instead we use a filter pulped from trees,
To strain our souls through caffeine's tense grinder. (what a bad line)
And so we owe our thoughts to poor farmers.
Unless our muse is drinking free trade.
In that case we're safe from Karma.
Though I shudder at the price we paid.
It's no wonder that none of us sleep sound
When we start our mornings on shaky grounds. (I apologize for this poem)
Fourth Gospel-Four (Now Five) Reasons!
Why is the Gospel of John my favorite?
(1) The Prologue is poetic. I don't doubt that many good books could be written exploring the first eighteen verses of John. On the one hand, it reads like a poem:
In the Beginning was the Word,
And the Word was with God,
And the Word was God,
The same was, in the Beginning, with God.
Looking over those first few lines, I am tempted to say that it reads like the poem: the first and last poem ever written, because it vehicles the presence of the Word, the source of all meaning poetic and otherwise.
(2) On the other hand, those first few lines are also philosophical: the little argument maker in me sees the potential for much thought over the idea of something that both is God and is with God: "how should we express this paradox?", we say to ourselves. So, while the prologue may be poetic, it is not obscurely so. Or, if it seems obscure, it is because it is being clear in laying out the problems that thinkers will have in approaching the Word. I must admit to having a hard time finding fodder in the rest of the Gospel for my little argument maker, but I don't doubt it can be done.
(3) It, more than the other Gospels, gratifies a love of characters. I don't mean to disparage the other three Gospels, or suggest I have made a thorough study of the various characters in them, but on first glance, the Gospel of John is the one that most effectively presents us with varied personalities. The first character that comes to mind is that of Nathaniel. Jesus calls our attention to his peculiar, paradoxical attribute: "An Isrealite indeed, in whom is no guile". The next one is Nicodemus. He is the first character to have an extended one-on-one dialogue with Christ. He pops up later in the Gospel, still concerning himself over Christ, and a great essay or book could be written on his spiritual struggles. The other striking one-on-one dialogue is the one between Christ and the Samaritan woman. Talk about a character! I think Chaucer owes his portrayal of the Wife Of Bath to John. Of course the character hanging over the whole book is that of the Beloved Disciple. I have nothing profound to say in a short space, but that is not because I lack things to say about him.
(4) Finally, the cosmological aspects of John appeal to me. Wind, Water and Light: Rebirth in the Gospel of John: that was the pretentious title to my final paper at St. John's. In his dialogue with the Samaritan woman, Jesus is using the word 'water' in a way that just teases me. I want to know what he is getting at. I get the feeling that if someone were to understand this, then every word Jesus used would take on a new significance. Of course, the point is not to understand water, but to get a handle of Jesus' way of speaking. There is perhaps some Platonism that could be brought in: like he is talking about the form of water, but that just seems like a starting place. I get the feeling that, for my mental health, I need to back off from symbolic thinking, but if I thought it was a good idea, John is the place I would start.
(5) I originally only wrote four reasons for preferring the Gospel of John, but I remembered a fifth. I don't know what it means that I forgot about this, but the Gospel of John seems to have much to say about knowing the Truth. The man born blind is given a whole chapter in John, whereas he is treated briefly in the Synoptics. Doubting Thomas has a prominent place. Jesus beckons in the beginning of the Gospel to "Come and see". And of course, Christ calls Himself the "the Truth" in this Gospel. I mentioned above that the philospher will find argument fodder if he looks. Of course, he will also find the consummation of his arguing in John. Wayward seeker that I am, I forgot this!
(1) The Prologue is poetic. I don't doubt that many good books could be written exploring the first eighteen verses of John. On the one hand, it reads like a poem:
In the Beginning was the Word,
And the Word was with God,
And the Word was God,
The same was, in the Beginning, with God.
Looking over those first few lines, I am tempted to say that it reads like the poem: the first and last poem ever written, because it vehicles the presence of the Word, the source of all meaning poetic and otherwise.
(2) On the other hand, those first few lines are also philosophical: the little argument maker in me sees the potential for much thought over the idea of something that both is God and is with God: "how should we express this paradox?", we say to ourselves. So, while the prologue may be poetic, it is not obscurely so. Or, if it seems obscure, it is because it is being clear in laying out the problems that thinkers will have in approaching the Word. I must admit to having a hard time finding fodder in the rest of the Gospel for my little argument maker, but I don't doubt it can be done.
(3) It, more than the other Gospels, gratifies a love of characters. I don't mean to disparage the other three Gospels, or suggest I have made a thorough study of the various characters in them, but on first glance, the Gospel of John is the one that most effectively presents us with varied personalities. The first character that comes to mind is that of Nathaniel. Jesus calls our attention to his peculiar, paradoxical attribute: "An Isrealite indeed, in whom is no guile". The next one is Nicodemus. He is the first character to have an extended one-on-one dialogue with Christ. He pops up later in the Gospel, still concerning himself over Christ, and a great essay or book could be written on his spiritual struggles. The other striking one-on-one dialogue is the one between Christ and the Samaritan woman. Talk about a character! I think Chaucer owes his portrayal of the Wife Of Bath to John. Of course the character hanging over the whole book is that of the Beloved Disciple. I have nothing profound to say in a short space, but that is not because I lack things to say about him.
(4) Finally, the cosmological aspects of John appeal to me. Wind, Water and Light: Rebirth in the Gospel of John: that was the pretentious title to my final paper at St. John's. In his dialogue with the Samaritan woman, Jesus is using the word 'water' in a way that just teases me. I want to know what he is getting at. I get the feeling that if someone were to understand this, then every word Jesus used would take on a new significance. Of course, the point is not to understand water, but to get a handle of Jesus' way of speaking. There is perhaps some Platonism that could be brought in: like he is talking about the form of water, but that just seems like a starting place. I get the feeling that, for my mental health, I need to back off from symbolic thinking, but if I thought it was a good idea, John is the place I would start.
(5) I originally only wrote four reasons for preferring the Gospel of John, but I remembered a fifth. I don't know what it means that I forgot about this, but the Gospel of John seems to have much to say about knowing the Truth. The man born blind is given a whole chapter in John, whereas he is treated briefly in the Synoptics. Doubting Thomas has a prominent place. Jesus beckons in the beginning of the Gospel to "Come and see". And of course, Christ calls Himself the "the Truth" in this Gospel. I mentioned above that the philospher will find argument fodder if he looks. Of course, he will also find the consummation of his arguing in John. Wayward seeker that I am, I forgot this!
An Old Story!!
A crow sits on the judgment seat. He ruffles his feathers, clears his throat, caws. His wig sits white on his crown. His beady eyes blink at the courtroom. At the defense table, rubbing his hands, looking around, sits Man. The audience: goats, giraffes, and the rest of Noah's passengers.
The first witness, a lion, is called.
Crow caws: "And what, Lion, have you to say for the accused? What has man been to you? Had you need of him for aught?"
"On the plains, it is my prey and I and that is all. I have, these many years, eaten nothing that did not die at my claw. Man came once, to pray and fast, but he left as quick as he came. We lions went on just the same."
Next witness: the fish.
Fish: "Aye, aye that's the one: So 'ere I am mindin' my own busyness and wat! and 'ere comes this tasty bit o' worm wrigglin' and juicy. So I says to my Percy, 'hey Percy that worm looks like a tasty bite, what say you and I don't have ourselves a piece?' Next thing you know, I look up and there's Percy bein' pulled out of the drink, wrigglin' and gaspin' like a minnow with palsy. I saw Man standin' there holdin' my Percy, and Percy's still wrigglin' with wide eyes, and what does that Man do next? He fries Percy up over one of them hot things the world goes on about."
Crow: "Let the record show that Fish speaks of "fire".
Fish: "That's right judge, he fried Percy over one of them fires! No, no I 'aint got a bit 'a use for Man. All I got out of him was one less mate and a load of grief. Hang 'im I say."
It went on like this for hours. And despite the monkeys, the eagles, the platypus, the pandas, no animal found any use in man at all. The dogs had a hard time admitting it, but they didn't really need man to feed them, they just found it so exciting. They whimpered and looked ashamed in man's direction, but they had to side with the others.
As everyone was restless to go, the last witness buzzed up to the stand. Since his voice was small, and quite annoying in the ear, no one at first gave a listen. But he kept on screaming, and the crow beat the gavel. The courtroom strained their eyes to see: in the box was a little mosquito screaming: "If Man goes, what will happen to me?!"
The first witness, a lion, is called.
Crow caws: "And what, Lion, have you to say for the accused? What has man been to you? Had you need of him for aught?"
"On the plains, it is my prey and I and that is all. I have, these many years, eaten nothing that did not die at my claw. Man came once, to pray and fast, but he left as quick as he came. We lions went on just the same."
Next witness: the fish.
Fish: "Aye, aye that's the one: So 'ere I am mindin' my own busyness and wat! and 'ere comes this tasty bit o' worm wrigglin' and juicy. So I says to my Percy, 'hey Percy that worm looks like a tasty bite, what say you and I don't have ourselves a piece?' Next thing you know, I look up and there's Percy bein' pulled out of the drink, wrigglin' and gaspin' like a minnow with palsy. I saw Man standin' there holdin' my Percy, and Percy's still wrigglin' with wide eyes, and what does that Man do next? He fries Percy up over one of them hot things the world goes on about."
Crow: "Let the record show that Fish speaks of "fire".
Fish: "That's right judge, he fried Percy over one of them fires! No, no I 'aint got a bit 'a use for Man. All I got out of him was one less mate and a load of grief. Hang 'im I say."
It went on like this for hours. And despite the monkeys, the eagles, the platypus, the pandas, no animal found any use in man at all. The dogs had a hard time admitting it, but they didn't really need man to feed them, they just found it so exciting. They whimpered and looked ashamed in man's direction, but they had to side with the others.
As everyone was restless to go, the last witness buzzed up to the stand. Since his voice was small, and quite annoying in the ear, no one at first gave a listen. But he kept on screaming, and the crow beat the gavel. The courtroom strained their eyes to see: in the box was a little mosquito screaming: "If Man goes, what will happen to me?!"
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Hard to Believe!
Hard to believe, but right now somewhere, Athos I picture, there may be a man who touches all with his sight, has all that could ever be wanted by pining lovers, anxious Americans, silly writers, quarreling couples, and penitent worshippers.
His death will be his truly, and Christ's-a choice he and Christ make to die that we may live.
If he showed us his face, this great globe and its surrounding cloud of stars would burn like a flower an inch from the sun.
For us he dies, fasts, chooses to walk rocky paths, smiles with dimples and stays quiet when the pilgrims bow.
"If you wanted, you could be with me. And you do want this, you just don't know it. The most outer of spaces is in your heart. The morning star mingles with your freckles. That tiny ache in your breast is swallowing the world."
And this man breathes the same air, eats the same food, as the politicians, the academics, the movie critics, the bartenders, the movie stars, the newspaper reporters, the bloggers, the murderers. In the same world, but not of it.
Hard to believe, but we could be him, if only we would choose what we want.
His death will be his truly, and Christ's-a choice he and Christ make to die that we may live.
If he showed us his face, this great globe and its surrounding cloud of stars would burn like a flower an inch from the sun.
For us he dies, fasts, chooses to walk rocky paths, smiles with dimples and stays quiet when the pilgrims bow.
"If you wanted, you could be with me. And you do want this, you just don't know it. The most outer of spaces is in your heart. The morning star mingles with your freckles. That tiny ache in your breast is swallowing the world."
And this man breathes the same air, eats the same food, as the politicians, the academics, the movie critics, the bartenders, the movie stars, the newspaper reporters, the bloggers, the murderers. In the same world, but not of it.
Hard to believe, but we could be him, if only we would choose what we want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
