Susan's Musings

Human Being

2008-09-27T01:06:00.008-05:00

What a wonderful night! Up at a winery in the Santa Cruz mountains, unexpectedly entertained by a fellow conference goer who brought along a guitar, his raspy voice, and a poet's soul. He is a Canadian. Next to me is a Norwegian diplomat. We are totally on the same wavelength, like we've known each other for years. Along comes a woman from North Carolina who sings in a gospel choir that tours the world to build bridges of understanding through song. I tell her "Oh Happy Day" is my favorite gospel song and she says it's the favorite in Belgium too and they taught her to sing it in Flemish last year. Dan is singing about darkness not having a claim on him, and being free in the light. Terje tells me his wife might like to join this healthy marriage business and his eyes are glowing. The stars are shining. The temperature is perfect. The wine is easy on the palate. The music is soul stirring. We are together.

Integrity

2008-05-13T09:37:00.002-05:00

This is not my original work, but I thought it was so good I would post it for the rest of y'all to enjoy (whoever that may be). This is a reflection from http://www.coachingcompass.com/.

Stepping Into Integrity
by Will Craig

Have you ever found yourself admiring someone for what they believed in even though you may not have agreed with them? Right or wrong you have to respect someone who takes a position and stands by it.

Innately, this is what we all want from others. How often have we said to ourselves, "You know, I'm not crazy about so-and-so but, at least, I know where I stand with them." The tough thing about taking a stand is that we're not going to please everyone and we'll probably alienate a few others in the process.

News flash... Isn't that what happens in our lives anyway? Often times we're so focused on doing and saying the right thing we become bland and uninteresting. Ask a newspaper editor, book publisher, talk radio host or television show producer what they're looking for and they will ALL say, "Someone with a point of view." That's what's interesting. That's what sells. And, bottom line, that's what we all want from the people in our lives.

There is more than one way to take a stand.

1. Stand up for what you believe in.
2. Stand down from a position where you feel compromised.
3. Stand back from a situation that doesn't feel right.

Take a stand today and, without moving a muscle, you'll also be stepping into integrity. You'll be more interesting, more respected, and maybe even admired.

Happy Marriage Secrets

2008-03-24T08:44:00.002-05:00

Sometimes my job just has to bleed over into daily life. I thought this article was a great reminder of the upsides of being a couple. Sometimes we can get too focused on what's wrong with our life, marriage, spouse, kids, etc. It's healthy to step back and consider all the things that are right with them.

In the case of marriage, I firmly believe that the time for rose-colored glasses is after you say I Do. The time for hard, realistic appraisal is before. So here's a great article on WebMD, called "5 Things Super Happy Couples Do Every Day". Read and enjoy. http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/5-things-super-happy-couples-every-day

So 'fess up! What do you do? One thing we do is give each other massages. Well, okay, I'm more the lucky recipient than the giver, but still. I was scratching and rubbing Bob's head this morning. He rubs my feet and my back practically every day. I gave him a foot rub yesterday. There's a sense of wellbeing and relaxation that we give each other through those little acts of service that transcend any "relationship work", but that help make the relationship work.

Winter Conspiracy

2008-02-17T15:53:00.003-06:00

I know you'll all find this very difficult to believe, but you have to believe me. If we don't band together and do something we're all doomed to winter forever and no Christmas. Although the press is in a blackout and can't report it, what's actually happened is that the White Witch from Narnia has taken over the White House, and she's making this winter last indefinitely. She's sworn to send 7" of snow every other day for the next 100 years unless we all renounce our faith. You've got to believe me! Does anyone out there believe me?

Picnic

2007-09-28T12:58:00.000-05:00

We sat beside the maple tree
In the warm October sun
basking in its brief blaze of glory.
The apples we bit into
were bright and crisp, like the air.
We rolled the red Italian wine around in our mouths
and let it loosen our tongues.
"It's funny," I said.
"This tree's brightest hour is just before the dark,"
and sliced another sliver of cheese.
He laughed and looked around at the scenery.
"Spring always comes again," he said.
We sat in the drowsy, sun-soaked silence
and I noticed a pair of apple trees.
They had grown up in the margins of the field
where the plow blades never reach.
They were right next to each other
so their branches only grew on one side.
They looked like a single tree
if you didn't notice their trunks.
"Look at that!", I pointed.
"How do you suppose that happened?"
One tree bore hundreds of shiny red apples
but its twin had none.
We wondered together -
was one nipped by frost while flowering
and the other escaped;
did the bees only come to visit
one side of the pair;
did they somehow commune and share responsibilities,
giving the bearing of fruit to the one most able?

As I closed my eyes that night
the afternoon's scene returned to me.
I saw again the crimson maple leaves
framed against the bright azure sky;
the flock of wild turkeys that emerged warily from the woods
to forage among the cut corn stalks
poking out of the rich brown earth;
the red-checked tablecloth we spread ourselves out on;
and the barren apple tree
next to the flourishing one.
"One was prob'ly protecting the other,"
I mumbled to myself.
"I'll bet it was doing the best it could."
But he was already asleep.

Letter to a Graduate

2007-05-15T15:16:00.000-05:00

May 12, 2007
Green Bay, WI

Dear Colin,

Congratulations on achieving this momentous milestone of graduating from college cum laude! You have worked hard and been diligent. As a result you have something that not many people in this world do - the benefit of a fine education. The process you've been through to arrive at this graduation day will benefit you for the rest of your life.

Every writer needs a journal to record their thoughts and feelings, so I have chosen to write the traditional family letter in the beginning of this one. (Editor's note: this was written to my son, Colin, in the pages of a Christian prayer journal.) The blank pages that follow this letter are yours to fill in and make them your own.

If I were simply choosing a blank journal for you, I would not have chosen one with such a strong, Christian character, lest you should feel as though I am trying to coerce you into my way of living. However, this letter is a gift from my heart to yours, and so this journal reflects who I am. Who you choose to become over the course of your life is something that I look forward to watching - cheering you on in good times and bad - so that you always know how deeply I love you and believe in you.

So my first piece of advice to you is to understand that a human life is, above all, a spiritual journey. Every choice in every day is one of Becoming. A single choice can have either tremendous or negligible consequences depending on how it affects your Becoming. A string of consistent choices makes a habit, and habits make the man.

Many people attempt to fool themselves much of the time regarding this point. They tell themselves that because they have plans to make different choices in the future, it's as though they have already made them. Or they tell themselves that their choices don't reflect their true, inner selves. This kind of Becoming does not lead to the flourishing of the human being. We cannot practice self-deception and still arrive at the clear noonday of the soul.

So what have I learned about Becoming? After all, I am still on the journey myself. First of all, I have learned that true answers are only to be found in two places: in the vast reaches of the Absolute, and in the depths of your own heart. We need both as human beings. It is neither sensible nor logical to deny that there is Absolute Truth. To say that there is none is to make a categorical statement of absolute truth. This is logically absurd. And more importantly, the universe is monstrous without it. If, in fact, Love and Truth and Goodness and Beauty are not at the heart of reality, then we must all despair. But I know beyond explaining that this is the case. I feel the reality of the Divine at the center of all things, and I know in my heart that Pride, Falseness, Evil and Ugliness do not have existential reality themselves, but are simply a nullification of the Ultimate Reality.

Now about the depths of the heart, I first want to say that your heart reflects the Absolute. That is to say, your heart recognizes that its true home is Love, Truth, Goodness, Beauty, and all the spiritual qualities that mankind has recognized throughout recorded history as being of enduring value. But living in a state of Becoming that tends toward these things is in many ways a daily battle. And every person faces their battles with Fear, Pain, Discouragement and all the other temptations that try to lead us out of the light at the center of reality and into the shadowlands at the far edges. So Courage is a very important quality to nurture within yourself.

It takes courage to speak the truth when a lie would avoid conflict, hurt feelings or recriminations. It takes courage to share your true feelings when they are not the pretty, garden variety. It takes courage to dream big dreams and set out to accomplish them. It especially takes courage to continue that pursuit when all the signs around you seem to point toward futility, suffering or impossibility.

But your heart has the power to guide you when you stop to deeply listen. It will point out to you the difference between a compromise that creates Beauty, and a compromise that makes you feel embarrassed or ashamed. It will teach you the difference between a Passive choice (You Win), an Aggressive choice (I Win), and an Assertive choice (Win-Win). Your heart is not, finally, subject to self-deception. You can only deny your true, soul needs for so long before your heart rises in rebellion against a Becoming that leads to falseness. On the other hand, your heart will also lead you toward deeper and truer Becoming. For example, you may journey for a while in a place that does not allow you to be Faithful to something that is important to you. But when you listen deeply and find that your heart is leading you to become Faithful, then you begin to make different choices. At first you may find it takes some effort to be Faithful, and you have to stop and listen often to regather your strength. At some point, being Faithful will no longer be an effort, and then you will find as you listen, that your heart will begin to speak to you about becoming Faithfulness. This is the still, small voice of God.

The great thing about this journey is that every day is a new day. One reason I chose this journal is because I loved the quotes they chose for the section dividers. A little farther on, you will find a quote from Oswald Chambers. "Leave the broken, irreversible past in God's hands, and step out into the invincible future with Him." Life affords you the opportunity to do so with every sunrise. You will stumble many times. You will make choices that you later regret. But pay no attention to those. Once your realize your mistakes, do an about face, and step back on the road toward your chosen Becoming with a light heart. Waste yourself on the people who choose to accompany you in the good kind of Becoming. Leave behind unapologetically those who cannot or will not support you in it. Lose yourself in the tasks that the journey will require. Celebrate each day as a Gift. Live out and speak out the eternal values to the best of your ability, and leave the rest in God's hands.

And never, never forget that my heart always has room in it for your heart. There is nothing you can ever do, say, live or experience to dim the Faith, Hope and Love in my heart for you.

Love,
Mom

Understanding Biblical Marriage

2007-03-24T11:47:00.000-05:00

Much is said in evangelical and charismatic Protestant churches about marriage. We hear about wives submitting to and respecting their husbands, and husbands loving their wives sacrificially. These are themes taken from the New Testament, found mainly in the Pauline writings. Paul himself, however, was trained as a strict Pharisee under a famous teacher named Gamaliel. Much understanding about biblical marriage has been lost to the Church because we are no longer steeped in Rabbinic tradition. In fact, the teaching of the Church today has much more in common with the ungodly Gentile cultures of Paul’s day than it does with traditional Jewish understanding.
So what exactly is the teaching that Paul would have received about marriage? To understand it we have to go all the way back to the book of Genesis. Here we find the story of the creation of the very first married couple – Adam and Eve. Here is the rabbinic commentary on these verses from the Stone Edition Chumash.
“God knew that Adam needed a companion. Her purpose was not for reproduction, for Adam had been created with that function. Rather, God wanted Adam to have the companionship, support, and challenge that is present in good marriages, and He wanted the children who would be born to Adam and his future mate to be reared by both a father and a mother. The needs for such assets in human life are too obvious to require elaboration. But before creating Adam’s helpmate, God brought all the creatures to him so that he could see for himself that none was suited to his needs, and he would ask for a companion. Then he would appreciate his newly fashioned mate and not take her for granted.”
The commentary goes on to explain the significance of the Hebrew words used when Adam names Eve’s gender. Woman is Ishah, which is spelled with the three letters Aleph-Shin-Heh [אשּׁה] (woman) because she was taken from Ish (man), spelled Aleph-Yod-Shin [אישׁ]. The rabbinic teaching on the meaning of these letters is very illuminating. They taught that Man and Woman both start with Aleph in the same place, so the genders are one-third the same. They went on to observe that both genders have the letter Shin, but in different places. They taught this means that we are one-third similar but opposite. The remaining letter that is unique to each gender, when put together, spells Yah, the name of God. The rabbis taught this meant that God had embedded his own image in the two sexes, which could only be shown when they were joined in union as a married couple. And that is the meaning behind the statement in Genesis 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh.” Interestingly, the rabbis also pointed out that when the name of God is removed from the two gender names, you are left in both cases with "esh" [אשׁ], a consuming, destructive fire.
The Chumash commentary on Genesis 2:18 is even more revealing of traditional Jewish thinking about the roles of the genders in marriage.
“A helper corresponding to him [lit. a helper against him]. If the man is worthy, the woman will be a helper; if he is unworthy she will be against him. Many have noted that the ideal marriage is not necessarily one of total agreement in all matters. Often it is the wife’s responsibility to oppose her husband and prevent him from acting rashly, or to help him achieve a common course by questioning, criticizing, and discussing. Thus, the verse means literally there are times a wife can best be a helper by being against him.”
Just in case there is any lingering doubt about the view of Husbands and Wives, here is the commentary on Genesis 1:22, when Eve is created from Adam’s rib.
“The side…into a woman. Unlike man’s, the woman’s body was not taken from the earth. God built one side of man into woman – so that the single human being became two, thereby demonstrating irrefutably the equality of man and woman.”
Is there any evidence that Paul was familiar with this teaching? After all, it is his writing that is most often quoted to support the leadership of the man over the woman. Actually, there is what appears to be a rather obscure reference to the teaching in Ephesians Chapter 3. These verses are not often quoted, and usually breezed over because we have lacked the traditional rabbinic viewpoint. But after what has been said above, the underlying teaching becomes obvious. In Ephesians 3:14-15 Paul writes, “For this reason I bow my knees before the Father; from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name…”
Now we turn to the more thorny issue of understanding in what spirit Paul writes that wives are submit to husbands since a husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church. We know that elsewhere he also taught that “in Christ there is neither male nor female”, and yet in Ephesians 5 we find a teaching that seems to say the opposite.
In order to put the scriptures that seem to subordinate women into proper context, we need to understand the household structure of biblical days. In the Roman world there were two classes of people: freeborn and slaves. The freeborn people were, by and large, the moneyed classes. They owned large households that resembled small corporations rather than the nuclear family of today. The business of the corporation was to manage the land holdings and the production of goods for both household consumption and for trade. These large household units contained many slaves, servants, and extended family members. There were a few unlucky freeborn people who did not have access to money. Often times these parents would sell their children into slavery in hopes of giving them a better economic situation, since masters were obligated to feed their households. The servant and slave classes most often lived in something like common dormitories, since none could afford houses and lands of their own.
It is also necessary to understand the family structure of Roman days. Men were the sole owners of all property in that era. Women and children were considered property, as were servants, slaves, animals, goods, land, and other possessions. It was lawful for a man to sell his wife and children into slavery if he so chose, since he owned them in the first place. A male slave, on the other hand, did not own his wife and children, if he had any, since he himself was property. They, like he, belonged to the master, and as with any property, had no rights of their own. A good master would not wear them down with abuse and neglect simply because that is foolish behavior for any property owner, but a bad master could do so and suffer no legal consequences. In fact, leading thinkers of the day were convinced that some classes of human being were inherently designed to be the property of others.
Into this culture comes ringing the words of the New Testament authors. Try to listen to them with the ears of that day.
1 Cor 7:4 “A wife is not the master of her own body, but her husband is; in the same way a husband is not the master of his own body, but his wife is.”
1 Cor 7:40 “[A single woman] will be happier, however, if she stays as she is. That is my opinion and I think that I too have God’s spirit.”
Galations 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
1 Peter 3:7-8 “In the same way you husbands must live with your wives with the proper understanding that they are more delicate than you. Treat them with respect, because they also will receive, together with you, God's gift of life. Do this so that nothing will interfere with your prayers. To conclude: you must all have the same attitude and the same feelings; love one another, and be kind and humble with one another.”
These words were a shocking declaration of the equality and brotherhood of all humankind in the context of Roman culture. But human institutions are resistant to change. It wasn’t until 1800 years had passed that devout Christians, understanding the spirit of the scriptures, put an end to slavery, although not one word of scripture can be found that describes it as an evil.
Since this was a manifesto of equality, why did the apostles tell slaves to obey their masters? The leaders of the early church were not concerned with overturning the social structure of the day. To encourage their followers to engage in open rebellion against the entrenched power structure of the day would have caused untold hardships for them as well as for the early church. Notice, however, that the passages enjoining obedience upon slaves are always right next to passages enjoining submission upon women. The apostles were saying, in other words, “Yes, we all know that there is no difference and you are equal in every way, but since society requires you to take a submissive role, do so without complaint because God’s ways are spiritual, not temporal. Jesus did not lead us in armed rebellion against Rome, and we are not leading you to a violent social rebellion either.”
The sad thing about most of the teaching on husbands and wives in today’s church is that they have twisted the words of the apostles around to mean exactly the opposite of what they were intended to say. Lacking historical understanding or context, proponents of male headship presume the scriptures prescribe submission of wives, when in fact, the original sense was just the opposite.
No doubt there are many who will be alarmed and indignant at what I write here. But what did Jesus say about the great test of ideas? He said that “by their fruits you will know them.” What is the fruit of the church teaching about submission of wives to the leadership of husbands? Does the church have healthy stable marriages, in contrast to the rest of society? No. In fact it has a higher rate of divorce than in the secular culture. The Baptist and non-denominational evangelical churches, which have hit this message the hardest, have the highest divorce rates of all. (Barna, 1999) Sounds like pretty rotten fruit to me. In fact, the Baptists have begun to beat a retreat from that position and encourage “mutual submission”. (Lundy, 2000)
The most grievous part of this wrong-headed teaching of the church is the loss of the incredible potential in marriage. God intended the world to get a glimpse of his own nature in the union of man and woman. The closeness, physical intimacy, mutual reverence, mutual submission, and shared life experience of a devoted married couple was to give us a dim earthly reflection of the life of the triune Godhead. It was God’s great plan to give us a taste of His eternal state of bliss here on earth. The tarnished and grubby thing it becomes when one is made master over the other would be laughable if it wasn’t so depressing.
For more biblical scholarship on this subject, see the website of Christians for Biblical Equality at http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/index.shtml .

Notable Biblical Sevens

2007-03-21T13:18:00.000-05:00

Bear with me, people! I love symbolism, archetype, and story. Ignore this post if you are a person who doesn't like to be confronted with anything but the concrete and neatly packaged. This is the kind of research I do because I find it fascinating. Others may find it obscure or picayune.

The Sevenfold Spirit

Spirit of the Lord
Spirit of Wisdom
Spirit of Understanding
Spirit of Counsel
Spirit of Might
Spirit of Knowledge
Fear of the LORD

Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
Isa 11:3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
Isa 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
Isa 11:5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins

The Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Prudence
Discretion (Knowledge of witty inventions)
Fear of the Lord
Counsel
Sound
Wisdom
Understanding
Strength (Might, Power)

Pro 8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
Pro 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the
evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
Pro 8:14 Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.
Pro 9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars

The Seven Spirits of God

Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne
Rev 4:5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and
there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven
Spirits of God.
Rev 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Rabbinic Commentary

...on the Feast of First Fruits
"And when you will come into the land that Hashem(sacred name) gave to you as an inheritance, and you will settle upon it, you shall take from the First Fruits of the Land that Hashem has given you, put them in a basket and bring them to the place in which Hashem has chosen His presence to dwell." (Deuteronomy 26:1,2)

Rashi, quoting the Talmud (Menachos 84b), explains the Mitzvoh. "From the First Fruits", but not from every kind of first fruits. The Mitzvoh of Bikkurim(first fruits) is done only with the seven special species which Eretz Yisroel(the land of Israel) is praised by; wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives and dates.

...on the seven pillars of wisdom
"Wisdom hath built her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars." (Proverbs 9:1)

The commentators remark that this is an allusion to the seven days of creation, the foundations of the world. Everything in the world came into being during those days. These seven pillars also refer to the seven middos (qualities) which as well are foundations of the world (chesed [absolute kindness], gevurah [might or restraint], tiferes [beauty, harmony and balance], netzach [victory, endurance], hod [splendor, majesty], yesod [foundation], malchus [kingship, sovereignty]), as it is written, "Hashem, Yours is the greatness (ha'gedula meaning chesed), the might (ha'gevurah), the beauty (ha'tiferes), the splendor (ha'netzach) and the majesty (ha'hod)". (1 Chronicles 29:12)

The spiritual work of a Jew in this world is to raise up these middos to their source. For instance, when one is moved to inspiration for chesed, or love of a friend or object, he should transpose that emotion into love for Hashem. When one experiences fear due to a circumstance or incident, he should transpose that fear into awe of the great name of Hashem, and reflect on how He rules the world, and that there is no place void of His presence. When one is struck by the awesome beauty of some object or the raw beauty and symmetry of nature, he should reflect that this beauty is really only an expression of Hashem Himself and that the only true beauty is His.

Bikkurim alludes to this concept in that Bikkurim came only from the first fruits of the seven species. The seven species correspond to the seven middos, which correspond to the seven days of creation and foundation of the world. The Torah(Pentateuch) wants the Bikkurim to come from the first fruits of the seven species of "the land", (artzecha - which refers to the physical and material realm.) Therefore, one takes all of his physical, mundane aspects from each and every middoh, brings them before Hashem, and consecrates them to His service. "Bring the first fruits of your land to Hashem your G-d." (Exodus 23:19)

Hobson's Choice

2007-03-13T15:39:00.000-05:00

Yesterday the doctor was in. He spent an hour with us carefully explaining the full range of treatment options. So, bypassing all the medicalese, the decision comes down to: 1) removal or 2) radiation?

On the one hand, removal is surgery with its attendant risks, and results about 50% of the time in problems that are delicate and private but not noted for contributing to marital satisfaction. (The doc mentioned Viagra here several times.) On the other hand, radiation is a one-time only choice which leaves intact tissues that have already demonstrated being prone to cancer and may or may not develop cancer again down the road in twelve to fifteen years. At which point, due to the radiation, surgery will no longer be possible.

Ugh.

Prayers for wisdom from above would be great if anyone cares to offer them.

Also, if you're curious about Hobson's Choice, here's the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice

Day 2

2007-03-10T16:33:00.000-06:00

Well, I'm feeling calmer today, although my body is showing signs of stress. (Yesterday my "bowels turned to water". Today I threw up.) I am better able to appreciate that Bob is not in immediate danger. I went to Eli S's birthday party and felt relatively normal. But I have a recurring need to hug my husband - more like hanging on for dear life! Strange how different a phrase like that sounds when you think the one you love is under threat of death.

We've agreed that we will pursue both conventional and naturopathic solutions. We're going to try to see the docs at the cancer center in UW Hospital Madison. They have an integrative medecine wing which works with their cancer patients and two docs who specialize in prostate cancer. My mind knows that this is probably very curable, but some other part of me is still in shock and mourning. I think Jung is right about the subconscious or the soul (he calls it the psyche). It is a vast, unknowable, yet powerful terrain, not to be feared, but to be embraced.

Both of us have registered an immediate emotional effect. I have had certain blind spots cleared up by this, and so has Bob. And it happened pretty much instantaneously. I see more clearly than ever that Truth really is a state of consciousness. This is the first soul lesson we have learned from this situation.

Test Results: Positive

2007-03-09T08:34:00.000-06:00

Three spots. Score of 6. Survival rate at 5 years 100%. Prognosis: 10-15 years if left untreated. The words swirl around me like an eddy of snow, but I’ve already gone numb. Their meaning is distant, something viewed through the wrong end of a telescope. What is close, the violator delighting in predatory intimacy, is “Cancer”. It has lodged itself somewhere deep in my gut and is resting there secure in its ability to kill my husband.
I have taken refuge in Starbucks. I know he won’t want me to share this just as surely as I know that I must. He will argue it’s so very early. “Lucky.” That’s what the doctor said. If it progresses we can always just remove the prostate, and we’re back to zero risk. Why drag anybody else into it?
But I can’t believe it. The mocker is flaunting his psychopathic intentions toward my husband. Icy fingers have closed around my heart. Last night’s fitful sleep was haunted by specters. Cancer took my father. Will it take my husband also? Will it steal Hannah’s father away from her? Oh God, I can’t do single parenting again. Somebody make it go away.
I should be at work, but I can’t go. I don’t want to explain tears or moodiness, and I don’t have the energy to pretend. I want to run away, but there’s nowhere to go. Lord help me.

Snow At Night

2007-01-21T18:23:00.000-06:00

What a glorious, perfect night it was tonight!

I went out to shovel the snow off our driveway, steps and sidewalks. Wrapped in snow boots, snow pants, and all the other winter accoutrements, I didn't feel the slightest bit cold. There was no breeze at all. The lightest of snowflakes were steadily falling. The village was quiet on a Sunday evening. I was disappointed when I found myself with nothing else to shovel.

I walked across to the empty lot on the other side of the street, and flopped down on my back. The snowflakes showered my face and I found myself saying aloud, "This is like heaven!" Somehow all the snowflakes seemed to be singing Gloria. It reminded me of Robert Frost and Robert Browning, all at the same time.

"Whose woods these are, I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow."

and

"God's in His Heaven -
All's right with the world!"

At moments like that I want nothing more than to please my God in every way.

Quitting Jail

2007-01-13T18:52:00.000-06:00

Well, I did it. After seven years of going to jail every Sunday to preach to the women in the Work Release Center, I up and quit. I made two phone calls and sent one email, and just like that, I was free of what has been a weekly obligation for so long I don't remember what it's like to go to church regularly on Sunday and be preached to.

It was easy to slip into the ministry unnoticed. I just showed up one Sunday and it became a habit to be there. Now I slipped back out equally unnoticed - I just stopped showing up one Sunday. And in between lies seven years of Sundays, and a lot of women who have come and gone, and in some cases, come again. I even had a mother who came prayed for her daughter, and then later, the daughter came and prayed for her mother. I came in every Sunday empty, begging the Lord to give me some bread to feed them. And I left every Sunday full.

I really don't know what difference I made to most, but I guess it doesn't really make any difference whether I know or not. One thing I've learned - God always lets me know what He wants me to do, but He very rarely tells me why. Usually when I think I know why, I find out later I was wrong. Maybe He's storing up all those why's until eternity. Or maybe He's answering all the time, but like my dog who is completely incapable of understanding the newspaper on any meaningful level, I'm too dense to get it.

In any case, thus ends a chapter of my life.

Faith and Reason

2007-01-06T15:03:00.000-06:00

Here's an excerpt of another great article which I didn't write. It's actually from the Pope and got him into hot water with the Muslim community during Sept. 2006, if you recall that tempest in a teapot. It's good stuff, even if it's on the dry, scholarly side. I've left in the paragraph which got him in trouble for historical interest, but the original article is too long to post. You can read it in it's entirety at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/
september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

LECTURE OF POPE BENEDICT XVI

Here's the part that got him in trouble...

"In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...". The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry."

These three paragraphs sum up his point about Faith and Reason.

"This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.
I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology's claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science", so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss". The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university."

Not hardly in most American universities today! But it is a great task for us as the Church too in this post-modern culture. When subjectivity is questioned, Faith becomes legalistic or marginalized. When objectivity is questioned, Faith can become ungrounded or even loony. I've seen it more than once in the Pentecostal world. So I agree with the Pope - Faith and Reason can't be divorced from each other. The Anglican church speaks of the three-legged stool of Scripture, Reason and Tradition as guides to Christian understanding. By tradition they mean the historic understanding of the Church about Scripture and Doctrine. (I like to take it back even further to traditional Jewish thought predating Christ.) That's what I love about my Vineyard Church (www.adullamvineyard.com) - the blend of openness to Spirit with groundedness in practice.

Authenticity vs. Sincerity

2007-01-03T16:46:00.000-06:00

Here is a great article sent to me by a friend. Read it and let me know what you think about this distinction. Please - no comments about Hillary - remember, I didn't write this. I would once have chosen the word "authentic" above the word "sincere" but the author has convinced me to change my stripes.

Our Overrated Inner Self
By ORLANDO PATTERSON
Published: December 26, 2006

In the 1970s, the cultural critic Lionel Trilling encouraged us to take seriously the distinction between sincerity and authenticity. Sincerity, he said, requires us to act and really be the way that we present ourselves to others. Authenticity involves finding and expressing the true inner self and judging all relationships in terms of it.

Authenticity now dominates our way of viewing ourselves and our relationships, with baleful consequences. Within sensitive individuals it breeds doubt; between people it promotes distrust; within groups it enhances group-think in the endless quest to be one with the group's true soul; and between groups it is the inner source of identity politics.

It also undermines good government. James Nolan, in his book ''The Therapeutic State,'' has shown how the emphasis on the primacy of the self has penetrated major areas of government: emotivist arguments trump reasoned discourse in Congressional hearings and criminal justice; and in public education, self-esteem vies with basic literacy in evaluating students. The cult of authenticity partly accounts for our poor choice of leaders. We prefer leaders who feel our pain, or born-again frat boys who claim that they can stare into the empty eyes of an ex-K.G.B. agent and see inside his soul. On the other hand we hear, ad nauseam, that Hillary Clinton, arguably one of the nation's most capable senators, is ''fake'' and therefore not electable as president.

But it is in our attempts to come to grips with prejudice that authenticity most confounds. Social scientists and pollsters routinely belittle results showing growing tolerance; they argue that Americans have simply learned how to conceal their deeply ingrained prejudices. A hot new subfield of psychology claims to validate such skepticism. The Harvard social psychologist Mahzarin Banaji and her collaborators claim to have evidence, based on more than three million self-administered Web-based tests, that nearly all of us are authentically bigoted to the core with hidden ''implicit prejudices'' -- about race, gender, age, homosexuality and appearance -- that we deny, sometimes with consciously tolerant views. The police shootings of Amadou Diallo and Sean Bell, they argue, are simply dramatic examples of how ''implicit prejudice'' influences the behavior of us all.

However well meaning these researchers, their gotcha psychology is morally invasive and, as the psychologist Philip Tetlock has cogently argued, of questionable validity and use. It cannot distinguish between legitimate apprehension and hateful bigotry as responses to identical social problems. A fearful young black woman living in a high-crime neighborhood could easily end up with a racist score. An army of diversity trainers now use Banaji's test to promote touchy-feely bias awareness in companies, which my colleague Frank Dobbin has shown to be a devious substitute for minority promotions.

I couldn't care less whether my neighbors and co-workers are authentically sexist, racist or ageist. What matters is that they behave with civility and tolerance, obey the rules of social interaction and are sincere about it. The criteria of sincerity are unambiguous: Will they keep their promises? Will they honor the meanings and understandings we tacitly negotiate? Are their gestures of cordiality offered in conscious good faith?

Scholars like Richard Sennett and the late Philip Rieff attribute the rise of authenticity to the influence of psychoanalysis, but America's protestant ethos and its growing intrusion in public life may be equally to blame. Whatever the cause, for centuries the norm of sincerity presented an alternate model of selfhood and judgment that was especially appropriate for non-intimate and secular relations. Its iconic expression is the celebrated passage from Shakespeare: ''All the world's a stage,/ And all the men and women merely players./They have their exits and their entrances,/ And one man in his time plays many parts.''

Shakespeare's ''self'' is inescapably public, fashioned in interaction with others and by the roles we play -- what sociologists, building on his insight, call the looking-glass self. This allows for change. Sincerity rests in reconciling our performance of tolerance with the people we become. And what it means for us today is that the best way of living in our diverse and contentiously free society is neither to obsess about the hidden depths of our prejudices nor to deny them, but to behave as if we had none.

Eulogy for My Uncle: Gardiner Dutton

2006-04-21T20:58:00.000-05:00

When my father, who was Gardiner’s older brother, died, I wrote a song for him. At my mother’s urging, (it’s always the mothers who make us do these things, isn’t it?) I pulled out my guitar and sang a rendition for Cam and Gardiner. They were sitting in what had newly become just my mother’s dining room, and Gardiner was touched. When I was done he asked, “Will you write one for us too when we go?” “Sure,” I said, touched myself by the childlike way in which the question was asked. It was an easy promise to make because of the gratitude I had toward a couple who had done so much for me.

It was a lot harder to deliver on that promise than to make it though. I find that the quality which most stands out for me when I think of Gardiner is a kind of inner restlessness that he seemed to have. He was a generous and sensitive man, encouraging of others, principled, intelligent and successful, yet he always seemed to me to be searching for something more. He was not a man to rest on his laurels or to look for quiet times and spaces in which to unwind. He was very unassuming for such an accomplished man, and he always seemed to have an eye on the horizon, scanning for something I’m not sure even he could have articulated. To write a song or poem about that, though, would be to move beyond the life of the uncle I came to honor today, and instead to explore the restless search for meaning that is common to the inner life of each of us. So today I will speak to honor the Uncle I knew as a child, and then the Uncle I knew as an adult.

I characterized Gardiner’s reactions a minute ago as childlike. This is what I honor most of all about him. He was childlike in the most positive sense - first and foremost in the sense that he always seemed to have an easy rapport with children. He managed to give them the feeling that he understood them and he had a knack for making them feel comfortable. For me as a child, his house was always the one that was so much fun to go to. There were swimming pools in which he and my father tossed me back and forth like a sack of potatoes, never letting me sense any tedium in the repetition. Gardiner especially would throw me each time with as much enthusiasm as the first time. There were barns at his house with haylofts and acreage to explore. There were horses to ride, over trails and jumps and through farm fields. Sarah and Jenny were there to play with, and their ages matched Anne’s and mine closely. There were what seemed to me to be extravagant presents that would arrive for Christmas, ones I could never imagine buying myself, but which I was sure represented a more exotic and interesting life. There was the first show I ever saw on Broadway. He took Jenny and me to see Godspell when we were still in elementary school. I went dreading the experience of having to sit still and behave for so many hours, and left with surprised gratitude for the gift of the experience.

Gardiner’s knack for making children feel comfortable extended to my own sons, Colin and Jesse. In 1987 I was 23 and my life was at a low point. I was in what is euphemistically called an "unfortunate" marriage: a gross understatement. My boys were three years old and nine months old, and I had made up my mind to leave the situation and make a new life for the three of us. Cam wrote me a letter after she had heard of my predicament and asked me to call her. She was my advocate and urged me to come out to Phoenix where she and Gardiner were living at the time. She was very persuasive and assured me that Gardiner could help me get a job. So I took the leap. I’ll never forget sitting on the airplane with those two small boys, one suitcase, two car seats, and exactly $30 to my name. At the time it felt like madness, but I didn’t know what a broad safety net was waiting to catch me.

It’s really impossible to speak of all the support I received from Gardiner without including Cam in equal or greater measure. Although she came into my uncle’s life when I was already in my mid-teens, she and Gardiner both supported me way above and beyond what would be reasonable for an aunt and uncle, beyond what many parents might be willing to do. They took us in, opened their home to us, set us on our feet financially, got me a job and a place to live, helped me buy a car, acted as grandparents to my boys, put up with my youthful tactlessness, and so much more. I can never repay the debt of kindness I owe both of them.

So this remembrance is really a chance to give a double thanksgiving, to Cam who is still here with us, and to Gardiner who has already passed on into the Great Mystery. I will pass that way one day myself. When I do, I fully expect to be met there by a young man with an impish grin, who’ll say, as he so often did when speaking to me on the phone, “Susannah! How are you, kid?”

Meaning in Work

2006-04-14T09:29:00.000-05:00

Where do we humans derive our sense of meaning? Of value? What do we base it upon? Most often, I hear people answer according to the action they take in this world - what they DO. I was recently struck by this paragraph from Studs Terkel's Introduction to his book, Working.

Perhaps it is this specter that most haunts working men and women: the planned obsolescence of the things they make. Or sell. It is perhaps this fear of no longer being needed in a world of needless things that most clearly spells out the unnaturalness, the surreality of much that is called work today.

What has been lost to us by the fact that so few people can actually be called artisans today? Everyone is a specialist. They do no more than a piece of the total work that produces the product or service being sold. The collective group of people that produces is all. The individual who might otherwise receive a sense of value as part of this team is denied that meaning by separation from the others. Many colleagues are in other parts of the globe. Parts of the work are done by those whom they will never meet or know about.

What would be returned to us if we were to go back to a situation where we were able to experience a true sense of creation? Where we all made things from beginning to end, from nothing to something? Where our collaborators in work lived next door or nearby? People with whom we actually shared life in all its aspects, not just work? What would happen if, rather than the profit produced by the product or service, the human being came back into the center of work?

In Memory of Patrick Egan

2006-03-25T16:34:00.000-06:00

Patrick, you are gone too soon,
Taken away before your noon,
All your promise unfulfilled,
All your restlessness, now stilled.

Patrick, your mother weeps for you,
Half-believing it's not true,
Your Thanksgiving meal will still be eaten,
Your boyish spirit still unbeaten.

Your family, we're listening too,
Waiting to hear some sound from you,
Hoping you'll show up after all -
It's not your final curtain call.

But, oh Pat, what will we say,
When it's finally the funeral day,
And there in coffin your still form lies,
Responding nothing to our cries.

Then we'll turn, as we all must,
To face the sculptor of the bust,
With tear-stained faces to ask Him, "Why?"
"Why, God, did You let him die?"

"Eighteen, Lord, he was so young,
Just in college, just begun.
His whole life still lay ahead."
Or so we thought - but now, he's dead.

Lord, we don't know how to pray,
We're not prepared for this grim day,
But, Lord, wherever Patrick is,
Grant that he may share Your bliss.

Hold him to Your breast, so dear,
Keep him safe, Lord, keep him near,
And grant that we, who must remain,
May see You still, through all our pain.

Glass Houses

2006-03-25T16:28:00.000-06:00

Who will reach them?
These brittle young women
Trying too hard to make something of themselves
As though a self can be made
Or bought at a trendy imports store.

Will they answer the knock
When trouble comes calling?
Open themselves to be melted and blown,
Led down the road not chosen
To what they are seeking?

I hope they won't become sharper still
Shards that glitter on the doorsill
As a warning to other young women,
"Don't come this way!"
Handing out lostness like candy at the town parade.

We are waiting...

2006-03-25T16:18:00.000-06:00

We are waiting
  in our idling cars
    as the windows steam
      and watching through the drizzle
        for our children to come running
          to come needing
            to become
We mothers
  we are watching

A Pause Midflight

2006-03-25T16:16:00.000-06:00

A magician's hand has passed this way
Across the trees along the Bay,
And in its wake left rusts and golds,
A playbill for what soon unfolds.
Or bits of yarn in a patchwork quilt
Of field and farm that no one built.
Not singly, yet as each man lives
He has a hand in shaping this.
And soon I too must play my part,
But gently, gently, restless heart.