Miraculously, the team @ Twitter just gave us @hope to use when we launch in March.  How cool is that???  I’d love it if you considered donating one tweet a day for @hope when we begin in a few months.

(Via Shaun in the City — The Blog of Shaun King)

Each of us tends to think we see things as they are, that we are objective. But this is not the case. We see the world, not as it is, but as we are— or, as we are conditioned to see it. When we open our mouths to describe what we see, we in effect describe ourselves, our perceptions, our paradigms. When other people disagree with us, we immediately think something is wrong with them. But, as the demonstration shows, sincere, clearheaded people see things differently, each looking through the unique lens of experience.



This does not mean that there are no facts. In the demonstration, two individuals who initially have been influenced by different conditioning pictures look at the third picture together. They are now both looking at the same identical facts— black lines and white spaces— and they would both acknowledge these as facts. But each person’s interpretation of these facts represents prior experiences, and the facts have no meaning whatsoever apart from the interpretation.

The more aware we are of our basic paradigms, maps, or assumptions, and the extent to which we have been influenced by our experience, the more we can take responsibility for those paradigms, examine them, test them against reality, listen to others and be open to their perceptions, thereby getting a larger picture and a far more objective view. [bold emphasis mine]

Indeed. That is who I decide to be: a person of integrity who takes responsibility for himself with a firm grasp of reality. It is not easy and Lord knows I fail probably more often than I’d care to admit. (Anger is a powerful drug.) If you have ever had a passionate discussion on politics or religion with someone, this difficulty should be apparent. As responsible adults we can overcome this. (You must if you wish to be an effective person by Covey’s lights.)

But in my debates and passionate discussions over the years, I’ve witnessed many people who make no attempt to develop a more objective worldview. People project their fears and hatreds onto one another. I can’t tell how many times I’ve been told what I believe or don’t, what shows I watch, what blogs I read, that I’m an atheistic Jesus freak with a capitalistic communist political outlook. None of which have even a hint of reality. It’s very true that people that become shrill and say these things to me are indeed showing who they are rather than the world as it is.

The best sign of this is how infrequently I’ve witnessed people “acknowledge…facts.” People, I an convinced, are far more interested and invested in protecting their beliefs than seeking truth or perhaps more accurately, defining their beliefs as truth. Facts become debatable, if they don’t suit.

Even as I write that it astounds me because as anyone who knows me will tell you that I am a person with an insatiable hunger to know. To know the truth of myself and the world in which I live. It’s why I put up with the sneers and the anger and the condescension. I want to know. And that requires I “listen to others and be open to [others'] perceptions, thereby getting a larger picture and a far more objective view.” In that way I am living out what Covey said was seeing the world as I am.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

I realized that I never really confronted exactly what I positively believe about the resurrection and afterlife. I tend to dismiss literal interpretations of sacred history recounted in The Bible, but that’s a negative affirmation: what I don’t believe. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus is in fact risen and alive though not as I am. He’s alive in a way I’ve struggled to put in words beyond a vague spiritual description, but Spong does better.

It was as if scales fell from his eyes and Simon saw a realm that is around us at every moment, a realm of life and love, a realm of God from within which Jesus appeared to Simon.

As I expected, Spong confirmed that resurrection is not the sort of thing you film and playback on a DVD much less narrate.

Was it real? Yes, I am convinced it was real. Was it objective? No, I do not think it was objective. Can it be real if it is not objective? Yes, I think it can, for “objective” is a category that measures events inside time and space. Jesus appeared to Simon from the realm of God, and that realm is not within history, it is not bounded by time or space.

Spong’s approach to understanding the resurrection reflects my study of the Bible: we try to understand the reality and truth of our faith by taking account of the witness of ancient people and the worldview shaping that witness. In this particular case, we attempt to read Scripture with Jewish eyes and listen with Jewish ears. Understanding Jewish midrash is the framework Spong used to do this which makes eminent sense. All the writers of Scripture with the possible exception of Luke-Acts were Jews.

Midrash is the Jewish way of saying that everything to be venerated in the present must somehow be connected with a sacred moment in the past. It is the ability to rework an ancient theme in a new context. It is the affirmation of a timeless truth found in the faith journey of a people so that this truth can be experienced afresh in every generation. It is the recognition that the truth of God is not bound within the limits of time but that its eternal echoes can be and are heard anew in every generation. It is the means whereby the experience of the present can be affirmed and asserted as true inside the symbols of yesterday.

What all this meant for me was that to find an “objective,” literal, “historical” account of the resurrection would be forever frustrated. Rightly so. History is not the grist of faith. Theology, biblical criticism, etc. perhaps, but not faith. And that was one lesson. As Spong states:

Ultimately one comes to a point in this search where one must say either yes or no to Jesus, and yes or no to the ultimate significance of his life. That line is drawn, and we must decide whether we will step over it in faith or, by refusing to step over, turn and walk away from this [Christian] tradition. No matter how deeply we search the Scriptures, no matter how profoundly we probe the text for literal details, no matter how many questions we raise, finally the Christ must either be the source of resurrection that lies within us or we are forced to admit in honesty that we have become the faithless ones.

But a more humbling lesson was that I would have no ammunition against atheists or literalist fundamentalists who with arrogance and condescension offend both my faith sensibilities and my insecurity borne of pride.

Was it then delusional? I do not think so, but there will always be those whose eyes are not opened and those who will never see what Simon saw, so they will always think it is a delusional claim.

There will also be some who accept this definition and then pretend that they do see, even when they do not. They will insist that they have concrete evidence. Many of them will occupy high positions in ecclesiastical circles. But the proof of the vision or lack thereof will be become Christlike, open, accepting, loving, and the feeders of the hungry sheep of the world? Or do they become righteous, eager to enforce their understanding of truth on others, judging and rejecting those who, by their standards, are inadequate believers or inadequate human beings.

My irritation will simply have to be the cross I will have to bear because I too have been eager to enforce my understanding of truth, judging others as inadequate believers. That’s my sin. This is why I must repent. Until my Christian compassion, Jesus within me, is so complete that only God’s grace to unconditionally love and show acceptance remains, this is my Lenten journey.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:St. Raymond of Penafort

If they can’t get the clergy sex abuse mess right, after all their protestations that they had taken steps to deal with the problem, and all their claims that the Catholic Church was now ahead of the curve on the issue, that our policies were such that the Catholic Church was the safest place for a child to be, nothing else matters.

The New Evangelization? Forget about it. Pro-life activities? Not a chance. Advocacy for the poor? It rings hollow. If the leaders of the Church cannot be trusted to keep their most solemn pledge to protect children, they cannot be trusted at all. If they fail to see this, their moral sensibility is not merely skewed, it is dead. It is not only that they cannot be trusted, it is that they should not be trusted.

They have succeeded in destroying the authority they were so obsessed in protecting.

Smooth jazz is really my Dad’s thing so I’m generally not all that turned on by modern praise and worship music.  But the words…Lord, God Almighty.

Merry Christmas!

You are receiving this letter because of the sermon I heard preached this past weekend at Mass at St. Raymond Church.  Our Pastor, Father Chris Walsh, preached on Matthew 3: 1-12, a part of the Gospel that is about the role of John the Baptist.  As you know, John was Jesus’ cousin and was given the job of preparing the way for Jesus.  John believed that Jesus was Lord and Savior and wanted everyone to have a relationship with him.  In the sermon, Father Chris challenged the congregation to be like John the Baptist and help someone in our life reconnect with Jesus Christ and the Church.

I am happy that you are in my life.  You are a good person and have been a real blessing to me.  As wonderful as your life has been, I believe it could be even better if you developed your relationship with Jesus Christ and the Church.  We all have lots of things that keep us from attending church each week; God knows it is a challenge for me at times too!  I guess at times we all need a “John the Baptist” to remind us that our time with Jesus is really what matters most in the end.

I am not sending you this letter to tell you what to do.  It is an invitiation.  An invitiation to celebrate Christmas in a way that matters most–not with decorations, cookies and gifts–but by focusing on Jesus Christ who came to save us from sin and give us a peace and joy that nothing in this world can give.  Please make a real effort to go to Church this year at Christmas.  If you have a church that nourishes your soul, great, go there!  If you are looking for a new church home, please know that I would love to bring you with me to St. Raymond for Mass on Christmas Eve at 7 p.m. or on Christmas Day at 10 a.m. but can’t as I will be out of town this year.  Of course you are welcome to join us every weekend of the year as well, Saturday nights at 5 p.m. and Sundays at 10 a.m.  Everyone is always welcome at St. Raymond; it is one of the things that make it such a special place for me.

If you want to talk about this letter, let me know.  If you want to pretend you never got it; that is fine too.  If you would like to speak with Father Chris, he said you can call him at (215) 549-3760 and he would be honored to speak with you about your relationship with the Lord.  As I get ready for Christmas, you will remain in my prayers.  I pray that St. John the Baptist will continue to point out Jesus to all of us, knowing that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life!

With love,

Robert

(Via Commonweal Magazine.)

I can relate.  I’m reminded of Genesis 32:29 when Jacob wrestles with God.

Then the man said, “You shall no longer be spoken of as Jacob, but as Israel, because you have contended with divine and human beings and have prevailed.”

“Am 8:4-7

Hear this, you who trample upon the needy and destroy the poor of the land! ‘When will the new moon be over,’ you ask, ‘that we may sell our grain, and the sabbath, that we may display the wheat? We will diminish the ephah, add to the shekel, and fix our scales for cheating! We will buy the lowly for silver, and the poor for a pair of sandals; even the refuse of the wheat we will sell!’ The LORD has sworn by the pride of Jacob: ‘Never will I forget a thing they have done!’”

(Via United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.)

This was the First Reading at Mass this morning on the theme of the day: socio-economic justice.  I always read this Bible passage as a general attack on the exploitation of the poor and so it is.  But it’s worth examining exactly what’s going on here.  Diminishing the ephah and adding to the shekel is pretty straightforward: It’s evil to cheat the poor.  But buying the lowly for silver the the poor for a pair of sandals hit me because it speaks to the morality of living wages and paying people below them.

The free market zealots might think such an outcome is “efficient” but even so, it is not a moral one. In a post-industrial society where wage labor is the primary means by which people earn a living, we need to think about how our society makes such possible or better yet, impossible.  I remember reading a disturbing statistic that 30% of the jobs in the U.S. pay less than $10.00 per hour or $20,800 a year.  That’s a real problem because that means those wage-earners cannot support themselves despite the fact that they are working full time.  These are not people on the welfare rolls.  They are workers.  If a business is only viable because it hires below living wage (full time) labor, then we have a serious problem because it’s exploitive.  To argue that such an outcome is defensible is simply morally wrong.  You can’t justify to “buy the lowly for silver and the poor for a pair of sandals.”  Not good.  Not good at all.  You might retort, “Education is the answer!”  If only that were so.  Even if we gave a Ph.D. level education to everyone in the country for free, flipping burgers would still be low wage labor.  And it’s not like the workers who fill such jobs have options because all the other jobs are taken very much like musical chairs.  Only 7 out of 10 Ph.D. thus would be able to live on their wages!

This is why I’ve lost my faith in the free market.  I realized it was like worshipping a golden calf.  Markets are merely objects, tools.  They are a means, not the end.  And with all due respect to Adam Smith, “free” markets do not a utopia make.  We need to be adults, collectively.  We need to make responsible, moral and conscious decisions about how to organize our society.  Freedom, which is the fruit of justice, demands no less.

Our hope for creative living in this world house that we have inherited lies in our ability to reestablish the moral ends of our lives in personal character and social justice.  Without this spiritual and moral reawakening we shall destroy ourselves in the misuse of our own instruments.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Science investigates; religion interprets.  Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control.  Science deals with facts; religion deals with values.  The two are not rivals.  They are complementary.  Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism.  Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.

Take that fundamentalists both of the evangelical and atheist variety.

To be sure, the theme on the surface is not something I disagree with.  Who would with God and country?  But here is why I find the Back (and Palin) offensive in connection with Dr. King.  I don’t have the eloquence but MLK does.

“When millions of people have been cheated for centuries, restitution is a costly process.  Inferior education, poor housing, unemployment, inadequate healthcare—each is a bitter component of the oppression that has been our heritage.  Each will require billions of dollars to correct.  Justice so long deferred has accumulated interest and its cost for this society will be substantial in financial as well as human terms.  This fact has not been fully grasped, because most of the gains of the past decade were obtained at bargain rates.  The desegregation of public facilities cost nothing; neither did the election and appointment of a few black public officials.”

“A religion true to its nature must also be concerned about man’s social conditions.  Religion deals with both earth and heaven, both time and eternity.  Religion operates not only on the vertical plane but also on the horizontal.  It seeks not only to integrate men with God but to integrate men with men and each man with himself.  This means, at bottom, that the Christian gospel is a two-way road.  On the one hand, it seeks to change the souls of men and thereby unite them with God; on the other hand, it seeks to change the environmental conditions of men so that the soul will have a chance after it is changed.  Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them is a dry-as-dust religion.  Such a religion is a kind the Marxists like to see—an opiate of the people.”

“A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: ‘This way of settling differences is not just.’  This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love.  A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on  programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

“Those of use who love peace must organize as effectively as the war hawks. As they spread the propaganda of war, we must spread the propaganda of peace.  We must combine the fervor of the civil rights movement with the peace movement.  We must demonstrate, teach, and preach, until the very foundations of our nation are shaken.  We must work unceasingly to lift this nation that we love to a higher destiny, to a more noble expression of humaneness.”

“I have tried to be honest.  To be honest is to confront the truth.  However unpleasant and inconvenient the truth may be, I believe we must expose and face it if we are to achieve a better quality of American life.”

So you can imagine what I think of Palin mocking the first black President, a physical manifestation of King’s dream becoming reality, as a community activist without “real responsibilities.”  You can guess what I think of Beck calling that same man a racist that hates white people.  You can also imagine what I think of him lambasting liberation theology, which King practiced, calling it Marxist on the anniversary of King’s “Dream” speech even in the midst of apologizing for his Obama-racist remarks during a rally about positiveness.  Ironic, offensive and ignorant just doesn’t cover it.  (Note: I have not engaged in ad hominem attack.  I have attacked action.)