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

Watch Palin dance. Facts are tough!

“PALIN: People aren’t looking for more of the same. They are looking for change. And John McCain has been the consummate maverick in the Senate over all these years.
He’s taken shots left and right from the other party and from within his own party, because he’s had to take on his own party when the time was right, when he recognized it was time to put partisanship aside and just do what was right for the American people.
That’s what I’ve done as governor, also, take on my own party, when I had to, and work with both sides of the aisle, in my cabinet, appointing those who would serve regardless of party, Democrats, independents, Republicans, whatever it took to get the job done.
Also, John McCain’s maverick position that he’s in, that’s really prompt up to and indicated by the supporters that he has. Look at Lieberman, and Giuliani, and Romney, and Lingle, and all of us who come from such a diverse background of — of policy and of partisanship, all coming together at this time, recognizing he is the man that we need to leave — lead in these next four years, because these are tumultuous times.
We have got to win the wars. We have got to get our economy back on track. We have got to not allow the greed and corruption on Wall Street anymore.
And we have not got to allow the partisanship that has really been entrenched in Washington, D.C., no matter who’s been in charge. When the Republicans were in charge, I didn’t see a lot of progress there, either. When the Democrats, either, though, this last go- around for the last two years.
Change is coming. And John McCain is the leader of that reform.
IFILL: Senator…
BIDEN: I’ll be very brief. Can I respond to that?
Look, the maverick — let’s talk about the maverick John McCain is. And, again, I love him. He’s been a maverick on some issues, but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people’s lives.
He voted four out of five times for George Bush’s budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year and over $3 trillion in debt since he’s got there.
He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against — he voted including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate.
He’s not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college.
He’s not been a maverick on the war. He’s not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table.
Can we send — can we get Mom’s MRI? Can we send Mary back to school next semester? We can’t — we can’t make it. How are we going to heat the — heat the house this winter?
He voted against even providing for what they call LIHEAP, for assistance to people, with oil prices going through the roof in the winter.
So maverick he is not on the important, critical issues that affect people at that kitchen table.”

(Via CNN.com.)

Look at the contrast in the responses of Sarah “Toothpaste Ad” Palin (friends words can’t take credit) vs. Joe “Gaffe Master” Biden. Which had style? Which had substance? Well, for my money robotic talking points are just not up to snuff. There’s too much at stake.

“In the after-swirl of John McCain’s campaign-suspension gambit Wednesday, one analyst offered this assessment: ‘It’s the longest Hail Mary pass in the history of either football or Marys.’
Okay, it was just a Facebook status update from a declared liberal in Pennsylvania, but in a very real way it captures the desperation that seemed to envolope Camp McCain yesterday. Now that we know the chronology of the day’s events, it seems that a more apt football analogy for McCain’s move would have been ‘intentional grounding,’ a deliberate attempt to look like you’re making a play when in fact you’re just getting rid of the ball to avoid an imminent and costly loss of yards, known in the parlance as getting sacked.”

(Via The Root.)

More McCoward? Looks so.

“‘This is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess,’ Obama said in Clearwater, Fla. ‘It’s going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once.’”

(Via Yahoo! News.)

Priceless. A friend called McCain “McCoward” for this. Harsh, but true.