Posts Tagged ‘question’

Justice

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

A potential paradox/friction/confusion/fertile ground for mediation. (Or, I’m just missing a piece of the puzzle.)

Justice = rendering what is owed to another

1) Question: What is the “what” that is owed to another?

I have an internal sense of what is owed to others. Some words or labels: respect, love, kindness, compassion, help, service. For God: worship, adoration, praise. The word sacrifice should be in there too. The best answer is the greatest commandment: to love God and to love my neighbor.

2) But when I turn the question around, and maybe this is my problem, I am not sure what is owed to me.

I know my answer to part 1 applies to me too.

This sense of what is owed to me conflicts with my sense of the First Beatitude.
The First Beatitude, poor in spirit, ultimately points to the fact that all is gift.

I have no rights or claims to make on God.

In reality, I do not own anything, except my choices. (Even the opportunity to make a choice is gift.) I am a steward of what is under my control, or rather, under my direct influence on things and people around me.

If all is gift, then I am radically (at the root) poor. Anything that happens to me is gift.

God’s love for me is gift. His grace is gift.

And all of the words and labels I used in part 1 are gift. Even to give those to others has been a gift for me to give.

Therefore, it seems to me, I do not have a claim to be owed anything.

Even by God’s greatest commandment, I do not have a claim to be owed anything because all of that too is gift.

And if I do not have a claim to be owed anything, then where does justice fit in for me? It seems justice only applies for God.

But yet, I see injustice in the world.

Nota Bene: God has a claim on me. As His creature, I have failed many times to give what is properly owed to Him. I pray for His mercy. I have also failed many times to give what is owed to my neighbor. I pray for God’s mercy.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Homesick

Monday, January 18th, 2010

Do you still get homesick?
Do you dare let yourself feel that ache,
That deep emptiness of longing, a hole of nothingness?
Or do you cover it up,
With half promises, with misdirected hopes, with distractions?
Do you still long for wholeness,
Completeness, oneness, with another?
Do you still hunger?
Do you still long for God, for heaven, for home?

Why Would God Laugh?

Thursday, August 6th, 2009

The song “Laughing With” is haunting me in a good way. When I searched for the lyrics yesterday, one of the first sites that came up was one of those song meaning sites. I read through some of the comments. Some were debating if the song was really about God or if it was a jab at atheists or a jab at a certain style of believer. Even the religion of the singer was discussed. Some comments went deeper in wondering about how and when their own attitude of God changes.

These levels need to be examined, but I left a somewhat different, and hopefully a much deeper comment:

I think the key [to understanding the song] is the title and its last line. Why would God laugh?

Figure that out and you will know why we are laughing with God.

I should have added, “…despite all that is referenced in the song.”

“Figure that out” may be a poor choice of words because it is not a problem to solve. It is a question and a mystery to live with, to grow deeper in understanding.

Obviously, God would not laugh at anyone, especially at the people who laugh at Him like those in the chorus. And God would not be laughing at or about the other situations concerning war, illness, poverty, etc. I can see a skeptic with a twisted image of a revengeful god laughing smugly at people when they prayed to Him in need, “Ha ha, now you call me! I knew you would.” This god is too small. It is not the image of Jesus.

Why God would laugh? The only insight I have to this question is joy. That’s all I got, and yet it seems to be more than enough. God would laugh because of joy.

And yet, the strength and shock of the song in my opinion is that joy is never mentioned or implied in the lyrics. (Laughing at cocktail jokes or put-downs is not real joy.) The contrast is so striking that it is paradoxical. This leads to another question with no earthly answer. Where is joy in all those desolate situations described in the song? It must be there. The song ends in a note of joy, “We’re all laughing with God”.

(For further thought, every saint recognized or sensed joy in all situations. That does not mean they were happy in times of desolation, but they never lost a sense of underlying joy in God’s presence. This must be true of every saint, or else they would not be a saint. This is often easier seen in the stories of martyrs.)

I have an answer, but to a skeptic it might appear as circular reasoning. What, or rather who, is the source of all joy? It is God. This now puts a heavy emphasis on the preposition with. (See previous parenthetical paragraph.)

Maybe that is another way to say what separates hell from heaven—those who choose to laugh with God and those who won’t?

Two Ways of Knowing

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

I want to record an email conversation that occurred between a friend and I back in late February. My spiritual director reminds me to listen—or rather take my own advice—to what I say to other people. This seems particularly germane to my current sense of lostness.

From David:

Epistemology is something I think about from time to time: How do we know what we know? The scientific method is pretty trusted in our world, as are the five senses. Of course, we know that neither of those avenues to knowledge are infallible; nonetheless, we have to rely on them for practical measures, and unless someone is in a philosophy class, he or she will likely never question either avenue.

My question is, do you think faith is another way to know things? I’m specifically thinking of verses like 2 Cor. 5:7, which says “live by faith, not by sight”.

My reply:

Yes!!

Give the following four objects to a kid and tell him to sort them into two groups: a baseball, a basketball, a bat, a hoop.

Some kids will group the baseball and basketball together and the bat and hoop together based on shape or external properties. Some kids will group the baseball with the bat and the basketball with the hoop based on functionality.

Take another group of words: religion, technology, science, magic.

[Note the two senses of the word magic. There is magic as in magic tricks, which is entertainment of illusion that attempts to deceive or misdirect the senses in believing something that is not real. And there is magic as in magic spells and potions (i.e. alchemy), which are attempts to manipulate things and people. It is this second sense of magic that is implied.]

Many people will group religion and magic together against science and technology. Maybe it is because of the culture and the media’s use of the terms. Maybe it is because of a presumption of science’s ability to solve problems and its use in developing technology. Maybe it is due to the demotion of magic to illusion or fantasy and the unprovableness of religion.

But from a functional point of view, religion and science should go together because both are forms of knowing. This makes more sense when you group technology and magic together because both are forms of control—controlling nature, controlling our environment, controlling the things (or people) we want. People easily see technology this way, but they forget that was the exact same reason people in the “old” days looked toward magic.

The big assumption made by both science and religion is that there exists patterns in the universe. The evidence is overwhelmingly obvious. Science might say that the human mind evolved and religion might say that the human mind was made, but both agree that the human mind can reason and can know (recognize) these patterns of the universe. (Technology and magic are means to manipulate that pattern for our control over it.)

Science and religion are two ways of knowing. They do not mutually exclude each other but rather compliment each other. Science is good at knowing the material world, but it is not good at answering questions of a philosophical/spiritual nature. C.S. Lewis’ devil Screwtape called us amphibians—half animal, half spirit. The material and spiritual do not exclude each other but compliment each other.

There is a short scene from the movie Red Planet that illustrates this:

Chantilas: [Suppose] we just finished poisoning the earth and everyone was dead in a hundred years. Then what was the point of anything? Art, beauty—all gone—the Greeks, the Constitution, people dying for freedom, ideas. None of it meant anything? What about religion? Do we give up on God too?

Gallagher: You didn’t just give up being a scientist one day, did you?

Chantilas: I realized science couldn’t answer any of the really interesting questions. So, I turned to philosophy. I’ve been searching for God ever since. Who knows, I may pick up a rock and it’ll say underneath, “Made by God.” The universe is full of surprises.

How can we “know” the answers to the really interesting questions, like why are we here, is there meaning to life, etc.? Are there patterns to be observed in the universe to help answer these questions? Can we know and reason about any of these questions? Well, does not posing the questions in themselves point to the fact that we can know and reason with them?

Science “sees” and explores the patterns. Religion must sense the patterns through other means. All of which might help explain the quote from Scripture, “live by faith, not by sight.” Faith is a little like a blind man seeing in the dark.

What do you think?

David again:

First of all, thank you so much for that response. It is pretty much exactly what I needed to hear.

I’ll go ahead and explain where my question came from. I was teaching the teenage bible class at my church this past Wednesday night, and we were talking about the verse I mentioned. As I was asking the kids what they thought it meant to “live by faith”, I remembered my philosophy teacher in college (brilliant man, btw: studied at Oxford, a fantastic Christian apologist) saying that the weakness of rationalism is its refusal to acknowledge that there are other ways to know things besides plain ol’ logic. The way I remember it is that the Divine has its own system of revelation and being understood.

So I told those kids that I thought the verse meant we could know things a third way. But even as I said it, I wondered if I still believed it as I had in college. …

I really like the grouping task you suggested, particularly because I like to say that magic is proof our senses are not infallible: seeing doesn’t mean believing. Lately, too, I’ve been thinking some about trying to explain why people love each other and do kind things for each other. Christianity, of course, has something to say about that, and of course some scientists do too, with their ideas on how natural selection encourages selflessness, as do anthropologists with their sociological explanations. Actually, I shouldn’t say I’ve “lately” been thinking about this—I’ve been thinking about it since I first heard the issue posed in college.

Finally, then, I must say I totally agree with you: Yes!!

And to finish, my reply:

“…weakness of rationalism is its refusal to acknowledge that there are other ways to know things besides plain ol’ logic.” — God is transcendent. If you take the idea of transcendence, then the nature of God is obviously above the nature of the material universe. Push the idea of transcendence further, then God is also above our images and words and concepts about Him. In other words, God is above our knowledge that uses images and words and concepts. But that does not mean we can not know God. You hit the nail on the head with the example of love—if one has an experience of true love, he or she “knows” the other person beyond words or images or even concepts. Poetry and literature and art are attempts to convey that knowing.

I have been listening to a series on the 12th century mystic St. John of the Cross. He calls it “dark knowledge” of God. Not that it is knowledge of darkness or evil, but rather that it lacks the light from our words and images and concepts. It is a knowing without knowing. Everything in the world says that you don’t know, but you do. St. John of the Cross is the one famous for the concept of the dark night of the soul, where as one approaches closer in union with God, your senses and your images and words become in affect blind or darkened because God is beyond your senses and images and words. It feels like a dark night.

Hmm…reminds me of what St. John of the Cross said, “God refuses to be known except by love.”

Courage

Sunday, April 26th, 2009

Has someone’s courage ever made you look at yourself and ask what you’re afraid of, what you know of love?

Your pain has changed me
Your dreams inspire
Your face a memory
Your hope a fire
Your courage asks me what I’m afraid of
And what I know of love
And what I know of God

— Sara Groves, from “I Saw What I Saw”

Flat Tire

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

You have to wonder what kind of reflection it is on a man’s life if on the way to the cemetery his hearse gets a flat tire?

Coincidence? Maybe. Perhaps we should focus not on the incident itself, but on how his family and friends react? That is where the choice is, where grace happens, be it accepted or rejected. It is not for the dead man, but for his family and friends. How do they choose?

I also wonder where they store the jack and spare tire in a hearse? Is it under the coffin?

You Don’t Have To Prove Anything

Monday, July 14th, 2008

There is a line from a William Stafford poem:

“It’s for the best,” my mother said, “Nothing can
ever be wrong for anyone truly good.”

And then I look at the suffering Jesus endured,
and the suffering of all people.
If any one was definitely good, it would be Jesus.
As for me, the only good in me is Jesus.

And yet he suffered.
I have suffered, and will again.
The people I love have suffered.
The stranger in the store has suffered,
and perhaps even now is trying to live with tragedy.

Why? I don’t know.
I do know that Jesus came and he suffered.
He was human. He suffered
with us, for us.

God never answered Job’s questions.
He is not going to answer mine.
God is the one who asks the questions:
How are you going to respond?
Are you going to receive or reject, keep or give?

The answer to the question is not a what, but a who,
not words, but the Word.
God is the answer to all questions.
And Jesus came
to show and to live and to be the answer.

I claim no deep understanding,
but I know—I know—with Jesus,
nothing can ever be wrong.

Near the end of the same poem,

“You don’t have to prove anything,” my mother said.
“Just be ready for what God sends.”

Teaching Dirt to Listen

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

In a narrative essay titled “Teaching a Stone to Talk” (found in the book by the same name), the author Annie DIllard describes an eccentric man trying to teach a stone how to talk. Several times a day, he removes his stone from the shelf, a dark gray, “palm-sized oval beach cobble”, and proceeds with his lesson. No details are given as to what or how he is teaching the stone.

My first thought after being mildly amused in her descriptions of the situation was to wonder about God. Is the situation analogous to the Holy Spirit trying to teach dirt to pray? After all, we are dust and to dust we shall return.

Dillard’s essay moves onto the apparent silence of nature, of the universe, and even of God. She wonders if maybe it was our fault for God not speaking to us—we asked Him not to.

The wilderness generation was at Sinai; it witnessed there the thick darkness where God was: “and all the people saw the thunderings, and the mountain smoking.” It scared them witless. Then they asked Moses to beg God, please, never speak to them directly again. “Let not God speak with us, lest we die.” Moses took the message. And God, pitying their self-consciousness, agreed. He did not speak to the people anymore.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Dillard goes on to lament. “We doused the burning bush and cannot rekindle it; we are lighting matches in vain under every green tree.” Yes, we are desperate to speak with someone or something other than ourselves. Some researchers have attempted, in vain perhaps, to communicate with chimpanzees, dolphins, whales, etc. Others search space for signs of extraterrestrial life.

I suspect that some are trying to prove that we are not unique in the universe, to deconstruct or devalue humanity to nothing more than mere material processes. Others are just lonely, seeking communication with other forms of life, or inanimate objects like stones, to acknowledge our camaraderie or kinship.

What have we been doing all these centuries but trying to call God back to the mountain, or, failing that, raise a peep out of anything that isn’t us? What is the difference between a cathedral and a physics lab? Are not they both saying: Hello? We spy on whales and on interstellar radio objects; we starve ourselves and pray till we’re blue.

Dillard moves into the silence of the world.

At a certain point you say to the woods, to the sea, to the mountains, the world, Now I am ready. Now I will stop and be wholly attentive. You empty yourself and wait, listening. After a time you hear it: there is nothing there. There is nothing but those things only, those created objects, discrete, growing or holding, being rained on or raining, held, flooding or ebbing, standing, or spread. You feel the world’s word as a tension, a hum, a single chorused note everywhere the same. This is it: this hum is silence. Nature does utter a peep—just one. The birds and insects, the meadows and swamps and rivers and stones and mountains and clouds: they all do it; they all don’t do it.

The silence is all there is. “We are here to witness. There is nothing else to do with those mute materials we do not need.” Witness, or should I say with-ness? Dillard goes on,

If we were not here, material events like the passage of seasons would lack even the meager meaning we are able to muster them. The show would play to an empty house, as do all those falling stars which fall in the daytime.

The remaining portion of her narrative moves on to make her point, that Dillard is called to be witness for nature.

Hmmm…we are to be witness, or with-ness, to nature, to the world, to the universe. With-ness, yes! But I wonder. What if nature or the world is the witness, the one called to with-ness for us?

Maybe God did not choose to stop speaking with us, but rather, we chose to stop listening? What if the stone has been trying to teach the man to listen?

Why Christmas?

Wednesday, December 12th, 2007

From Br. Joseph —

The young boy asked, “Why Christmas?”

His father replied, “You know, it’s December 25th, the season when everyone puts up Christmas trees and decorates everything in red and green. We hang Christmas lights on the house and…”

“Yes, I know all that Dad. Not when is Christmas. Why Christmas?”

The father tried again. “Well, it is a time for giving gifts to friends and loved ones to show that you care about them. Santa Claus comes and…”

“Not how, why Christmas?” re-asked the son.

“Christmas is,” slowly began the father searching his memory for the true reason, “Christmas is the time we celebrate the birth of Jesus.”

“Yes, Dad.” The son implored one more time, “Not what, why Dad, why is there Christmas?”

Little kids can ask a lot of questions, why, why, why. So why, why Christmas? Why was Jesus born? Why do we celebrate His birth?

You know the answers, at least you know the reasons stated by the church or by your parents and such. They are correct answers, but they are on the surface. Go deeper. Search your heart. Why is there Christmas for you?? Not when, how, or what, but why?

Why was Jesus born for you?

The Incarnation wasn’t just a thoughtful gesture on the part of God.

Was it to save the world, to save you? Do you need saving? Saving from what? If you don’t need saving, then you don’t need Christmas! Perfect people don’t need God.

Was Jesus born to bring peace? To heal? To bring life? To be the Way?

Yes, yes, yes. These are all great and important why’s, but believe it or not, the heart wants more.

Maybe the deepest reason is so simple and so basic to human need that we often forget it. The suffering Job asked a thousand questions and did not receive any answers, except one. It is the same answer we get too, but we often do not see it, or even accept it as enough.

Maybe the most profound reason why there is Christmas is found in Scripture in Matthew 1:23 —

Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel,
which means “God is with us.”

God is with us, with you. (If you think about it, what more do we truly need than God?)

Which leaves one more question…where is Christmas?

Thank you Mary for your “yes.” Our Lady of Mercy, pray for us…

The Question

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

In The Shattered Lantern, Ronald Rolheiser quotes Dag Hammarskjöld:

I don’t know Who—or what—put the question, I don’t know when it was put. I don’t even remember answering. But at some moment I did answer Yes to Someone—or Something—and from that hour I was certain that existence is meaningful and that, therefore, my life, in self-surrender, had a goal.

When I read this, I immediately jumped in time and space to the memory of the morning of a retreat several years ago where faith found me. The poster behind the speaker was the name of his talk, “God’s Friendship.” I was sitting there kind of dumbfounded and saying to myself, “Hmmm, I never thought of it that way before.” It is not like I had not heard the saying before. That one particular moment was a moment of grace where I was open to see something in a new way. (By the way, that is one definition for grace, seeing things in a new way.) It opened me up further to see and accept the speaker and his words in a new way. By the end of the talk, I could say yes to faith.

After stepping out of this memory, my first thought was misleading, “This was where I remembering hearing the question.” My second thought was slightly off the mark too, “No, the question had been asked many times before in many different ways. This is where I remember saying yes.” The third thought struck true, “This is where I said yes and meant it.” Something was different this time. The seed had landed not on the path or among the rocks, but in good soil and it started to take root. I wanted it. Faith is a gift. It is freely given. I believe it is always being offered. It can only be received. You cannot take it, or fake it. But you can receive it if you honestly want it.

I keep forgetting this. Existence is meaningful. There is purpose to my life regardless of what meaning and purpose I assign it. I am yours Father, and that should be enough. It is enough. Thank You for the gift of faith.

I think it was Thomas Merton in New Seeds for Contemplation who talks about how doubt shifts. He describes doubt moving from the existence of God to oneself. The doubts concerning God and His promises always seem to remain, greatly diminished perhaps, but the focus of doubts switches from the external to the internal, to you and your abilities, to your faith or lack of it, to your hope or lack of it, to your love or lack of it, to you and your openness to accept grace, and ultimately salvation.

In C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce, the narrator has a dream of visiting hell where he observes people wallowing in their own selfishness, obsessions, and attachments to earthly things. He along with a few fortunate individuals who are not yet too lost within themselves are transported to the lushious green fields outside of heaven. Off in the distant east is a mountain range where the sun is just about to rise. The narrator and his traveling companions are like ghostly whisps of smoke here on the edge of heaven. They are not yet real enough, solid enough, to enter. The ghostly people do not even weigh enough to bend the grass under their feet. Each blade of grass pokes painfully into their feet on each step. The narrator tries to pick up a leaf, but it is too heavy, too real for him to lift.

Solid, bright and illumuninous people approach the ghostly people from the direction of the mountain range. Each ghostly person recognizes one of the bright solid people who, after conversing for awhile, invite them to cross over into heaven. Everyone one of the ghostly people struggles with this choice. Each must choose to let go of their own selfishness, obsessions, and attachments to earthly things. Some choose to let go and begin to move in the direction of the mountains in the east, slowly turning into solid, real people as they go. Some do not, and turn inward on themselves instead of reaching out.

I doubt my ability to make this choice, to let go of earthy things for heaven. I do not know if my deepest desire to see the face of God is greater than my selfishness, my pride, my attachments. I hope it is, but I don’t know for certain. Is my urge to reach outward stronger than the urge to withdraw inward? One leads to heaven, the other to hell. One is love, the other is not.

I know that Lewis’s story is a literary device and powerful symbol. There is not one big choice made after death. No, that choice is made by all the little choices over the course of a life time. And no, God is not an accountant god talleying up all the choices to make sure the good outnumber the bad. It goes back to something like the Hammarskjöld quote above—did I answer “yes” to the question? Do I still try to answer yes each day?

There is a painting and a semi-famous icon based on scripture of Jesus knocking on a door of a dark house. The weeds have grown up around the door and it has no handle. The door can only be opened from the inside. It is dark outside except for the light eminating from Jesus’ himself. The scene poses the question: will the person inside open the door when Jesus calls? Only the person behind the door has the power of the choice, to open the door or not, to answer “yes” to His question. (And love waits patiently for the answer.)

But what if the person behind the door wants to open it but cannot? What if he or she is so paralyzed by fear or bounded by their slavery to attachments that he or she cannot get up from the middle of the floor to reach the door? What if the terror is so much that he or she cannot even call out for help?

I do not know the answer to these questions, but faith reminds me of the Apostles in the upper room. The door was locked too that one morning when they were hiding and afraid. And Jesus appeared to them within the room. No locked door stopped Him because He knew their answers in their hearts. He knew. And He came.

Near the end of The Shattered Lantern, Rolheiser tells this story.

There is a contemporary parable about a Cretan peasant, a man who deeply loved his life and work. He enjoyed tilling the soil, feeling the warm sun on his naked back as he worked in the fields, and feeling the dirt under his feet. He loved the planting, the harvesting, the very smell of nature. He loved espeically his wife, his children and his friends., and enjoyed being with them, eating together, drinking wine, talking, making love, and simply being united in a shared life. And he loved Crete, his tiny country. The earth, the sky, the seas, it was his!

One day he sensed that death was near. He was not afraid of the beyond, for he had lived a good life. No. But he feared leaving Crete, his wife, his children, his friends, his home, and his land. As he prepared to die, he grasped a few grams of soil from his beloved Crete in his hand and told his loved ones to bury him with it.

He died, awoke, and found himself at heaven’s gate, the soil still in his hand and heaven’s gate firmly barred against him. Eventually St. Peter came through the heavenly gates and addressed him: “You’ve lived a good life, and we have a place for you inside, but you cannot enter unless you drop that handful of soil.” “Why? Why must I let go of this soil? I will not! What’s inside those gates I don’t know. But this soilI know—it’s my life, my wife, my work, my family, it’s all that I know and love, it’s Crete! I will not let go!”

A silent Peter left him and closed the large gates behind him. There seemed little point in arguing with the peasant. Several minutes later, the gates opened a second time and this time a very young child emerged. She did not try to reason with the man, nor did she try to coax him into letting go of the soil in his hand. She simply took his hand and, as she did, the soil of Crete spilled to the ground. Then she led him through the gates of heaven. A shock awaited the man as he entered heaven. There before him lay all of Crete.

The man had answered “yes” to the question. He may not have explicitly stated it, but he lived it in his love for family, friends, the land, and for life. The Apostles said yes too, even though they themselves had abandoned their Friend in His hour of glory.

I hope to live my “yes” to You. You are the question. You are the answer. Please help me continue to say yes. Help me to live my yes. Help me be the yes.