Weariness and the Pursuit of Stuff

In my reading this morning from John of the Cross, I can’t help but be taken aback by his strict denunciation of all human appetites. For John, the appetites necessarily detract from our pursuit of God, and so God works within us to pure us of such to prepare us for union with God’s own spirit.

I can’t help reading his argument without saying, “Yeah, but…” in almost every sentence. And surely some of those “yeah, buts” need to be pursued, BUT I also think they come out of my own resistance to a word of truth about my own distorted appetites, and the way they tend to resist the Lord’s calling for my life. John writing of the different ways the appetites impair our spiritual lives, write this in The Ascent of Mount Carmel (1.6.6):

It is plain that the appetites are wearisome and tiring. They resemble little children, restless and hard to please, always whining to their mother for this thing or that, and never satisfied. Just as anyone who digs covetously for a treasure grows tired and exhausted, so does anyone who strives to satisfy the appetites’ demands become wearied and fatigued. And even if a soul does finally fill them, it is still always weary because it is never satisfied. For, after all, one digs leaking cisterns that cannot contain the water that slakes thirst. As Isaiah says: He is faint with thirst and his soul is empty [Is 29:8]

Reflecting on this, I have to put away my resistance. I am convicted.

Posted in John of the Cross, Spirituality | Leave a comment

Supposedly

Restless, shifting, squirming
like the back of my chair
is a pokey cactus,
or an awkward dance partner,
untamable.

I slouch, scrunch, sit up
as straight as a board.
I take a lap around the office,
fidget with books on the shelf,
and get back in the chair.

I think about lunch for a while.
I think about lunch a lot.

I marked off this time.
I protected the space, and the moment
I shut the door.
I’m supposed to be praying now.

Posted in Free Verse, Poetry, Prayer | Leave a comment

Prayer—the Long Way Around

I am so hungry for satisfaction in my prayer life. I have added a new routine of prayer into my life, working to find discipline in marking time off to pray and experience God’s presence. And I do want to experience something. I want to have something happen, now, that is tangible and makes me feel something.  I have little patience to stay and sit, and be still, and pray, and have nothing happen.

But that may be the way that it must be for now. I think I have to sit and wait, and be still, and attend to God. I have to be willing to take the road of prayer that takes the long way around, and is patient. Everywhere I turn I hear that call to faithful attentive prayer; in Peterson, in Carter-Florence, in John of the Cross.  I hear the call to just carve out what seems like useless time, and trust God’s presence in it, even if it eludes my senses.

John of the Cross is naming that for me now, challenging my willingness to submit to God’s presence, and accept what the Lord gives me in prayer, even if it is nothing.  Nada, John calls the road that leads to union with God.  Nada, Nada, Nada.

Oh God, sustain me, even if it must be in purging me of my need to know and sense you. Lead me to be faithful.

Posted in John of the Cross, Prayer | Leave a comment

The Seven Deadly Sins and Prayer


Was there a Spanish friar in this movie? I don't remember.

It is easy to imagine that when we pray, we turn away from those dark parts of our self that are sinful and marked by evil. John of the Cross’s masterpiece, The Dark Night of the Soulattacks that naiveté, and begins by working through each of the seven deadly sins in turn, describing how each of them enters with us into our devotional lives. Pride, Greed and their ilk actively keep us from prayer, but they also deeply affect the ways that we enter into and experience prayer.

For instance, spiritual gluttony affects our prayers by encouraging within us the desire to greedily costume the joys of prayers for our own sake, to enter into the spiritual disciplines without moderation. We consume the “sweet” experience of God’s presence, and can so crave that experience that we lose the importance of prayer that exists even when that experience eludes us. John writes,

“So much are they given to this that they think when they derive no spiritual sweetness, they have done nothing, so meanly do they think of God…But these persons will feel and taste God, as if he were palpable and accessible to them, not only in communion but in all other acts of devotion…This effort after sweetness destroys true devotion and spirituality, which consists in perseverance in prayer with patience and humility, mistrusting self, solely to please God.”

And so the early chapters of the book go, working through each of the capitol sins in turn, showing how they become barriers to the practice of prayer, in turn working against our faith in its value and distorting our experience of prayer.

Through this, John drives towards a very theocentric idea of prayer—prayer is a place of God’s action, not something that we can simply manipulate and force into giving us the experience we desire. He calls us to be humble and perseverant in prayer, in faith that because of God’s grace, prayer is valuable even when it feels empty and useless.

This is helpful to me.

 

Posted in John of the Cross, Prayer | Tagged , | Leave a comment

John of the Cross and my Reintroduction to Prayer

I have lately realized my deep need to learn how to pray again. It snuck up on me. I didn’t feel spiritually anemic, and feel as though I have been growing in virtue and in my appreciation for God’s will and grace. I even feel like a full participant in worship.

The only problem is that I really haven’t been praying very much.

At least, not by myself. I’ve still been praying with my family, with people from the church, with my small group, etc, but my own time of private devotion has become sparse. Even as I’ve increased my habit of taking in the word, and meditating on it (even prayerfully), I have felt my capacity for simple prayer to be diminished. Even after a moment or two or prayer, I have found my mind sliding to the next task to be done, or to some easily accessible distraction—the phone, social media, and the general internet are ready culprits. It has just become too easy not to pray, not to immerse myself in the presence of God.

I found a similar note in Eugene Peterson’s memoir The Pastor, in which he speaks about the difficulty he had growing in prayer, even as he was neck deep in ministry and the Word. Peterson mentions finding help along the way in two spanish mystics, Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross. Thanks for the tip, Eugene!

I’ve known about the two for a while. We used to take youth group kids to a monastery outside Little Rock, and it happened to be of the Discalced variety of Carmelites that descend from the movement born by Theresa and John. And while I’ve never really gotten into Theresa’s writing (perhaps it is just not time for that yet), John’s image of the Dark Night has been in the back of my head for a long time, and his book buried on my shelf.

Every once in a while, I find that a renowned book by one of the spiritual masters just won’t work for me. I remember, for instance, my first time trying to read Bonhoeffer’s Life Together. It just didn’t work for me—I had a hard time getting through even the first couple of chapters without glazing over.  After a couple of years, I picked it back up, and it was totally different. It just absolutely spoke to me, blowing my mind and pulling me deeply into conversation with Bonhoeffer’s important ideas of community. The book was of course the same, but whatever had happened in between those readings had changed me, preparing me to receive what was there. The book would become critical to my thinking, but the first time through, I just wasn’t ready for it.

The Dark Night of the Soul is working on me like that right now. Just like I had to be prepared to learn from Bonhoeffer on community, I think I needed a period of latency before I could really absorb the teachings of John of the Cross on prayer. I’ve tried a couple of times before—six and perhaps ten or twelve years ago. Then, I couldn’t really get into the book. It seemed foreign and stiff. Now, it seems vivid and crucial to where I am spiritually. I’m finding it to be just the conversation partner I needed to rediscover prayer.

 

Posted in John of the Cross, Prayer | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Line

In their play,
My girls often approach a line,
If it is crossed,
Playing will become fighting.
I don’t know if they know
where the line is
Maybe they are tying to find it.

They compete and play,
sometimes the games imply power.
One will be baby, one will play momma.
One will be monster, one will be superzero.
Or maybe they’ll both be robots.
Right now they’re playing with the hose,
and alas there is only one.

While I write this poem from the shade by the house,
they are taking turns watering the tree
and the grass and the slide.
Perhaps it will grow taller,
like the grass does,
like the tree does.
Like the girls do.
As they play, they laugh and run,
spraying each other
and flirting with the line.
If they cross it, I’ll have to intervene, and the poem will end.
But for now, they run and play
and laugh,
learning something
about life, I suppose.
About the fun you can have
together,
on this side of the line,
on the side where
peace plays.

 

Posted in Family, Free Verse, Poetry | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Kingdom Come: A Sermon about Matthew’s Genealogy

He was the “Son of God”, the “bringer of Good News”, the Lord, the Savior, the one who would restore order and justice to the earth—at least that was Rome’s official story about Caesar.  History also seems to look favorably on the Pax Romana, and in many ways, that version of reality isn’t that far off. The Roman Empire brought relative peace, wealth, and stability to many in the mediterranean world.

However, there was another side to life in Caesar’s world. Beneath the heel of the empire were whole peoples, exploited for the empire’s sake, hopeless to fight back against the efficient military machine of Rome’s storied army. In Palestine, a particularly dark cloud hung over the recipients of Caesar’s “good news”. The Jewish people living in Judea and Galilee lived in a world in which power was king—and they had none of it. They had always been a proud people, and once a powerful nation, but now lived under another flag. Over and over again they rose up to resist the Empire, trying to beat the empire at its own game by asserting their own power—and they failed miserably. Rome brutally asserted its power over what was, to them, a strategic territory filled with a stubborn, irritating, and irrational people. Religious leaders based in the temple used divine distinction to stoke the fires of resentment that justified bouts of armed revolution. Many a would-be leader rose to fame by resisting the Romans, claiming divine consent for their revolutionary attempts to throw the pagans out. Certainly not everyone joined in the violence, but everyone felt the force of Rome’s response to it. To some it was an empire of peace, but to others, it was an empire of violence.

Also, while it was an empire of wealth, it was also an empire of poverty, built on the backs of slaves and enslaved nations. Wealth drifted upward, and the few who controlled land or other means increased their assets while the poor became poorer with each generation. Some of the most recent historical work is trying to move beyond simple binary descriptions as elite/nonelite or haves/have-nots, but even still, the best estimate show that between 75-97 percent of the population in the roman world lived in poverty, if that is defined by living at or near subsistence level.

Beyond that violence and turbulence, the economic conditions were tough as well. Under  the empire and its elite accomplices, a small minority controlled land, food, and wealth. Although historians are working to get beyond simple distinctions like elite/poor, the best estimates now are that somewhere between 75% to 97% of the population across the empire lived in poverty—meaning at or below subsistence levels, with very few resources. Palestine, having been rocked by violence and dependent on agriculture, was worse off than most areas.  For many of the Jews of Palestine, life under the Roman empire was anything but a life of wealth—it was a life of poverty.

As far as stability goes, Rome knew that it needed local leaders who sought to keep the people in check, and found more than enough who were willing to become accomplices to the empire’s power in exchange for a few of the empire’s coins. These imperial elite played a dangerous game, negotiating the terms of the relationship between the people and the empire. When the people were pushed too far, revolution erupted. When the empire’s power was too openly challenged, the military convincingly crushed the opposition. The imperial elites danced between these two, trying to keep both parties reasonably content in the effort to maintain their own power, and often failing. Thus the people of Judea and Galilee faced a cycle of would-be revolution, followed by crackdowns, growing dissatisfaction, and new uprisings.

Caesar promised a world of peace, wealth, and stability. For many of the people living in Jerusalem, Judea, and Galilee in the first century, the reality was a life of violence, poverty, and turbulence. Is it any wonder that many of the people were anxious for a change? Caesar’s world was a world where power stood in the place of justice, where influence held more sway than righteousness, and where rich and the poor were nearly destined to become richer and poorer. Depending on who you were, you either hoped it would go on forever, or hoped and prayed that God would intervene, and remake the world into something else.

The book of Matthew grows out of the latter perspective, and is thoroughly subversive to the empire. It begins with the assumption that this is not Caesar’s world. It is God’s world, and God has been active in it a lot longer than Caesar could imagine. The book’s opening line, “The book of the generations of Jesus Christ” calls us back to Genesis, to the story of God creating the world and of God’s relationships and promises to the patriarchs. It points toward the language Genesis uses to introduce its own narrative (“The book of the generations of the heavens and the earth” Gen 2:4), and to move to new phases of the story. (5:1, 10:1, etc.). Matthew uses it here to let the reader know that he is about to tell about a new phase in that same story. He does all this because he wants us to know, from the very beginning, that this is not a narrative set in Caesar’s world—it is God’s world, and Caesar is just living in it. Beyond that, the genealogy is a substitute for a formula such as “in the days of Caesar Augustus…”, and gives the story of Jesus it’s primary context, which is not in the history of the Roman empire, but in the narrative of God’s covenant people. He is the son of Abraham and the son of David, being born in this moment of the story of God’s people.

Matthew marks the significance of the moment by structuring his genealogical list into three periods. There is the period from Abraham to David, one from David to the Exile, and from the exile to the moment of Jesus. Abraham, David, the Exile, represent critical moments in the story, and by noting the time, Matthew is underlining the importance of Jesus. Matthew 1:17 points out the symmetry of this for the reader, “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.” The only problem is, Matthew’s math is wrong. 

Most of the time, we don’t notice stuff like this because we read the Bible too quickly, but if you count up the named generations Matthew lists, the numbers should be fourteen, fourteen, and thirteen. Now, to be clear, I don’t think that’s a mistake—ancient authors loved to play with numbers in settings like this, and I feel certain that Matthew is doing this on purpose, somewhat playfully. I think he is setting us up to look at the story and ask, “Who comes after Jesus?” It’s a great way to open his book, because the rest of the gospel really teases out this question, as Jesus recruits disciples, teaches them about a new way of life, and then eventually charges them to do the exact same thing, replicating their experience of discipleship throughout the world. The genealogy is therefore connected with the rest of Matthew’s story, right up to the end, where Jesus gives the great commission, “Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Matthew’s gospel, from the genealogy to the commission, points to the question, “Who comes after Jesus?” and, I think, to an answer.

The answer is “us.” We are the descendants of Jesus. Ultimately, Jesus’s work is producing a sustained community that lives consciously under the reign of God—a community of which we are now a part. In our living as disciples of Jesus we find ourselves in Jesus’s story, and the mission of his life become our mission. We continue his story. We are the fourteenth generation.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “Some folks worry about who their ancestors were. I am more concerned with who my descendants will be.” Matthew’s story shares that concern, and even the genealogy, which seems to look back, looks forward to the fulfillment of Jesus’s mission. As we take our part in that mission, may we look forward to its fulfillment as well, and trust that to that end  we will be used by God, for God’s own glory.  Amen.

Posted in Bible Study, Discipleship, Matthew, Mission, Narrative Theology, New Testament, Power, Story | Tagged , | 7 Comments

They Came From

A day of long meetings,
hours gazing into computer screens,
competitive offices and tense meetings,
projects with deadlines, or
quotas needing to be filled.

They came from soccer practice,
from the field and its glory
or the parking lot,
where the August sun drains the life out of
moms in minivans.

She came from a lonely home,
from an easy chair that sits
in front of a droning television,
next to an end table with an empty coffee cup,
and a phone that never rings.

They came from homework,
chapters underlined and blanks filled in,
some of them right, some of them wrong,
some left undone,
waiting to be turned in for approval.

He came from the worst fight,
(or at least it feels that way),
that he’s ever had with his wife.
Tomorrow’s might be worse,
might be the one that ends it all.

And here they all are, together.
Though they are also
in those places, still.

 

Posted in Free Verse, Poetry | 4 Comments

Google+, Circles, and the Integrated Self

Google has created quite the stir in the world of tech and social media nerds with the release of Google+, their latest foray into the world of social media. Google has for some time desired to capture a greater share of the online advertising revenue pie by leveraging the time users already spend using google products like Google Search, Gmail, Reader, and Google Docs into additional time spent within a social media stream. In other words, they are thinking something like, “If we can get people using our search process to naturally stay in our online system, the hours they normally spend on facebook will belong to us, and make us loads of money through advertising!” In turn, they would love to be able to leverage data collected in the social sphere to enhance and personalize their search results, thus strengthening their relationship to customers on multiple levels, creating super customers. (Read: people whose eyeballs see a lot of ads, and whose fingers make a lot of clicks.)

I don’t mean that cynically—I just think it’s important to note that their ultimate motive is to gain share of advertising revenue. Many consumers, particularly within the online space, seem to accept the illusion that the product is offered for free out of the goodness of the company’s heart. Facebook is, of course, motivated by the same factor.

What’s really interesting to me as a cultural/sociological comment is a fundamental feature of the way Google+ has been built. As I’ve played around with the interface (which I like very much) It’s clear that Google+ has been built around a super-duper version of a feature present in facebook. It’s like facebook’s “friend list” feature on steroids, with a charming personality. Google calls it circles, and describes it this way:

You share different things with different people. But sharing the right stuff with the right people shouldn’t be a hassle. Circles makes it easy to put your friends from Saturday night in one circle, your parents in another, and your boss in a circle by himself, just like real life.

Mashable’s initial article on Google+ provides some insight into this design feature, and what google is thinking with it:

The focus of this social project is not on sharing with a mass group of friends, but on targeted sharing with your various social groups. To do this, Google uses a system called Circles.

[Vic] Gundotra [Google’s senior vice president of social] explained that most social media services (read: Facebook, Twitter) haven’t been successful with friend lists because they’ve been designed as a “tack-on” product rather than being integrated at every level. Gundotra also believes that current friend list products are awkward and not rewarding to use.

I honestly feel a bit conflicted about Circles. Not so much the design and implementation—I agree that google’s iteration is fantastic, a great improvement on facebook’s way of managing friend lists. However, I wonder if there isn’t something of a human problem here. Is it really a great idea to make it easier to subdivide our lives—and the people in them into categories? Sure, google makes it easier to manage the different silos, but are the silos themselves a good idea? This might be a really efficient way to destroy a cohesive picture of our lives. After all, it essentially is a way to make sure that we are able to project a different message to different spheres of our lives. It facilitates a move away from knowing and projecting ourselves as integrated wholes. There is no integrated self in this world, just messages project to certain groups for certain purposes. Isn’t that a little cynical? I understand the such to creates spheres of privacy, but isn’t there some value in being a whole, public person?

I mean, this function is great as a message sender, but doesn’t it greatly limit how much we can trust each other when in the role as message receiver? Doesn’t it limit our ability to trust that what we see from a person is real? And although that is an old uncertainty, I think that perhaps google’s play to make our disintegration more efficient is perhaps a little dangerous.

If you’re on google+, go ahead and add me. The link is on the right. Just don’t expect me to tell you what circle I’m putting you in.

Posted in Social Media | Tagged | 5 Comments

Check Thyself—Two Questions for Disciples Using Social Media

Generally speaking, I’m a fan of social media—the things life Facebook, Twitter, and now Google+ that have become a significant part of the way many people communicate and keep up with each other. They allow us to express ourselves as a stream words and images, and allow those expressions of ourselves to come into conversation with our friends, families, and the community at large. They approach our very human desire to hear and be heard, to see and be seen. They foster at least the feeling of connection, and I believe at times can help sustain connections made in the flesh and bone world we live in. They produce connections with a small threshold of commitment, which of course can be helpful in some ways, and in other ways threatens to water down our sense of human connection.

All in all I think that social media can help support a healthy social life, although (as in any social experience) there are dangers to be recognized. Although the technology is perhaps value neutral, the experience is almost necessarily not value neutral. Depending on the people you follow/friend/encircle(?), and the patterns of interaction you develop, social media can be a brutally negative force in your life, or a positive tool for good.  Like with anything else, it is important to check yourself periodically, to evaluate yourself and your involvement in the social media world. For people who are committed to being followers of Jesus, we have to search out whether our patterns of interaction resonate with the story of Jesus and the world.  If there is too much dissonance between those stories, than we need to do something different.  Here are two critical questions you can ask yourself as you evaluate:

1. Is my time in social media well-invested? This is a critical question, and please understand I don’t assume the answer is “No.” Indeed, when used well, social media can help you reinforce connections with people, stimulate useful conversation, and help manage a high number of relationships. It can be a way of sharing experiences with people or pointing towards your real community interactions. It can be a way of sharing life with each other and really developing our understanding and concern for each other, something critical to the mission of Jesus. But even it’s most ardent defenders and users need to recognize that it can be an incredible time-suck. It can deplete your life by keeping you away from real time with family and friends, from work that needs to be done, or a good book that will add something of your life. None of this glorifies God. Held out of balance it can be poison, and everyone that uses social media needs to really check themselves on whether they are spending an inappropriate amount of time checked into that world and out of the concrete one.

2. What’s my message?  Because it is online and can feel like a distant form of conversation, people sometimes seem to believe that it’s okay to say whatever you’re feeling in any given moment in your facebook status or tweet, as if it’s the same thing as screaming by yourself in your car, or singing in the shower. Let me be clear: It’s not. We are ethically responsible for the things we say. What we say or don’t say is important, and that responsibility isn’t decreased in social media. On the contrary, it’s greatly increased, because social media is public communication. Here’s a guideline: Would you be okay with that status update, tweet, or picture being posted on a billboard with your name on it? Because using social media is a lot more like that than it is writing in your journal or screaming in your car. It is extremely public, and surprisingly permanent. You are creating a message, and it’s foolish not to consider what that message is. If you just need to vent, start calling a friend on the phone or go buy a journal. (By the way, in practical terms, I wouldn’t hire somebody who is always complaining about her job on twitter, nor would I easily respect somebody who consistently and aggressively complains about his parents on facebook.)

The fact that the record of your message is persistent and by default permanent can be disturbing, but it also gives you a great opportunity to check yourself and evaluate on this point. I have a very concrete suggestion here that I would beg you to take. Once every couple of months, you should go to your own facebook wall or twitter stream, and read through the things you’ve posted, asking yourself “If someone read through this who didn’t know me in any other way, what would they think?” (This is a great question, and I appreciate Alex Cone for giving it to me.)  Seriously, you need to do this periodically, and if you’re a disciple, you should ask with an eye to what people would think not just about you, but about the sort of God you serve. Do it today. Right now.  And then think about the message you really want to send.

Posted in Discipleship, Social Media | Tagged , | Leave a comment