Saturday, February 2, 2008

What I've been reading lately


Well, these are the kinds of "books" (now in electronic form) I spend much of my time reading. But every now and then, I put them aside. Lately I've found the following of interest:

USING A PICTURE: WITTGENSTEIN AND BYZANTINE ICONOGRAPHY
by Latzer, Michael, Encounter, Summer 2005

God Is in the Dendrites: Can "neurotheology" bridge the gap between religion and science?
By George Johnson, Slate, April 26, 2007

The Edge Annual Question — 2008
WHAT HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT? WHY?

Ren on "Neoconservatives, Past, Present and Future"

And for viewing, the BBC Documentary, "The Power of Nightmares"

The Power of Nightmares Part 1: Baby it's Cold Outside

Part II: The Phantom Victory

Part III: The Shadows in the Cave

UPDATE:

Quote of the day, thanks to Reverend Boy, from Phyllis Tickle:
“Christian nation” is such an offensive term that I can hardly speak it, even. One of the biggest blows to Christianity’s vitality and legitimacy occurred on the day that Constantine made it the official religion of the Empire. Nobody in his or her right mind would want to be a member of a socially acceptable religion. It’s very dangerous for the soul. A nation is in the business of doing Caesar’s work, not God’s.
(my bolding).

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Icons



This icon was written for this place in our nave by Sr. Mary-Gabriel of the Sisters of St. Margaret. Someday I will have to obtain a better photo, but for now, let me just share this, from a book on icons and the Seventh Ecumenical Council (aka Second Council of Nicea):
Incarnation does not divide form from content or media from message or the signifier from the signified. The beauty makes manifest something of the truth of the thing that is perfected in the manifestation – just as, even knowing all the sins that X may have done by commission or omission does not prevent the priest from bowing to X in adoration of the image of God within her or him. The story does not give us an account of Abgar’s response to receiving the image, but the suggestion is elsewhere that the recognition of beauty calls forth praise, doxology. In the opening paragraph of his Images III, Damascene describes the icon as a canticle. It is part of an economy of grace that calls for latreia, worship. Beauty makes manifest giftedness and a participation in an eternal mystery, and it is in the function of human beings in their making to articulate that praise within creation. The records of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787 C.E., which deliberated on the importance of icons, state that “creation does not worship its Maker directly in its own right, but it is through me that ‘the heavens declare the glory of God’ (Ps 18:11), through me that the moon venerates God, through me that the stars venerate God, through me that the waters, rain, dews, and the whole of creation venerate and glorify God. My making participates in and testifies to God’s begetting.
Giakalis, A., Images of the divine: The theology of icons at the seventh Ecumenical Council. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994, p.44. (The passage refers to St. John Damascene, who testified on behalf of icons, and the story of Abgar).

The Gaudy Baubles of Sacramentalism

The Lead reports this story of how Peter Phillips, director of the choral group, the Tallis Scholars, is taking on the anti-sacramental excesses of the Jensen clan in Australia. It's worth a read.

Of particular note was this part of an interview with Phillips:
PETER PHILLIPS: Well I represent the point of view I think that God is beautiful, and can be approached - best approached - by mortal men through beauty. Any sort of beauty; I mean it could be a beautiful building, or the incense that the Catholics have. But I represent music, and my experience is that good music takes people nearer to God than anything else, and quicker. It happens just like that, you feel him, right there.

Take the Allegri 'Miserere' for example.

STEPHEN CRITTENDEN: That many people will know.

PETER PHILLIPS: Which I hope they do. The moment that piece is sung, the first time I heard it which must now be 40 years ago in the original King's recording, I couldn't believe what I was hearing, and it wasn't that it's fantastic music exactly, it's an atmosphere that's created by those lines and those harmonies and the building that it's sung in, that produces its effect.

Here is the Allegri 'Miserere'in all its glory:


[Update: Of course Mad Priest has the story as well, with the usual scintillating commentary, but The Lead's got the music].

Looking Backward

Driving back from choir rehearsal tonight, after spending the first hour on Evensong for Candelmas this Sunday and the second on Lenten and Holy Week music, heavy on Rennaisance music, I flipped on some radio stations in the car, and not finding anything I liked, switched to our "oldies" station. In honor of "Let's Hang On" which was playing, I bring you these, circa 1965-66, from my youth, the kind of music that, well, stays with you forever if only because it was from when:



Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Melancholia's Dog



Alice Kuzniar has recently written what sounds like a fascinating book entitled Melancholia's Dog: Reflections on Our Animal Kinship published by the University of Chicago Press. She describes the book as follows:
Bred to provide human companionship, dogs eclipse all other species when it comes to reading the body language of people. Dog owners hunger for a complete rapport with their pets; in the dog the fantasy of empathetic resonance finds its ideal. But cross-species communication is never easy. Dog love can be a precious but melancholy thing. My new book is an attempt to understand human attachment to the canis familiaris in terms of reciprocity and empathy. It tackles such difficult concepts as intimacy and kinship with dogs, the shame associated with identification with their suffering, and the reasons for the profound mourning over their deaths. In addition to philosophy and psychoanalysis, I turn to the insights and images offered by the literary and visual arts. The short stories of Ivan Turgenev and Franz Kafka, the novels of J. M. Coetzee and Rebecca Brown, the photography of Sally Mann and William Wegman, and the artwork of David Hockney and Sue Coe. Without falling into sentimentality or anthropomorphization, in this book I try to honor and learn from our canine companions, above all attending the silences and sadness brought on by the effort to represent the dog as perfectly and faithfully as it is said to love.
Alice Kuzniar at UNC.

Kuzniar speaks more extensively about the book in an interview with Deborah Harper for Psychjourney. An audio version of the interview is available in a podcast (click on play bottom at the the bottom of the UNC webpage). It's well worth a listen.

[P.S. Hat tip to Scott Abbott at Goalie's Anxiety for both info on the book and credit for the reference to Durer's etching, "Melancholia" (image above). And totally off-topic, but marvelous nevertheless, is Scott's essay entitled Goalie's Anxiety. As the mother of a sometimes goalkeeper who has taught me much about the position (and who has a special talent at both saving goals as a keeper and making them as a player in PK situations), and as a former student and promiscuous reader about language and philosophy, I appreciated it more than I can say.]

Monday, January 28, 2008

A Rose is a Rose is a Rose


Photo Credit: USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / Herman, D.E. et al. 1996. North Dakota tree handbook. USDA NRCS ND State Soil Conservation Committee; NDSU Extension and Western Area Power Admin., Bismarck, ND

Saturday I watched the live video of the service held Saturday at Church of the Savior in Hanford, California, in the company of other Episcopalians viewing from afar. Although there was much of substance to be remarked upon, both in real time and after the fact, it was interesting that several people were struck by the similarities and differences in the style of worship as compared to their home parishes. The similarities far outweighed the differences, and the overwhelming feeling was one of solidarity with those who were present. Nevertheless, there was some fleeting attention to liturgical detail and with it differing visceral responses to how things were done.

Since then I've been thinking about writing something along the lines of "Good Liturgy - Necessary for Salvation?" (tongue-in-cheek, please) or simply "Good Liturgy - What Does it Matter?" One problem is defining "good liturgy" or even what might make it "good." I'm barely literate in such matters, let alone expert. But something struck me forcefully when someone, one of the most consistently articulate, thoughtful voices I've read said, in response to the alb vs. chasuble comments, "it's just clothes." It was, I take it, meant lovingly and with gentle humor (of the kind articulated with more gusto in the "Jesus in the fridge" story). Nevertheless, I still wanted to shout out "NO it's not!"

The truth of the matter is that some days the only thing that finally gets me out of bed and to church Sunday morning is the liturgy. This is, I'm sure, reflective of the infirmities of mind, body, and spirit that I suffer from time to time. But assuming for the sake of discussion that the impulse is not entirely pathological or trivial, I wonder what moves me so.

* * * *

Been reading many things trying to find the words to explain some of my thoughts and feelings about the liturgy -- including Keats on "negative capability," all sorts of writers -- literary critics, philosophers, and psychologists -- on Keats, but especially Walter Jackson Bate (who authored, among other things, a text on criticism that was the focus of a course I took in college), and off into icons and Eastern Orthodox views, including Giakalis, A., Images of the divine: The theology of icons at the seventh Ecumenical Council, which took me to http://languagescraps.blogspot.com/, and Scott Abbott (see post above). If and when I stop reading and my own words come to me, I'll get back to explaining why a rose is rose but not a rose (and see if it can give some sort of principled defense of why I don't want no Protestant informality, chumminess, clap-happy noise, or inattention to ritual detail -- why the sounds and images and love and care in doing liturgy thoughtfully and intentionally are important. But... then again, maybe I'll just keep reading. ;)

Sunday, January 27, 2008

State of the Union Message

I heard on the radio this morning that tomorrow will be George W. Bush's last (got that? LAST!) State of the Union Message. Somehow that made me think of this:


"No One Can Be Trusted"

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Seeker Revisited

As is often the case, I generally find much more interesting things to read online than anything I can ever hope to find the time, energy, and inspiration to write myself. I'm afraid it's been awhile, but checking back with Mystical Seeker, I see that recently he has been working his way through questions of how science can and should reshape our understandings of faith and God.

The whole question of what role, if any, supernaturalism should play in religion given all that has transpired in Western science is something that especially intrigues me (as, I hope, some of the meanderings below suggest). It often strikes me as the elephant in the living room of otherwise progressive Christians. I love to read and try to understand what I can of science, even as layperson, simply because it fascinates me so. It has taken me to murky areas that do not fit neatly into fixed categories of the empirical and the supernatural. While I feel no compelling need to figure it all out (as if I could), and am ready leave much to Mystery, at the same time I find it frustrating that scientific knowledge and thought often are scarcely addressed in the context of discussions of faith and religion, other than by Biblical literalists and fundamentalists who oppose scientific understandings.

Anyway, here are bits of what I've gleaned today from Mystical Seeker. I recommend reading his essays and comments in full, but I especially liked the following:
... by conceiving of God, much as process theology does, as something other than an authoritarian micromanager. The article describes Haught's views this way:
"Love persuades, it doesn't force," Haught says. "God doesn't compel the world to be a certain way, and that's because of how love works. God lets things be, and lets the weeds grow up with the wheat."...

"Creation itself is not divine pyrotechnics but the consequence of infinite mystery contracting itself, making itself small, so something other than God can come into the world," Haught says.
I especially like the statement that "creation is not divine pyrotechnics". I view creation as not a one-time event, and Divine creativity is not a magic show; rather, it is a continuous and co-participatory activity with uncertain outcomes. However, when Haught describes God as "letting things be" and as an infinite mystery "contracting itself", he seems to be suggesting that God voluntarily withholds autocratic power and thus chooses to stand by when things happen. I am not really comfortable with this expression of the concept; instead, I view Divine power as inherently a persuasive and creative lure--autocracy is not "voluntarily" renounced because autocracy is not built into God's character in the first place. As I see it, it is important to note that God is never just standing by and "letting" things happen, but is always urging creation forward in particular ways, and always cares about the outcomes of events.
From Religion, Evolution and God's Nature.

Another thought-provoking passage was from James McGrath, Assistant Professor of Religion at Butler University:
Here is a quote from James McGrath's blog:
...it is worth asking theoretically, even if one hasn't been driven to ask such questions by one's own experiences or theological reflections, whether faith in God based on what God has done or can do for you is necessarily a wholesome, positive sort of faith. What if it turned out that God doesn't do anything for anyone specifically - the weather on your wedding day just happened to be good, and the person you love who recovered from an illness just happened to do so? What if it turns out that God is not the answer to our individual problems, but simply the meaning of our existence? How many of those who call themselves Christians would worship such a God for that reason alone, expecting nothing in return? Would willingness or unwillingness to worship such a God be a good thing? (emphasis added).
From The Religious Life as its own Reward.

This, in effect, takes one beyond science to the one of the biggest questions of them all -- must religion and faith stand on supernaturalism? I've been to Tillich, myself, some years ago in my own seeking and while I think there is more than just "meaning" in this sense and something other than conventional notions of the "supernatural" (i.e. as something above, beyond, and outside "nature"), it strikes me that religious folk (me included) spend too much time doing everything but trying to "mean" what God "wills" us to mean.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Privileged?

This meme, What Privileges Do You Have?, was started at quakerclass.blogspot.com with permission from the authors of the exercise upon which it was based (see names and link below).

First, my responses: Bold the true statements.
1. Father went to college.
2. Father finished college.
3. Mother went to college.
4. Mother finished college.
5. Have any relative who is was an attorney, physician, or professor.
6. Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers.
7. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.
8. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home.
9. Were read children’s books by a parent.
10. Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18.
11. Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18.
12. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively. (I don't know about talk, but I don't see anyone who dresses like me!)
13. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18.
14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs. (college yes; they paid nothing for graduate school)
15. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs.
16. Went to a private high school (but on scholarship).
17. Went to summer camp. Went to a YMCA summer camp and it was no privilege! (it was a miserable, MISERABLE experience). YMCA camps were not a privileged sort of thing to do in my community, but generally were a cheap way parents could get their kids out of the way for a couple weeks in the summer, and those who could not afford it could get it for free or at a reduced rate. Expensive family vacations or the kinds of camp for music, arts, sports, academics, etc. were for the privileged.
18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18.
19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels.
20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18.
21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them.
22. There was original art in your house when you were a child [kid’s work is original!]
23. You and your family lived in a single-family house.
24. Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home.
25. You had your own room as a child.
26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18.
27. Participated in a SAT/ACT prep course.
28. Had your own TV in your room in high school.
29. Owned a mutual fund or IRA in high school or college.
30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16.
31. Went on a cruise with your family.
32. Went on more than one cruise with your family.
33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up.
34. You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family.
from Step into Social Class 2.0: A Social Class Awareness Experience, by Will Barratt, Meagan Cahill, Angie Carlen, Minnette Huck, Drew Lurker, Stacy Ploskonka, Indiana State University, © 2008)

What's interesting to me was the purpose of this exercise. If you go to
Step into Social Class 2.0, you will find an explanation from Prof. Barratt, which makes it clear that the purpose is to get people thinking and talking about class differences. It acknowledges that the items or categories are not necessarily representative of class differences everywhere, but the part of the purpose of the exercise is to identify the emotions drawn by responding to the questions.

Also, near the bottom of the page are links to other resources, including his "Nine Points" document which identifies different kinds of privileges, such as Economic Capital, Cultural Capital, Social Capital, and Academic Capital, all elements of privilege that can make a difference in success in college. Included in the list are items such as Social Class of Origins, Current Felt Social Class, Attributed Social Class -- i.e. highlighting the importance of perception and the complex interaction of all these different elements.

I find all this fascinating, especially since my son, now a freshman in college, has for some time been very conscious of these differences in light of his high school friends' backgrounds, the choices they made in selecting colleges, and the atmosphere in which he is currently studying (a state university, albeit one that is very difficult to get into), which he selected in part due to his sense that there were less differences between him and most of the students there than maybe there were between he and his high school friends (mostly at private schools) (note: he wasn't sure whether it was a positive or negative thing being with people more similar - he thought long and hard about it, and, I think, made the right decision for him).

Of course, these kinds of class differences impact much more than social relations and academic success in college -- the point is simply to get college students to think about how those differences work in their own environment. For some of us old fogeys, long out of our 20's and the conventional time for being in college or university, it's interesting to look at how such differences have played out in our lives and how they shape how people socialize, work, and worship together.

I realize that many people are using this meme to meditate on the blessings of having grown up with certain advantages in life. That is a fine and worthy thing to do. But I wonder if the exercise can go further and prick our awareness of how class differences actually operate in the U.S. (which, I gather, is far more subtle, though no less pervasive, than places like the U.K.). As much as I have been "privileged" in many respects, as evidenced by my responses, nevertheless they did not put me anywhere near those who truly exercise power and influence in our society, some perhaps by choice (and/or accidental circumstances or personality), some having to do with the fact that as "privileged" though I may have been (and still am) in terms of having work, a home, and a decent income, I lack the kinds of privileges not really addressed by these questions. Such privileges may include those that come from social and professional networks, which one can get a head start in by virtue of one's family of origin, place(s) of origin, schools (private high school and/or higher education), and employment.

Of course, as the authors of the exercise point out, not everyone who has various kinds of "capital" growing up necessarily spends it in ways that produce success or even maintains one at the level where one started. Nevertheless, there are all sorts of subtle differences within the categories represented by the questions -- i.e. whether parents' parents went to college, whether anyone went to public or private colleges or universities, what kind of town, city, or state did one grow up in, how large a home did one live in, what kind of financial distress did one's family live with, what kind of sacrifices or embarrassments did one experiences as result of finances, what kind of social class did one perceive to be raised in, to what extent did one live or attend school with those with greatly contrasting social, economic, ethnic or racial backgrounds, etc. All these things feed into the kinds of differences that are critical in college and early employment, which seem to be those targeted by the questions.

More important, perhaps, is that this kind of exercise does not begin to address the question of which kinds of "advantages" are truly advantageous in the sense of being "good" or able to be used for "good" ends. In other words, it assumes a hierarchal set of values and that one is more favored if one reaches a certain level or status. They may well correspond to the social reality that the majority view themselves as living in, but it does beg some questions. While growing up poor, hungry, poorly clothed, housed, and poorly educated no doubt are terrible disadvantages, I suspect that having warm, loving parents may be greater blessings, and in that sense, more advantageous, than growing up in a seriously dysfunctional household among the wealthy and well-educated. But I guess values and status are apples and oranges. But shouldn't values determine whether and how one might try to influence what kinds of status-giving advantages should be promoted for all (whether or not that results in reduced status)? Is status the same as welfare?

Our Man from Mars



After people the world over spent a dreadful night worrying about the future of the inestimable Mad Priest, it turns out that he is safe and sound (for now at least). Wishing him well today in Newcastle, posed to do new mission work among the Brits, after having spent his youth roaming Mars, where he left artwork for the ages. The purple halo from his early interstellar travels follows him everywhere.

Update: Prayers for Jonathan, hoping he is having a good rest from the madness of cyberspace.