Blob spirituality

“Spirituality” is a big word these days, a vogue word; even people who don’t like the word “religion” or anything to do with it are often proud to call themselves “spiritual.” I think for instance of the comedian Bill Maher, who says, “I would describe my spirituality as exactly the opposite of having a religious affiliation”; having seen a good bit of his work, I’d agree. Of course, while most people would say that being “spiritual” is a good thing—even that, as the Buddha put it, “Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, people cannot live without a spiritual life”—there’s little consensus on what exactly that is. Which for many is the point; they would stand with the guru Baba Ram Dass (aka Dr. Richard Alpert, Harvard psychology professor and LSD advocate), who declared, “The spiritual journey is individual, highly personal. It can’t be organized or regulated. It isn’t true that everyone should follow one path. Listen to your own truth.”That statement captures, I think, why so many people set “spirituality” over against religion—religion requires adherence to something outside the self, while it’s perfectly possible, in this view, to be “spiritual” on one’s own terms. For all of that, though, “spirituality” tends to fall into predictable forms. One big one is nature spirituality; the great architect Frank Lloyd Wright, for instance, declared, “I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.” On a lighter note, the Scottish actor and comedian Billy Connolly once said he loved fishing because “it’s like transcendental meditation with a punchline.” Folks like this would agree with the Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki that our spiritual needs “are ultimately rooted in nature, the source of our inspiration and belonging.”Another view might be described as “self-oriented spirituality”—rather than looking for the god in nature, look for the god in yourself. This sort of spirituality can take higher forms, as captured by the American intellectual Felix Adler, who wrote, “The unique personality which is the real life in me, I can not gain unless I search for the real life, the spiritual quality, in others. . . . For it is only with the god enthroned in the innermost shrine of the other, that the god hidden in me, will consent to appear.” Unfortunately, it can also take quite crass forms that simply put a spiritual veneer over complete self-absorption. It’s easy to say, with the Dalai Lama, that “our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness,” but if your self is your temple and there’s nobody but you to tell you whether an act is kind or not, there’s nothing to stop our natural tendency to use what we say we believe to justify doing what we want to do.With the language of spirituality everywhere, it’s easy to forget that this is a relatively recent phenomenon, a reaction against views of life that were either all in the head, all about “definitions, explanations, diagrams, and instructions,” or all about work, consisting of little but “slogans, goals, incentives, and programs”—views of life which, as the pastor and writer Eugene Peterson notes, took over the church as much as anywhere, thus tending to take spirituality out of religion, and out of the life and work of the church. He continues, in his brilliant book Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places, with these words:

There comes a time for most of us when we discover a deep desire within us to live from the heart what we already know in our heads and do with our hands. But “to whom shall we go?” Our educational institutions have only marginal interest in dealing with our desire . . . In our workplaces we quickly find that we are valued primarily, if not exclusively, in terms of our usefulness and profitability—they reward us when we do our jobs well and dismiss us when we don’t. Meanwhile our religious institutions . . . prove disappointing to more and more people who find themselves zealously cultivated as consumers in a God-product marketplace.

In consequence, as Eugene notes,

“spirituality” . . . has escaped institutional structures and is now more or less free-floating. . . . The good thing in all this is that . . . hunger and thirst for what is lasting and eternal is widely expressed and openly acknowledged.

The downside is that this is a view of spirituality which is set against religion, which is to say, against any sort of external shape, governance, direction, or even definition; it’s a view which intentionally sees spirituality as formless and unconfined. The problem is, we can’t live without forms, and in the absence of anything else, we tend to take the forms with which we’re already comfortable and familiar. As a consequence, though our spiritual longing is driven by the desire to “liv[e] beyond the roles and functions handed to us by the culture . . . much of it ends up as a spirituality that is shaped by terms handed out by the same culture.” There lies the lost opportunity of American spirituality, and one of the great challenges for the church in our country.

Seneca as advocate for the missional church

For good or ill, I’m something of a quote freak; I like things said with some zing and a point on the end, and when I run across something that’s truly well put, I like to hang on to it. Over the years, I’ve built up a rather eclectic collection of favorites. I truly appreciate, for example, the wise counsel of the great pitcher Satchel Paige: “Don’t look back—something might be gaining on you.” Then there’s the Hall of Fame catcher Yogi Berra, who stressed the importance of community thus: “If you don’t go to somebody’s funeral, they won’t go to yours.” Lately, as things grow somewhat thin on the back of my head, I’m especially grateful for the Roman writer Seneca, who once observed, “I don’t consider myself bald, I’m just taller than my hair.”Amen.Of course, Seneca’s particularly quotable because he wasn’t just a great wit, he was also a formidable philosopher, and there’s considerable wisdom in his witticisms. He noted at one point, for instance, that one “who suffers before it is necessary suffers more than is necessary”—a point to which I can attest from frequent experience. He also declared, “A great fortune is a great slavery”—though I’m not sure how that fits with his statement that “a great mind becomes a great fortune.” His insight that “a well-governed appetite is the greater part of liberty” is one which our libertine society would do well to take to heart, along with his comment that “Modesty forbids what the law does not.” Of all his insights, however, the one I most value is this:

Our plans miscarry because they have no aim. When a man does not know what harbor he seeks, no wind is the right wind.

This, I think, is something which the church really needs to bear in mind. It’s inevitable and natural that the church should care about numbers—members, attendance, giving, volunteers—because they’re the only concrete information we have about how many people we’re reaching and how people are responding to what we’re doing. That is by no means all that matters about our work, because it doesn’t tell us whether people are growing as Christians or whether we’re doing what God wants us to do, but that doesn’t mean that this information is irrelevant, either. When you factor in that for most churches, the numbers represent our main practical limitation (we can’t do x because we don’t have enough people/money/volunteers to pull it off), obviously they’re going to take a lot of our attention.Where the problem comes in is when we focus on the numbers. As Christians, our focus should only and ever be on Jesus, and our primary goal should always be to be where he wants us to be and do what he wants us to do. Our aim should be to see Jesus and go where he is, and there to do what he’s doing. When (even for the best of motives) we come to focus instead on adding people, or raising more money, or developing more volunteers and leaders, we lose sight of our goal, our plans have no true aim, and we fix our eyes on the means: whatever works to improve the numbers. When we start to think that way, then we begin to seek any harbor that promises to give us more people and more money; and as Seneca said, when we reach that state, no wind is the right wind.

On this blog in history: February 2007

A couple weeks ago, I noted the concerns Jared raised about the ephemerality of blogging, and his decision to address those concerns by reposting old pieces; for my own part, I decided to try links posts, looking at a month of a time. I started off with January 2007, so I figured I might as well keep going in chronological order for a bit.Musings on the missional church
This is probably most valuable for the links to Theology Matters; it is what the title says.Knocking on Heaven’s Door
I link to this because I highly recommend this book.Atheism and its discontents
My first post on atheism, I think, and a reminder that Christians should always treat critics with grace and love.An insurgency divided against itself cannot stand
I saw the signs of the surge’s success, though I didn’t draw all the right conclusions.In a mirror, darkly
If we don’t practice unsparingly honest self-reflection, someone else will do the reflecting for us—and we won’t like what we see.

Your next car will be powered by termites

Well, OK, not your next car, and not directly—but I’m willing to bet that’s the way things are heading. I’ve been betting on hydrogen fuel cells as the future of power generation (and not just for your car, either) ever since our time in Vancouver when I first heard the story of the remarkable Dr. Geoffrey Ballard (who died early this month at the age of 76) and the company he founded, Ballard Power Systems. The potential for replacing the internal combustion engine and vast coal plants with a power source that produces nothing but water (which in many parts of the world would qualify as a secondary benefit) is staggeringly wonderful—if we can solve two problems: one, storage of hydrogen, which is of course a highly volatile element; and two, finding a way to produce hydrogen that doesn’t cause its own set of environmental problems (as, for instance, cracking natural gas would).I think we might now have a leading contender for solution #2: termites. In an article in the latest Atlantic titled “Gut Reactions,” Lisa Margonelli reports on recent discoveries about how termites break down plant material into food in their third gut (or, more accurately, about the microbes, many of which exist nowhere else, which do it for them) and the exciting possibilities those discoveries raise. She of course, and quite rightly, takes this in several different directions, but the line that caught me was right in the beginning:

Offer a termite this page, and its microbial helpers will break it down into two liters of hydrogen, enough to drive more than six miles in a fuel-cell car.

I understand that scientists want to take each one of those tens of thousands of microbes and study each one thoroughly—there’s a lot of knowledge there, and a lot of doctoral theses to go with it. Along the way, though, I hope they don’t forget to do the most practical thing: follow ArcTech’s example.

The Virginia-based company ArcTech trained termites to eat coal, and then rummaged through their guts to find the microorganisms best at turning coal into methane. It cultured those microorganisms and now feeds them coal; the company plans to use the methane they produce to make electricity, and is already selling the by-products, including one used by farmers as a soil additive. ArcTech says this method eliminates virtually all greenhouse-gas emissions from coal-based electricity production.

Let’s go and do likewise to provide fuel for our fuel cells, and maybe sooner than you think, you’ll be able to look down at your brand new car and think, “This is powered by termites.”

Sense of place and the ’08 election

My honors English teacher in my junior year of high school used to say that there are three themes in American literature: individualism, sense of place, and the American dream. He said this to a class with a large contingent of Navy brats, including me, including many (though not me) whose only sense of the place in which they lived was that they wouldn’t be there much longer and didn’t particularly want to be. (The town in which, through my parents’ determination, I did the majority of my growing up is a nice town in a beautiful part of the country; but at the time, anyway, it wasn’t the kind of place many of my teenage comrades found all that exciting.) I have long thought of John McCain primarily as a counterpart to my father: a Navy pilot, an officer and a gentleman. For whatever reason, I haven’t thought of him as a counterpart of my own, though from a different generation: a Navy brat. And yet, he was and is that, too; he too knows what it means to grow up in a world where home is not a place, but an institution and a people.Peggy Noonan picked up on this, and on the fact that Barack Obama similarly grew up in a variety of places, in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal titled “The End of Placeness”. She’s right that sense of place, which my old English teacher considered such an important American theme, is disappearing; the Rev. Dr. Craig Barnes, of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and Shadyside Presbyterian Church, has had some wise and thoughtful things to say on this. As the Rev. Dr. Barnes puts it, before the GI Bill and the rise of American prosperity following WW II, most Americans were Settlers, people who put down roots in a particular place and stayed there (and settled for whatever way of life they had there); those who didn’t were mistrusted. With the GI Bill and the beginnings of modern suburbia, a new generation of Exiles began (exiles being people who know where home is but don’t live there; he cites as an example his own family, which always went “home for Christmas” from their suburban life to the tobacco farm in North Carolina). Now, as he says, Exiles are giving way increasingly to Nomads: people (primarily Gen X and younger) who are equally at home everywhere because they aren’t really at home anywhere. It’s a significant issue for those of us who are pastors, though not everyone has realized it yet.Having this emerging reality mirrored in our presidential candidates is a strange thing, and I can understand Noonan’s reaction to it. That said, as Beldar points out, they mirror this very differently; though this fact is tangential to Noonan’s point, it’s nevertheless significant.I suspect part of Sen. Obama’s appeal to young voters during the primaries (which seems to be fading somewhat) is that his rootlessness, though an extreme form, is a familar type among those of my generation and younger; while few of us had mothers who married Africans and Indonesians and moved us to another continent, the story’s outline is familiar:

Obama, by contrast, can only remember meeting his father once, briefly, when he was 10, and he never met his paternal grandfather at all. They had no presence in Barack Obama’s life while he was growing up; they were only dreams and stories and faded photos, with an occasional letter. . . .While Obama at least had a long-term relationship with his paternal grandparents, even that came at the expense of being effectively abandoned to their care by his own mother—hardly an ideal situation. Indeed, the adults around young Obama seemed in his book to be tied to nowhere and nothing—and outside of their immediate family (and sometimes not even that), to nobody. Obama was both a literal and figurative “step-child.”

Of him it may truly be said, as Noonan does, that he is “not from a place, but from an experience”—and from an all too common experience among younger folks these days: the experience of divorce and remarriage, step-parents and moving from place to place as one’s mother or father or both chase their own self-fulfillment. The place he’s from is the broken family, and it’s a familiar one to many.Sen. McCain, by contrast, grew up with one of the oldest forms of placelessness in the human experience: he grew up in the military. That has some of the same effects, leaving you with the desire to belong someplace; but it doesn’t leave you truly rootless, because you find your roots in the military community and culture. (And it is a culture of its own, connected to but apart from mainstream American culture, make no mistake about that; our local college has even started exempting military brats along with international students from its standard cross-cultural class and including them in the “adapting to American culture” class instead.) Those of us who grow up in Christian homes learn to find our roots in the church as well, which is a very good thing in many ways. (This is why, when Beldar writes that “McCain got a rock-solid and abiding ‘faith’ from his grandfather and father—faith in them, in himself, in the U.S. Navy and the other U.S. military forces, and most importantly, in all of America—while at best, Obama got only ‘dreams’ from his,” I have to say he’s missed the most important faith Sen. McCain learned from his father and grandfather: faith in God.) The effects of this are very clear in this presidential campaign. Sen. Obama can stand before a German audience and call himself a “citizen of the world” because his psychological citizenship is pretty tenuous—his most formative experiences tie him more to Africa and Asia than to America. Sen. McCain could never do that. He doesn’t belong to Phoenix any more than Sen. Obama belongs to Chicago, but he is unquestionably rooted in America, down to the core of his being, through his generations-deep roots in the United States Navy. In the end, I guess that’s why my respect and admiration for the man trumps my deep reservations about him, and why I trust his instincts even if I don’t always trust his ideas.

Is it possible that anyone could be more unlike Obama’s mother, with her dizzying moves from husband to husband and country to country, than McCain’s mother, who was always the quintessential “Navy wife,” wholly integrated into an American military-family culture that is proud and vast and long-standing? However often Roberta McCain and young John moved, they were never alone, never strangers, never “lost”—and they never had to flail about trying to “find themselves.” Rather, from birth to adulthood, McCain was surrounded by people whose lives were dedicated to a clear set of ideals and a clear purpose. All those people continuously reinforced and reminded him of the faith—the dedication to duty, honor, and country—that he inherited as a legacy from his grandfather and father.

And for Sen. McCain, that’s the bottom line; that, ultimately, is his sense of place.

Back to normal (I hope)

Well, I’m back to work, the kids are back in school, and we finally have our vehicle back (which necessitated a five-hour round trip to return the rental van and pick it up), so at least theoretically, we’re back to the normal routine; here’s hoping that, at the least, we don’t get any more unpleasant surprises for a while. (Pleasant ones would make a nice change, but I’m not getting my hopes up.)On another note, my brother-in-law recently introduced us to I Can Has Cheezburger?, a large collection of cat pictures (and the occasional pic of other animals) with funny captions; we’ve gotten some good laughs out of them. Here’s a few examples:
cat
cat
cat

Speaking of vandals

we got back from a trip and picked up the car at our hotel to find that someone had tried to steal the platinum out of its catalytic converters. We weren’t the only one hit, either, though it seems to have been a pretty incompetent set of thieves (they had damaged the cars but failed to get what they were after). The upside to the downside is that the dealership looked our vehicle over pretty closely and found a couple other unrelated problems which need fixing; the downside to the upside is that the cost of all that is going to be a right hook to the budget.The interesting thing is that as I was dealing with our crippled car the other morning, I got about the same reaction from everyone: “I don’t understand how people can do this. It’s sad how there’s no respect for other people’s property anymore.” Personally, I sort of understand it—it goes back to what Jason Lee Steorts was writing about in National Review in the piece I posted on the other day. It’s all about the spirit of vandalism: the willingness or even eagerness to deface and destroy those things which one does not personally value. Steorts talks about it with regard to beauty, but I think it’s a little broader; vandals destroy order (which is the foundation of beauty) for their own purposes, whether logical or illogical. We don’t normally think about breaking into someone’s property to steal something as vandalism, but at the spiritual level, it is: it’s vandalism for the sake of profit. We might call it applied vandalism. And this whole little mess has driven home for me just how much I agree with Steorts when he writes, “My friends ask what makes me a conservative, and sometimes I wonder myself, but there is an answer, and it’s that I hate vandals.” Me too—the acts, at least, even if I’m called to love those who perpetrate them. The spirit of vandalism is the spirit of chaos, of uncreation; it’s one of the truest expressions of the mind and character of the Uncreator.

Teach your children well

The title, of course, comes from Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, but the theme is as old as history, going back at least to Deuteronomy 6. Unfortunately, too often the church does a poor job of this. It’s not that the curricula we use aren’t effective—most of those that I know are; nor is it that they don’t teach children good things, for those which I’ve used certainly do. Nor am I saying that churches use them poorly, for though I’m sure a notable percentage of churches do, I have no reason to think that that’s broadly true. I can, however, second the point that John Walton recently made on the Zondervan Academic blog: most of our curricula in the American church do a brutally lousy job with Scripture. Dr. Walton does a good job of laying out the ways in which common American curricula misuse, misinterpret and misapply the Word of God, and especially of hammering home the reason why we should care:

If we are negligent of sound hermeneutics when we teach Bible to children, should it be any wonder that when they get into youth groups, Bible studies and become adults in the church, that they do not know how to derive the authoritative teaching from the text?

We all have a working hermeneutic, even though most have never taken a course. Where do we learn it? We learn it from those we respect. For many people this means that they learn their hermeneutics from their Sunday school teachers. Teachers in turn teach what is put into their hands. Perhaps we ought to be more attentive how Sunday school curriculum is teaching our children to find the authoritative teaching of God in the stories.

 

Photo of The Magic Hour by Dirk Joseph © 2019 Elvert Barnes.  License:  Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic.

Stem cells: the heart of the matter

There’s a fair bit to be said about embryonic stem-cell research, which I’m surprised to realize I haven’t written about here hardly at all; there’s the fact that research involving adult stem cells is far more promising and far more productive right now (due to the teratoma problem with embryonic stem cells), the fact that we can now produce embryonic stem cells without creating embryos, and the ways in which the pro-abortion movement is clearly using ESCR as a stalking-horse against the pro-life movement. I haven’t written about any of that, but I think I’ll probably do so at some point in the fairly near future, because it’s an important issue—perhaps the most important moral issue of our time.For the moment, however, I’ll just point you to Tyler Dawn’s recent post on the subject, which approaches it from a different angle, and a far more personal one—and in so doing, puts her finger right on the most important point. Thanks, Tyler Dawn.