So What?

Ways of Seeing

Cover of Awareness

This is from my handout for the Study Year in October.  For various reasons, we didn't actually meet to study but I circulated this short reading list.

In my last handout I wrote:  “Whilst much of the information and ideas might seem technical, this section of the course leads naturally into prayer and contemplation.  It is profoundly about how we perceive the world.  The Christian faith does not take us out of the world but leads us into deeper commitment.  As our faith deepens we learn to see more and how to respond to what we see.”

The following are books I have found helpful in understanding perception and of observing reality.  Some take a  spiritual approach, whilst others are more philosophical or theological.  Let me know if you read any of these books so that I can find time later in the course to discuss some of the issues.

This first book, I would identify as essential reading:

Awareness by Anthony de Mello, on Amazon £6.28 new and a lot less second hand.

De Mello was a Jesuit Priest who lived in India and studied other religions.  He is well known for his collections of short stories, eg The Song of the Bird and The Prayer of the Frog.  This book comprises notes from his retreats.  He takes a psychological approach to spiritual direction and you will find from the start that he takes a different approach to most other spiritual writers.  He shows how easy it is for us to deceive ourselves through our dependency on the things we cling to in order to keep ourselves happy.

The following are all helpful:

Finding Sanctuary: Monastic Steps for Everyday Life by Christopher Jamison.  This book is written for secular people, based on Benedictine spirituality.  Father Jamison is the Abbot of Worth Abbey and he wrote this book as a response to the interest in the BBC TV programme ‘The Monastery’.

The Human Touch: Our Part in the Creation of a Universe by Michael Frayn.  This is a philosophical book about the nature of reality and how it is based upon the way we perceive it.

Does It Matter?: The Unsustainable World of the Materialists by Graham Dunstan Martin.  An exploration of the nature of consciousness. 

Naming the Powers: Language of Power in the New Testament (The Powers : Volume One); Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces That Determine Human Existence; Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination by Walter Wink.  These three volumes are included here because they develop a theme found in the other books about how our illusions ensnare us.  These books are a more sustained theological approach to perception.

Related articles

• Study Year Redux (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

The View from the Balcony

Image by avlxyz via Flickr

This is extracts from the first of my contributions to the study year, from the September session.  My theme is situation analysis and development work.

Situation Analysis and Development Work

This section of the Study Year will help you analyse your situation and respond to it.  Central to this will be the Portfolio exercise and this part of the course will equip you with some approaches to analysing, planning and implementing action in your place, for your portfolio.

Over the year we will explore:

• Situation Analysis
• How to understand non-numerical data
• Development Work
• Consultancy
• Prayer and Spirituality

Whilst much of the information and ideas might seem technical, this section of the course leads naturally into prayer and contemplation.  It is profoundly about how we perceive the world.  The Christian faith does not take us out of the world but leads us into deeper commitment.  As our faith deepens we learn to see more and how to respond to what we see.

The View from the Balcony

“I had a fantastic time last night at the dance.  I danced all night and everyone had a brilliant time.

“Later, I heard your experience was not quite the same as mine.  Although you danced all night too, it took you longer to enjoy yourself until you learned to avoid my crashing feet and frenetic direction changes.  But yes, you agreed, despite your injuries, we had a good time.

“Had we taken some time out to climb into the balcony however, we would have seen things quite differently.  The band was far too loud and so everyone sat a long way from the band.  Also the numbers dancing reduced as the night went on partly because of the noise and partly because of the mad couple barging their way round the dance floor.”

In any situation we can learn more by viewing it from a series of different perspectives.  There is my personal view, the views of other people and the view from the balcony.  It is not that any view is better than any other.  When we learn to consider all three perspectives we begin to have a fuller picture of what is happening around us.

We will spend a lot of time considering the views of others at future weekends.  The situation analysis is one way we obtain the view from the balcony.

Pitsmoor Walk

This walk is part of the study year and so, please take the opportunity to discuss what you see as you walk.  We will pause at various places to describe what we see, tell some stories, etc.  Use all your senses and reflect upon what you see.  You might also think about how you would plan a similar walk in your own place. 

The walk will break at the Rock Street community house for refreshments and worship.  It will resume for the short distance back to Burngreave Ashram.  The worship will be a further opportunity to reflect upon and respond to the walk.  Here are some questions you might like to discuss:

1.       How does the physical geography of this place form the lives of the people who live there?

2.       How does the purpose of buildings change throughout their history?  How does the built environment form the lives of those who live there?

3.       Are there issues or people you would pray for, insights or stories you could share in the context of worship?

Portfolio Outline

Your portfolio will be the material you gather for your situation analysis plus the other material you accumulate from other sections of the course.  It covers your reflections on experiences, papers written for the study year, pictures, souvenirs, anything you wish to keep to help you reflect on what is happening around you.

How you present your portfolio is open to you.  Here are a few ideas:

We have provided folders and you could keep all your notes in one place.  You will need to bring the folders to meetings in any event, so that you can keep all the papers together.  The simplest option would be to expand your notes into your situation analysis.

You may find this folder too much of a constraint and so feel free to develop other means of doing your analysis.  Photographs, audio and video recordings are all practical these days if you have the equipment.  You do not have to write formal essays and could use other formats such as stories, poetry, prayers, meditation or liturgy.

You might consider starting a blog.  This has a number of advantages.  It means a wider group of people can read your reflections on the course.  Each post has its own url and so can easily link to other posts, other blogs or websites.  Photos, audio and video can be included.  The main disadvantage is that not everyone has easy access to broadband.  It costs nothing to start a blog, so long as you have broadband.  Simply go to https://www.blogger.com/start , let everyone on the course have your blog address and start writing.  I will certainly follow and comment on any blog started as a result of this course, as well as other material you produce.  Blogging is a good way of receiving tutor support.

Portfolio Task

Your main task over the period of the study year is to write your own situation analysis.  We will share progress, during these sessions, in October, January and June.  The UTU Situation Analysis will provide you with guidelines that have served many people over the decades.  The Journey books may also be helpful.  Remember, you do not have to do everything.  Decide on a piece of work you are confident you can complete over the year.

For October, prepare a brief presentation of the situation analysis you plan to carry out over the rest of the year.  During the Ashram Weekend you will have a few minutes to share your plans.  Remember, this is your response to the whole study year, not just this section.

If you have time, you might like to attempt a rich picture.  This is a drawing that summarises your current situation.  The only rule is that you must include yourself in the picture.  Some people find this quite difficult to do, I know I do.  However, if a few people are able to attempt it, it will be helpful to have some examples later in the year.

We didn't quite get together in October and so this coming weekend will be an opportunity to find out how people have responded.

Related articles

• Study Year Redux (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Conversations with Atheists: A Fundamental Problem

Image via Wikipedia

It should come as no surprise, when theists and atheists enter conversation, there is mutual incomprehension.  I view the world from a theistic perspective.  It would make little sense to call myself a theist if I did not.  The first problem I encounter in conversation with atheists is their expectation I will respond to questions the way they want me to.  This led me into certain difficulties.

The main difficulty I encountered in my recent conversation, was projection.  These atheists appeared to have a particular image of God.  This was projected onto me and other Christians, theists and religious people.  This atheist God is violent, favours the powerful and deludes people.  In short, the opposite of my own experience.

When I pointed this out, I was told to stop messing about.  They're atheists remember.  They have no image of God by definition.  As the conversation progressed it felt as if we swopped places.  I was arguing all images of God are false.  They were trying to show me my view of God was flawed on the grounds that if all images of God are false, it is impossible to say anything of God.  (It didn't stop them!)

I have written at some length about idolatry and projection is an excellent example of its power.  Most religious mystics are true atheists.  They reject all images of God. 

Take for example, the use of the word 'probably'.  I pointed out this doesn't sound very atheistic.  Apparently, the idea is that in the atheist universe God could in theory be proved.  So, it is scientifically accurate to put probably on the front of the sentence, 'God does not exist'.  What this shows of course is a massive mistake of logical typing.  It assumes that God is something that can be proven through scientific methodology.  This places God in a place that makes God an idol.

Now consider the content of their image.  What we have is a group of people who cannot imagine a God who loves people.  This negative image is the only image they have.  Thank goodness they don't believe in it.

Up to a point it is good they claim not to but I think we need to take care here.  What they are doing is projecting their false God onto religious people, much as George W Bush projected his demons onto Muslims.  This is dangerous because I suspect some atheists believe religious people are evil, because of their perceived god of religious people.

Paradoxically, therefore our problem is not their atheism but their theism.  To be a proper atheist,  requires the same spiritual preparation as it would to speak of God from a theistic perspective.  This is why Christians can find common cause with Buddhists, for example, despite their atheism.  Their atheism has more in common with our theism than it has with modern atheism.

I will explore this in more depth later.

Related articles

• Atheists and Christians Should Be Friends (godlessgirl.com)

On Imagination: Christianity

One of the debates I've had, with Christians and atheists, is whether Christianity is a materialist faith.

It seems some American Christians are rather touchy about this.  Communism is materialist and they're very scared of communism.  Such debates can be difficult!

One American Christian explained the Old Testament is dualist (matter / spirit) and not monist (matter), as he thought I was claiming.  It seems I had said matter has a spiritual dimension and he was quite certain I had it the wrong way round, spirit has a material dimension.  We also disagreed about dialectical materialism.  Where, he asked, is the thesis, antithesis, synthesis in Christianity?

Whichever way you look at it, matter has a spiritual dimension or spirit has a material dimension, you have a dualism.  The two are set at contradiction with each other.  The Christian writer was correct in saying spirit gives rise to matter, at least insofar as it is easier to see how spirit or consciousness, the perceiver, gives rise to the perceived. 

However, this contradiction between spirit and matter is not resolved by saying one gives rise to the other.  Whichever way round, it implies one is superior to the other.  The Christian faith has been plagued by this false dichotomy that seems to reduce to: spirit good, matter bad.

But what we easily forget is Christianity is neither monist not dualist.  It is Trinitarian and this is why I reject the view that Christianity is not materialist.

The synthesis that transcends the opposition between spirit and matter is implied in the Trinity, where God does not remain spirit but becomes flesh.  Spirit and matter are placed into a new relationship and this is something taking place in our imaginations.

That's the problem for many moderns, we're not prepared to make the effort to imagine how spirit and matter might be married. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Is Christianity a Materialist Faith? (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• On Imagination: Science (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Theology and Science: A New Cosmology? (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Theology and Science: On the Nature of Spirit (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Observing the Big Bang

Image via Wikipedia

I recently wrote about the quantum singularity that, it seems, defined the probability of the Big Bang.  Singularities collapse when they are observed and so the question is, who observed the Big Bang? 

It is tempting to jump to the conclusion that God was the observer.  The implications of this for the inflated egos of some Christians is something to be avoided.  Proving God is a preoccupation for those Christians who find faith difficult and so have to bolster it with a dose of triumphalism to help God along in God's relationship with humanity.

This view of God as all powerful is immensely damaging.  It feeds the egos of church hierarchies and anyone who believes the most important thing is to be right.

There are, as I said in the post (link above), other interpretations of quantum mechanics where an observer is not needed.  As ever we are not dealing with certainties.

There is of course another option.  Someone else observed the singularity who is not God.  Of course, there is only one known possibility and that is humanity.

We know humanity has observed evidence of the Big Bang (not the actual event obviously).  Remember Schroedinger's cat; we don't see it die, it is both alive and dead until it is observed.

What if over all the millions of years before humanity, the universe was in a state of neither existing nor not existing?  Until humanity appeared on the scene, aware of their own existence and of the universe around them.

The universe becomes real as we become aware that it is real.  The universe is a construct of human consciousness.  We know that.  Our senses and brains strip out most of the information available to us.  We depend on this for survival.  The world we perceive is constructed by our brains.  There is, of course, a reality we have in common, something we perceive and are able to agree about, otherwise science would not be possible at all.

The Christian story is a story of God becoming human.  We call this incarnation.  This human being was murdered and rose from the dead, ascending into heaven.  So the story goes.  The Body of Christ is the incarnation of God in humanity today.    

Maybe one way of thinking of it is the story of the universe as the story of the birth of God into the world.  This is a God who becomes self-aware though humanity.  Not a God on high but a God who lives as a part of the universe, seeing through our eyes, exploring through our feet and loving through our hands.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Theology and Science: The Big Bang (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Rocking the Foundations of Authority

I found an article by Slavoj Zizek in the New Statesman, dated 5 April 2010 (I'm somewhat behind in my reading).  Incidentally this is the annual God issue; according to the editor, sales always increase for the God issue.  Make of that what you will!

Zizek's article is called Soul of the Party.  He aims to show how Paul (shown preaching in Athens from a cartoon by Raphael in the Sistine Chapel, and used to illustrate the article) used religion to rock the foundations of society.  I have referred to some of the new takes on Radical Paul, particularly the works of John Dominic Crossan and Timothy Ashworth.  Zizek is a communist and so in the eyes of some he cannot be a real Christian.  I addressed this in a recent post. I intend to read his book The Fragile Absolute: Or, Why is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?

Here are a few quotes from the article.  I hope Zizek won't mind me quoting him, he phrases things so well and it would be a pity to lose what he says.

Fyodor Dostoevsky was aware of how God gives us freedom and responsibility - he is not a benevolent master steering us to safety, but one who reminds us that we are wholly unto ourselves.

We are freed in Christ to become more truly ourselves.  Too often the churches insist on moral rectitude, close to the law that Paul argues has been superseded.   Our faith should free us to become perfect, it does not force us into a mould determined by the authorities (religious or secular). Of course, they are threatened by this and so the Christian is anything but steered to safety.

... a God who wholly "became man" ... and who not only "doesn't exist" but also himself knows this, accepting his erasure, entirely passing over into the love that binds members of the Holy Ghost ...

I suppose the atheists will object to this; obviously it is a logical contradiction.  To me it is a re-statement of the incarnation - we cannot know God, except through Jesus.  There is a sense in which God does not exist because God cannot be known to us except through Jesus.  What can a God who does not exist do but send his Son?

For this reason Christianity is anti-wisdom: wisdom tells us that our efforts are in vain, that everything ends in chaos, while Christianity madly insists on the impossible.  ...  This is why Paul said, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise" ...  We should take the term "wisdom" literally here: it is wisdom (in the sense of "realistic" acceptance of the way things are) that Paul is challenging, not knowledge as such.

I think this touches the root problem with atheism.  It is close to the truth, as it rejects false images of God.  But it ends up saying that what is given is all there is.  For many people this is unacceptable - it is the argument of the Lord of the Manor and the wealthy in all times and cultures.  We cannot change things?  Oh, yes?  When Christians buy into the way things are, in effect we are atheists.

"For struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against leaders, against authorities, against the world rulers ... of this darkness, against the spiritual wickedness in the heavens" (Ephesians 6:12) Or translated into todays language: "Our struggle is not against concrete, corrupted individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification that sustains it".

I'm sure this is right.  It is our faith in human institutions, including the church, which undermines faith.  This is why violence is not appropriate for Christians, violence identifies the wrong enemies.

Theology and Science: A New Cosmology?

All civilisations have a cosmology.  I've mentioned this before and noted the Christian faith has recognised several radically different cosmologies, eg first century Palestine, Medieval Catholic, Newtonian and modern.

The problem is, of course, our modern cosmology is rather difficult to understand and so many theologians have ignored it.  They prefer the certainties of Newton's mechanical cosmology, even though it drains life from the faith.  (Leaving aside the intellectually deprived ravings of the creationists and those who favour even earlier cosmologies.)

The new cosmology offers opportunities for Christians because it relates the observer and the observed.  It embeds us in the material world and at the same time transcends it.  It allows for the possibility of a spiritual dimension to matter, which should take us away from the sterile dualism of spirit and matter that has plagued Christian history.

It's odd because so much of our theology denies dualism.  We are invited to understand Jesus as both human and divine.  Matter and spirit are seen to be joined in a seamless whole.  Surely this story tells us something of our own nature? 

And we have the dance of the Trinity, that holds us face to face with something beyond the spirit matter dualism of our sterile dreams. 

So, why do some Christians insist matter is somehow bad?  Why all the hang-ups about sex?  Partly it is to do with economics and human exploitation but at a deeper level it is disgust with matter.  And yet the invitation has to be to embrace life.  If God could live fully as a human, so must we.

Theology and Science: On the Nature of Spirit

Dark matter and dark energy make up 96% of the universe.  So, is God in the dark matter or dark energy?  Well, whatever the truth, it is not true to say there is nowhere in the universe for God to be found.

The problem is, of course, theologians will tell you God the creator is not in the universe; that would be to confuse the creator with the created. 

Perhaps we can search outside the universe?  String theory has 10 dimensions.  Plenty of room for God there, outside the universe as we perceive it.  I'm simply showing it is not illogical to believe in God, there is no evidence for God in any of these places.

For the atheist there is only matter, no spirit.  For the theologian too often matter is inferior to spirit.  This is the old gnostic heresy and is still prevalent amongst many Christians.  Let's look at the theology.

God loves matter.  God is the creator and holds matter in existence - this is part of our foundational belief.  Furthermore, the Christian believes God became incarnate in human flesh. 

This means, whilst the scientist might look for God in dark matter or other dimensions, the Christian seeks God in the stories of Jesus and his followers.  God is not out there somewhere but close by, albeit hidden.

Maybe God is out there somewhere but essentially the God out there is unknowable.  If we want to know God, we must look to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.  This is the only way we can know anything of the nature of God.

Why is God hidden?  Because God is in the here and now.  God inhabits the world of our senses but is found only by accident, by glimpses or revelations.  No-one can produce proof or be categorical; God is revealed now and then, here and there.  All stories are part of a greater story, all words part of a greater conversation.

Theology and Science: On the Nature of Matter

It is interesting the new atheists know so much about matter.  It seems all human experience can be accounted for by matter alone.  It is interesting that matter, which is perceived, accounts for consciousness, that perceives.  It is sort of counter-intuitive - but then that's the nature of faith. 

But how do we know what we know about matter?  We perceive it through our senses.  We see it, hear it, feel it (when it falls on our foot), smell it and taste it.  So, obviously we know all there is to know about matter.

Except that some animals perceive aspects of matter we can only glimpse through our machines.  Ultra violet?  No problem.  Magnetic and electric fields?  None at all.

Our senses have evolved through human evolution.  It is possible to perceive matter in other ways.  If electric eels could describe matter, what would they perceive, that we don't?

The problem is, we don't know what we don't perceive.  Our senses are a gift because they filter out what is distracting - we pick up only that which is important to us (or was important during human evolution).  If our senses picked up everything, it would be a confusing meaningless morass.  And our senses are only part of the story; what they pick up is interpreted by the brain. 

Apparently the image on our retina is upsidedown, compared with what we normally perceive.  How much of what is coherent about the world, is the interpretation laid on the world by our brains?  Most of what we perceive hangs together and our science depends upon this.  But how can we be sure that the picture of reality we see through science is all that is there?

It hangs together and I'm in no way suggesting we can know nothing of reality.  Our senses filter what is there, they don't fabricate it, at least not usually.  The results of experiments are corroborated by other scientists.  There is consistency.

Perhaps quantum mechanics makes little sense because science has been able to pierce beyond the veil of the senses.  Perhaps it gives us a taste of what we would find, were we to perceive all things.

There is another thing we can rely upon and that is scientists are in conversation with matter.  Through science, human consciousness has entered into conversation with the universe.  Ask matter and it responds.  Sometimes it needs close interrogation but as we question, our understanding deepens.  As far as we can tell, the predictive power of science is firm.  

I do wonder.  All that dark matter and dark energy.  We can't perceive it - apparently it is all around us and passes through us all the time.  What secrets does it hold?  Perhaps all manner of things the atheist would rather deny.  Or perhaps there is no dark matter or dark energy - consensus has yet to be reached.

Emmanuel Garibay's Emmaus

I first saw this painting at an exhibition called Jesus Laughing and Loving .  It is a touring exhibition and I saw it at my church.  This painting caught my attention and I remember the thrill when I noticed the woman's hands.  I was told a school party earlier that week had visited the exhibition and an eleven year old boy spent half an hour in front of the painting.

The other day, at a meeting of the Centre for Radical Christianity , Nicola Slee led a day, considering the Christa.  I posted a photo of a Christa recently  and the first half of the day focused on this type of crucifixion image. 

After lunch, Nicola Slee asked whether there were similar resurrection images.  Indeed, there are and this painting was reproduced in our packs.  I intend to find out more about Garibay and his paintings.  He is a Filipino artist and this painting shows a sort of Asian night club where the woman is a hostess.  Despite the seedy atmosphere there is a real sense of joy and the onlooker is drawn in.

What struck me was a parallel with the Rublev icon of the Trinity (below).  There are three men, with three bottles of beer and three spliffs.  The woman does not partake.  It seems to me the gestures of the men echo something of the gestures of the men in the icon.  Obviously, the icon is not full of quite so much laughter but the placing of hands and the direction of gazes is important.  The Trinity regard each other, the Garibay men regard the woman.

In the icon, the fourth side of the table faces the viewer.  The Garibay Emmaus is turned around and the woman occupies the fourth side but her gaze is fixed on the viewer.

We can read this painting as we choose.  The point to me is about incarnation.  We cannot find God in heaven, God is in other people.  This means God can as easily be found as a woman in a seedy bar as anywhere else.  Unremarkable, suspect ... this is the meaning of the resurrection.