SHOULD WE START A CHURCH?

Confronting Rothko from http://www.socialhistoryofart.com/

"The Conversion of Saul"

I quip that Pope Francis is trying to return Paul’s church to Jesus.  I hope he has better luck than Buddha did.  (The latter never quite succeeded in convincing people they should not worship HIM.)  What I’m saying in code is that Jesus was not “religious” in terms of institutions -- he had no institutions nor interest in starting one.  But Saul, who had a great transfiguration and was then Paul, kept more of the twisty stuff of institutions (chromosomes, if you like) and pushed what he knew from his previous life as a formal leader.  People who know the relevant documents and evidence will make fun of me, but I believe that it was Peter who was supposed to be the Rock on which to found a church.  It was Peter who tried to walk on water, who denied Jesus, etc. etc.  A much more human sort of guy.  This is all barnacles on the great ship of faith. It’s fun but I don’t take it seriously because it’s not the heart, the key, the root of being human.

For a little while I was in the business of founding and growing congregations.  It’s not very hard if you have a message that people really want and need.  If you don’t, nothing will work for very long.  

The next step, the building of networks among congregations until there’s a denomination -- a system big enough to have a name (nom) -- begins to feel a lot like advertising and corporations.  There must be a headquarters, a logo, and then someone issues formal materials, and no matter how democratic the elections, the leaders begin to think like Paul and tell all the little congregations what to do.  They might be right but piles of letters to this and that community takes the leadership out of the hands of locals and away from on-the-ground experience.  Once you get past the Gospels, that’s about all the New Testament is: letters from headquarters.  With a horror story (Revelations) tacked onto the end.  This is just the Middle Eastern kind of religion.  There have been dozens, not just three.

After all, I’m not very interested in religion.  I’m interested in human beings and their experience of the world and by world I mean something more like cosmic galaxies than like the United Nations.  It’s the “experience” part that I’ve been reading about in order to understand better how being human can be exuberant, creative, and thoughtful in a sharing way.  If a group comes together to be those kinds of things together, that’s fine.  If you want to call it “spiritual” or “worship”  or “ceremonial” and if you can resist Robert’s Rules of Order, then I am interested.  But I will maintain my solitude.

The Inter-Faith Chapel at the University of Nome by Robert Baldwin

Despite the necessity of the raw world and the cultivation of experiences contacted through exploration, some things are teddy bears -- familiar links to comfort.  But I wouldn’t want to attend a church where the pews are full of teddy bears.  Well, maybe once to see what it was like.  At the other extreme, I would avoid a church full of grizzly bears out of self-preservation.  The question is “what does it mean to attend a church full of humans?”  Or “what does it mean to attend a church at all?”  When is a theatre a church?  When is a circle of Blackfeet sitting on the ground, singing about the lives of familiar animals, actually a church?  

So is the definition of church in the content, the procedure, the nature of the attenders, the ecology of the community and the land where it is situated, the formal account the leaders can give of what’s happening, what a trained observer (anthropologist) might write about it -- ???   Jesus, Francis and Buddha might say it all depends on whether “God” is present.  So what makes the circle holy?  

I suggest three things:  1) Does it guide the people’s life-decisions?  2) Does it unite a community? and 3) Does it give life meaning?

Can a school be a church/can a church be a school?   Can a studio be a church/can a church be a studio?  I say yes, yes, yes.  Quoting Molly Bloom that way always made the older UU ministers (all male) laugh because to them it meant sex.  Can sex be a church/can a church be sex?  Yup.  (Molly Bloom as a cowgirl who gets the blues.)

MY BOOK HAS MORE BOOKMARKS THAN PAGES…RESEARCH BLOG BY CIARA MADIGAN, 

MASTERS STUDENT IN ENGLISH: MODERNITIES AT UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK

And you see what I just did?  Linked to a literary canon, both citations a little bit scandalous.  Can church be a scandal?  Can a scandal be guiding, uniting, meaningful?  Yup.  Can a group of people holding candles in the snow around the site of a murder, whether a beaten child, an unarmed black man, an historical massacre of indigenous people, be a church?  Of course.  The holiness is not in the event, but in the response.  Candles and singing are not enough, but only the beginning.  Did it show empathy?  Did it prompt giving of time and energy to the future?  Could you feel the meaning?

I’m going to spend the rest of the day building a bibliography for those interested in what I’ve been reading and as a reminder for myself, because I need to reread some of this.  prairiemarybibliographies.blogspot.com.  Not much there yet.

Gabor Maté, the MD who works with hard-core addicts in Vancouver, B.C., tries hard not to be arrogant or controlling.  In the interest of showing his vulnerability, he confesses that he is obsessive/compulsive.  (OCD or whatever) Luckily, his fetish is not chemically addictive in any obviously destructive way: it’s classical music, which he buys in complete sets of works, never satisfied, and not even listening to all of it because there’s not enough time in any day, though he performs his medical work, buys his CD’s, and then short-sheets his family despite their pleas and his promises to "pay" more attention to them.  By now he seems to have a bit more control over his obsession which he achieved by paying a fine to his wife and/or employer for each failure.  Money.  Hmmmm.  Merde.  Fertile if you have seeds.

Maté’s past is Jewish, haunted by WWII holocaust, and also affected by his relatively small size.  His first year was uncertain and chaotic, but then things got better.  (That infant is still in there somewhere.)  It seems clear that to him classical music is 1) civilization in the European style of mastery of intricate patterns, 2) high-brow, a sign of sophistication, 3) a sign that he is wealthy (superior) since he runs up bills in the thousands but doesn’t go into debt, 4) something that is just “his” -- not even anything to share with the family so long as he uses headphones, though his son said that as a kid he got tired of the blasting symphonies, 5) something that can go everywhere with him via iPods and car speakers, 6) basically a teddy bear, or speaking more formally, a “transitional object” that helps him maintain identity and safety in a world that constantly challenges all that.  It comforts him, distracts him, rewards him, which he needs given what he battles daily.  He was slow to realize that it was also an avoidance and hurting his family, but as soon as he saw that, he had the power to stand outside himself, make a diagnosis, and devise a cure -- the same as he would for anyone else.

In the end, that turns out to be what the rest of us should do as well.  It’s part of the Great Tango that is human life, an erotic dance with Hungry Ghosts and teddy bears. 

SERMONIZING AFTER A HARD WINTER: PENTECOSTALS

"Christians" earn the term by relating to Jesus as described in the New Testament, believing he is "the Christ." Over two millennia, esp. since the Protestant schism, these groups have split up into various institutions called “denominations.”  (Name = nom in = nomenclature)  "Catholic" which once included most Christians is now one denomination among many others.  

Church institutions are composed of “congregations” who are affiliated with their specific denomination.  Some congregations are free-standing, organized by personal relationships or sometimes by declaring allegiance to the original Christian document, namely the New Testament, though they may put emphasis on different parts.  These are not technically "religions" but denominations of the single religion, "Christianity."  Different religions might be Judaism, Buddhism, Hindu, Islam.  

Different denominational institutions within Christianity are, for instance, Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, Quaker, Unitarian Universalist.  Some are big and some are little.  Most respond to the secular government, which gives them certain exemptions and protections because of their contribution to the quality of our lives.  Their function is a bit like tribes and a few seem dubious, unworthy of recognition, at least to the government.  Like snake-handlers.  (I refuse to make a joke about professional courtesy.)

Spirituality, which may not be definable in terms of dogma or practice, is a human capacity that some people value as the heart of religion though mediated by various means. Others feel spirituality cannot be captured in any organization because it is a direct relationship with whatever one calls “God” or the Power.  People who have a special feeling about this, which they depict as fire, are called "pentecostals."  In the US this was a movement that started inside Methodism and finally broke away to form a new denomination.  It is an institution that specifically tries to be spiritual, but I would observe that as soon as there are a lot of rules, norms, calendars, named leaders, and so on, the spirit is probably elsewhere.  Nevertheless, pentecostal ability to shift human consciousness towards ecstasy is strong.

Acts 2-3  And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance

Spirituality is not related to wickedness or virtue, though some will insist that it’s about love and others will say -- oppositely -- it’s about detachment.  

Others emphasize the awareness of Some Pure Power that might either be destructive or salvific.  

Spirituality has nothing to do with science but might accompany science.  

Spirituality is sometimes considered emotional but emotion only accompanies it.  

Some object to spirituality being “magic” which implies that it is supernatural and that some privileged persons have access to the control of it, so that they are witches or warlocks.  This is dangerous, as it can invite destruction from several sources.  One of the big human religious issues is control: must we be controlled by some higher power or can we be in control ourselves?  Or OF ourselves?

Scientifically speaking, all we can know is what our sensorium can detect (with or without our consciousness of that detection -- we cannot “feel” gamma rays but they are constantly penetrating us) and how our brain deals with that knowledge, organizes it, and understands it, so as to respond to it.  If the brain can’t figure something out, it might just ignore it.  If the case is that there is too much information to be sorted, then the brain can stall out -- stop functioning.  All of society shows the same patterns.

Politicians and scientists discussing what to do about global warming.  (It's a sculpture.)

But it is true that our consciousness can sometimes intensely feel something that we can’t describe or name but that affects us even to the point of transformation -- a conversion.  Whether you think this is an electrochemical event in the brain or whether you think it is something from “outside” human experience, if you are a pentecostal it can cause you to “speak in tongues.”  That is, to talk fluently in an unknown language which some think is holy, others think is the language of some other world, and some believe is the deeply natural language of human beings before we broke into national languages.  Scientifically, "tongues" have all the structural characteristics of language but simply make no sense, like schizophrenic "word salad."  Pentecostals have specialized in triggering this.

An experiment in which babies were isolated to see what language they would speak without any teaching from other humans failed because all the babies died.  Babies who have no other living beings for interaction cannot continue to grow.  Even rough treatment and bad language will allow them to live so long as there is contact with other humans -- though it is claimed that a conscientious mammal like a dog could also raise a human being.  The child just wouldn’t have any human language.  

One of the capacities that is carried by meaningful human language is the ability to think of something that is only theoretical, or sometimes what is called “virtual.”  We have grown accustomed to constructing new “reality” in our computers, virtual worlds, but we’ve always done it with art (including stories), and -- in fact -- each of us constructs our own reality in our own minds.  Conveying that to others might be pretty hard if the evidence of their sensorium and the lives they have organized from their ecology and society is very different from ours.

Pipe Bundle Keeper

Because the original Blackfeet understanding of their world was highly spiritual, they are often responsive to pentecostal approaches and that understanding slips into all the Christian denominations on the reservation.  Because the practices and theories of the old-time Blackfeet were quite different from baptism, communion, laying on of hands, or a Holy Book, their spirituality was at first not necessarily recognized by Europeans.  For those who can recognize it, there is a bridge between worlds through spirituality.

Persons who are open to the idea of differences might even think the old-time Plains ways were better, but persons who are invested in only one way (usually THEIR way) are intolerantly blind.  Of course, those who were already on the edge of being overwhelmed could not tolerate new practices like the Ghost Dance because it seemed too powerful and scary.

Spirituality is a basic physical capacity of all human beings.  So is speech, so it’s natural to link words with responses to the experience of melding with all existence, acknowledging greater power than earthly cultures, and responding, whether with terror or gratitude.  Culture is a lesser aspect of being human than the capacity to sense “spirit” so it is cannot contain the “spirit” except in conditional ways, each culture according to its understanding.

This doesn’t keep human beings from trying to exceed their culture, to be more, to escape all the boundaries and limits.  But one of the basic personality divisions is between those who yearn for the unthinkable, the ultimate, and those who are content to stay within the known limits.  When there is hostility between the two modes, whether it’s only grumbling or whether it breaks out in a revolution on the scale of the self-destruction of Red Revolutionary China, many suffer.  A few will seek comfort in the spiritual but become secretive.

It’s not so much a matter of whether you believe in something specific or behave well according to the standards of your culture, but whether you reach, try to exceed yourself, honestly look at the cards you are holding and play them with inspiration -- that is, looking for new ways while using the old ways.

Life is a kaleidoscope that presents many aspects through the little window that is your eye, your “I,” your ego, and then keeps rejumbling them into new patterns.  One is not more beautiful than the other, but somehow an underlying pattern persists.  Awareness of that pattern is spiritual because making contact with the cosmos means that the sky echoes your song and the grass accepts the pattern of your feet.  You feel that.

This post is preaching, talk that is meant to give both remonstrance and hope.  It is not institutional, not denominational, not Christian, but possibly a bit pentecostal, presenting shards of thought that mirror each other enough to form a star shape, a mandala.  It is preaching easily spoken to the least of us because what do they have to lose?  But the rich and powerful would be wise to listen as well, or they won’t stay rich and powerful, no matter which church they attend, which religion they accept, how much they tithe or organize.

THE DAY BEFORE EASTER

One might think it would be a little difficult to commodify a crucifixion, but never underestimate religious institutions. Enough bits of the old rugged cross have been sold to build a respectable house -- if you don’t mind a lot of different kinds of wood. At least so far no one claims to have Jesus’ skull stashed somewhere, but we don’t lack for replicas of the man in agony on the cross. I think the Mexican ones, dripping with blood, are the most truthful ones, though the real cause of death is shock and suffocation. (You can’t breathe while you’re hanging from your arms.) There are plenty of empty crosses, of course.

Commodification is one of the chief sins of religions everywhere. (Some might call it fetishization, but that won’t make you rich necessarily. In fact, get too obsessed and you’ll go broke.) Always something to sell, even if it’s indulgences. Indulge your family for Easter, buy’em a few days out of Hell. (Oh, right. Jesus was crucified to take on all our sins, but surely someone has been naughty since then.) But people might not like such gruesome stuff -- Calvinism is a hard sell -- so what has happened is the co-optation of a pagan celebration of Easter via Disney (Rites of Spring) and the fetishization of Easter eggs. That means decorating them, jeweling them, remarking on their pastel symbolism along with the chicks and bunnies, and getting the churches organized to present Easter egg hunts. (Valier’s town hunt, which is non-denominational, is today. Yesterday’s snow swirl has about melted.) It’s kind of mysterious how all this got translated into the idea that you had to have an Easter bonnet.

But maybe selling gimcracks and symbolic jewelry is not the worst thing that happens through religious institutions. I’ve been thinking about the proliferation of rules in our society. In fact, I’m thinking that the terrifying gridlock among our leaders is because they are playing by different sets of rules but BOTH ARE INSISTING ON RULES instead of principles. “Mother May I” and “Simon says” are both rule games. Many arguments about whose turn it is, what you did and what you didn’t do.

Barry McWilliams, the popular cartoonist, let fly with a rant against the rules about what you can’t do while driving. “It began with ‘No drinking while driving’ — which made sense, given the carnage wrought by drunk drivers. The collateral casualties to this being, of course, those who loved to sip a beer en route home from work. Not drunk, just relaxing — and easing the potential for road rage considerably.

“Then it became, "No open containers either." Made less sense, since many a pot-lucker would be risking arrest for simply bringing home a partially consumed, dutifully corked, bottle of their personal vintage.

“Now, it's ‘No Cellphoning or Texting.’ As with the boozing, it makes some sense — given the highly publicized tragic consequences of certain cellphoners & texters who were a bit too engaged with their smart phones, too little with their driving smarts. . . .

“Soon it'll become "No hand-held communication devices in the vehicle." Like open containers, making much less sense — but much simpler for police to ticket, courts to punish, prisons to sequester.”

The final cartoon has a little tootsie assuring her passenger that she never texted while driving because that’s when she put on her morning makeup. This is secular rule-making. But Barry had an objection from a reader almost immediately. The one that REALLY kicked up a fuss is at the top of this post. Some newspapers refused to print it. That puts Barry up there with Gary Trudeau, who draws Doonesbury. You know you've got a live one when they come at you screaming.

There’s no question that a person needs rules and that religious bodies ought to think about what the rules ought to be, but institutions have a tendency to make idols of rules as well as gestures, substances, rote recitations, tithing, what is a sacrament and what is not -- all dictated. In order to preserve the authority of the religious institution, the “authorities” try to prevent change, to make sure the rules DO NOT change because they are from GOD. But life itself changes. (That's what life IS.) The rules of Leviticus don’t make sense anymore. (Some of them make you wonder whether they ever did.) But the principles of Jesus still work -- always will.

In pondering this problem of religious rule kudzu, I ran across a fascinating article: “Oh, Gods!” by Toby Lester. The Atlantic, February, 2002. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2002/02/oh-gods/2312/ It’s an account of the constant evolution of religious groups, new groups appearing and then dissolving. Even old majority groups diminish and disperse. Why? They start up because their rules are good, helpful, and appropriate. They help people survive, help them protect and support each other, find friends -- and then gradually the rules don’t work. Friends drift away. Everything is different. If they were finches in the Galapagos, we would call this evolution, which is as much about losing as gaining.

My movie this evening was “The Stoning of Soraya M.”, more shocking than a crucifixion and still practiced today -- by the hundreds, almost always women who are stoned. The movie is about an unjust stoning, rules bent and corrupted so that the woman’s husband could have a new wife. NPR news had a story about Budapest where there are an increasing number of homeless. The solution? Passing a law against it. If you are sleeping in the street, you must be arrested or pay a fine -- no matter that you were there because you had no money. (So far they haven’t arrested anyone since it dawned on them that they would have to provide food and shelter for them.) Maybe that seems crazy, but in the US we criminalize with our laws and rules all the time. This week in Great Falls a judge released a young man who had been bullying classmates in the shower by “power gobbling” -- lifting them off their feet with his fist. It was claimed that his thumb was where it should not have been. The judge released him because he had been charged in a way that would have forced the judge to give him years in jail. He will be re-charged with something lesser and, no doubt, sentenced.

The big problem with rules is that the punishment gets out of proportion to the crime. It’s because we don’t want to deal with the causes. We don’t want to think about horrible stuff and it’s too hard to figure out individual cases, so we just legislate rules. The liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives. When I first came to Valier, I had a job where I was not experienced. One of the supervising women said, “Either you stop making mistakes or I’m going to beat your butt.” That has become the attitude of the whole country. We think we are not just human institutions but God himself. This will take more than one post to work through.