Things in Their identity

By Thomas Merton

A tree gives glory to God by being a tree. For in being what God means it to be it is obeying God. It ‘consents,’ so to speak, to God's creative love. It is expressing an idea which is in God and which is not distinct from the essence of God, and therefore a tree imitates God by being a tree.

The more a tree is like itself, the more it is like God. If it tried to be like something else which it was never intended to be, it would be less like God and therefore it would give God less glory….

This particular tree will give glory to God by spreading out its roots in the earth and raising its branches into the air and the light in a way that no other tree before or after it ever did or will do….

The special clumsy beauty of this particular colt on this April day in this field under these clouds is a holiness consecrated to God by God's own creative wisdom and it declares the glory of God.

The pale flowers of the dogwood outside this window are saints. The little yellow flowers that nobody notices on the edge of that road are saints looking up into the face of God. This leaf has it own texture and its own pattern of veins and its own holy shape, and the bass and trout hiding in the deep pools of the river are canonized by their beauty and their strength. The lakes hidden among the hills are saints, and the sea too is a saint who praises God without interruption in her majestic dance.

The great, gashed, half-naked mountain is another of God’s saints. There is no other like him. He is alone in his own character; nothing else in the world ever did or ever will imitate God in quite the same way. That is his sanctity.

But what about you? What about me? Unlike the animals and the trees, it is not enough for us to be what our nature intends. It is not enough for us to be individual humans. For us, holiness is more than humanity. If we are never anything but people, we will not be saints and we will not be able to offer to God the worship of our imitation, which is sanctity.

It is true to say that for me sanctity consists in being myself and for you sanctity consists in being your self and that, in the last analysis, your sanctity will never be mine and mine will never be yours, except in the communism of charity and grace.

For me to be a saint means to be myself. Therefore the problem of sanctity and salvation is in fact the problem of finding out who I am and of discovering my true self.

Trees and animals have no problem. God makes them what they are without consulting them, and they are perfectly satisfied. With us it is different. God leaves us free to be whatever we like. We can be ourselves or not, as we please. We are at liberty to be real, or to be unreal. We may be true or false, the choice is ours. We may wear now one mask and now another, and never, if we so desire, appear with our own true face. But we cannot make these choices with impunity. Causes have effects, and if we lie to ourselves and to others, then we cannot expect to find truth and reality whenever we happen to want them. If we have chosen the way of falsity we must not be surprised that truth eludes us when we finally come to need it!

Our vocation is not simply to be, but to work together with God in the creation of our own life, our own identity, our own destiny. We are free beings and sons and daughters of God. This means to say that we should not passively exist, but actively participate in God's creative freedom, in our own lives, and in the lives of others, by choosing the truth. To put it better, we are even called to share with God the work of creating the truth of our identity. We can evade this responsibility by playing with masks, and this pleases us because it can appear at times to be a free and creative way of living. It is quite easy, it seems, to please everyone. But in the long run the cost and the sorrow come very high….

We do not know clearly beforehand what the result of this work will be. The secret of my full identity is hidden in God. God alone can make me who I am, or rather who I will be when at last I fully begin to be. But unless I desire this identity and work to find it with God and in God, the work will never be done. The way of doing it is a secret I can learn from no one else but God. There is no way of attaining to the secret without faith...

The seeds that are planted in my liberty at every moment, by God’s will, are the seeds of my own identity, my own reality, my own happiness, my own sanctity. To refuse them is to refuse everything; it is the refusal of my own existence and being: of my identity, my very self. Not to accept and love and do God’s will is to refuse the fullness of my existence.

If I never become what I am meant to be, but always remain what I am not, I shall spend eternity contradicting myself by being at once something and nothing, a life that wants to live and is dead, a death that wants to be dead and cannot quite achieve its own death because it still has to exist...

The Call of the Leader (whoever they should be)

As I contemplated the relevance of Aristotle's observation that one of the worst forms of government is a democracy, I came to appreciate the significance of good leaders. As I contemplated Gustave Doré's etching of Merlin advising King Arthur, I came to appreciate the significance of good advisers and friends.

Then I contemplated the leaders of Israel, particularly during the time of the judges, and I wondered why "Israel once again did evil in the eyes of the Lord." It seems that God would have raised up a judge to prevent the people from falling away as opposed to waiting until the damage had been done and then attempting to fix it. Then it occurred to me that there might have been another reason for "Israel once again doing evil in the sight of the Lord." Maybe it was because there were God-blessed, God-ordained leaders who did choose to lead. Maybe an entire group of people suffered the consequences of their own pathetic choices because there was no one to proclaim and renew the vision of God's kingdom.

We now live in a society where the masses are ruled by the tyranny of their own desires, and they choose leaders who will protect their "God-given right" to follow those desires. Are the people of God on the verge of "once again doing evil in the sight of the Lord"? Are there leaders whose eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord, but remain silent because of the overwhelming tide of public opinion? Would we recognize a 21st century Aurthur and Merlin. Would we respond to a 21st century judge, or prophet, or king? Will a 21st century judge, prophet or king arise?

The Crumbling Economy of Signs and Symbols: Part I

Ever since the book Simulacra and Simulation, by the French cultural theorist Jean Baudrillard, made a cameo in the movie The Matrix, I have had a mysterious draw to read what was between its covers. Why is that, I suppose? Well, as I read this philosophical treatise, as well as several other works by this author, I came to realize that Baudrillard himself has an explanation for this mysterious attraction. He would argue that I desired to read the book, in part, because it was participating in a system that gives value to simulated images. I must admit, I had previously seen the book while perusing through the philosophy shelf at a local bookstore. But why was the book not valuable to me when it appeared before my eyes in a form tangible to all of my senses? It was not until Hollywood presented it as a simulacrum (that is, an image or representation of someone or something) that I then thought it was worth reading.

The more I thought about this, the more I saw Baudrillards theories play out right before my eyes.

The first was at a large youth convention that had multiple big screens set up front so that the people in the back could get a better view of the happenings up front. However, I noticed something that was both intriguing as well as comical. Most of the youth who were up front near the stage were not looking at the speaker who stood ten feet in front of them in the flesh, but they nearly all of them had their heads cranked to one side or the other so that they could catch a view of the speaker on the big projection screen. Why was the projection screen more worthy of their gaze than the actual person in the flesh? It obviously had nothing to do with being able to see him. If anything, it was easier for them to simply look forward rather than craning their necks to one of the screens on either side.

I later observed a conference that set up two large projection screens in a significantly smaller arena. Youth in the back of this auditorium would have had no difficulty in seeing all of the things going on up front on the stage. This compels me to ask, with Baudrillards help, are the screens serving a practical purpose, or are they being used so as to enable the leaders of the service to participate the value system of the dominant culture? In other words, in order to give their appearance more credibility, then it must take the form of something that is simulated and one step closer to being mass-produced.

One other observation is the way people, especially youth, value their “image.” What gives their “image” value is the way in which it can participate in the images that get mass-produced and consumed. Given the fact that the images that are “worth” something are the images that are being consumed (consumed either by buying movies and magazines, or simply consumed by the eye of another human being). This is why people try to simulate the style and image of models and celebrities, either in looks or in style, because in the very act of simulating the image, they are participating in the larger value system that is based on the currency of simulacra and simulation. I am valuable because I am the generic version of Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. Most generic versions obtain their value by scamming off of the more valuable thing, and so do many of us in when we attempt bum a particular style. Even our language of “name brand” and “generic” corresponds to our language of “real” and “fake.”

These are but bits and pieces of how Baudrillards observations and commentary play out in our every day lives. He writes at great length trying to locate all of this in what he would call an economy of images, signs, and symbols. Images, signs, and symbols ain’t what they used to be – both how they are used as well as how they are understood. If there is only a thread of truth running through Baudrillard’s observations and commentary on this aspect of our culture, then there are some major concerns that the church must deal with, particularly in the realm of Christian worship where there is a very particular kind of economy of images, signs, and symbols.

Just a few things to throw into the hopper.

Translating Youth to Hear the Gospel

Youth are flooded with a wide array of information that flows through the pipeline of television, internet, telephone, school, billboards, cell phones, iPods and Podcasts, to name only a few. Not only does the information flow through seemingly countless media, it also seems to come in equally numerous forms and at an alarming rate. Youth now have instant access in virtually any location to world news, local news, what color socks their friends are wearing, television shows, movies, advertisements, historical facts, literature, magazines, research papers, and even streaming videos of what people are doing in Kazakhstan. Because businesses make a great deal of money from the media channels our youth tap and consequently guzzle, businesses also devote a great deal of effort to woo to their media.

In light of all this, the church often wonders how she can compete in this fast-paced media frenzy, as well as how she can send the gospel down the same pipelines that all of the other information seems to be flowing. But are these the right questions the church should be asking? There is no doubt that in we need to be able to communicate the gospel to youth in a way that they can understand, but this process does not necessarily mean that we are supposed to transform the gospel so that it fits into a Podcast, or make it light enough to float over the airwaves so that it can reach as many people as possible. I find it a bit disturbing that this often constitutes "cutting edge youth ministry."

While there is a definite need to translate the gospel into the mother tongue of all the peoples of the earth, the work is only half done. In fact, the main act of translation has yet to take place. To assume that the gospel is the only thing that has to change in order to bring reconciliation is erroneous. We too must be translated. We too must be changed in order that we may express and be communicated to God. And the media through which we are translated and communicated is Christ – not a virtual Christ, with a virtual body, but a physical Christ, with a tangible body.

One of the definitions of ‘translate’ is to move from one place or condition to another. This is part of what the gospel is – to move people from one place or condition to another. Sometimes it seems as though Christians hand their youth over to be formed by the dominant culture, and then they wonder why their children are not responsive to the gospel. One reason is because the gospel is not information to be enjoyed or mentally known, as if it were a television series or a documentary. For too long have we believed that as long as we are careful about the type of information that flowed into our youth through these various media that they would be alright. But while we questioned the information, we neglected to question the activity of consuming this kind of information in this sort of way.

To address the problem is not a matter of being “educated consumers.” The problem goes much deeper. We don’t save the lives of people playing Russian roulette by teaching them better techniques. The issue is not about the technique but the activity. Likewise, the church needs to reconsider the ways in which youth’s lives are shaped by the activity of consuming information in all of these ways. We as parents and mentors need to live in such a way that we are able to demonstrate the gospel of Christ is worth changing your life for. We translate the gospel to our youth by showing to them that the gospel is worth the radical transformation of our lives.

Random Observations #1

I recently visited Christ’s Church United Methodist in New York whose beautiful construction and elaborate decoration was funded almost entirely by poor immigrants families during the Great Depression. I find it odd that these people would spare the expense of living in a more polished abode, so as to spare no expense for the shared space of the worshiping community. (The doors were unlocked)




Shortly after that, I visited a megachruch whose construction was funded almost entirely by middle to upper class white people during one of the wealthiest economic periods in American history. I found it odd that these affluent people spared the expense of having a beautifully cultivated shared worship space in the name of “practicality,” but spared no expense on their 500,000-dollar homes in the name of “individuality.” (The doors were locked)

Read further thoughts concerning Houses Built with Human Hands...

Rush Limbaugh to Speak at Sojourners’ Mobilization to End Poverty

This is an inspiring display of how even the most hard-hearted schlep can see the error of his ways in order to walk the path of compassion, mercy and love. So as the saying of Jesus goes, "I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." Let us all take time to celebrate this beautiful conversion.

What's Your Story?

“…liberalism can be characterized as the presumption that you should have no story other than the story you chose when you had no story. A society constituted to produce people who get to choose their stories[, however,] cannot help but be caught in perpetual double-think. For what it cannot acknowledge is that we did not choose the story that we should have no story except the story we choose when we had no story.” (bold and italics mine)

⎯ Stanley Hauerwas quoted in Virtue Ethics and Moral Knowledge By R. Scott Smith (p. 69)

Once this noodle-baking concept is comprehended, it is actually quite refreshing. Quite often we are in the habit of thinking that accepting Christ is to assume subservience, while saying no to Christ we maintain an autonomy of freedom. Hauerwas reminds us that no such autonomy exists, and that we are always in a “metanarrative” that gives meaning to our choices and actions. The question then becomes whether or not we are satisfied with the story that engulfs us. Do we want to become characters in a story where we are manipulated into being slaves to systems of power, or do we want to become characters in a story where we are invited to serve the one who serves us? But one thing is sure, we cannot be presume to have no story other than the story we chose when we had no story.

Reading Lord of the Rings Makes Me a Better Christian

Something resonates deep within my soul every time a crack open the majestic book by J.R.R. Tolkien. It calls to me like the mysterious music of the Ainur that still lingers on the waves of the sea. I feel that it summons me to a higher life - a life of quality, excellence and grandeur, where friends share lives using the High Speech of Tolkien, or sacred scriptures, and within every twig or fallen leaf is the pulsing power of the Holy Spirit that transfigures dross and quickens the dead.

I’m convinced that if any of us were to live in Middle Earth, we would walk around wide-eyed and flabbergasted for a couple of years, and then we would become inoculated towards its mystery and grandeur. I say that because I believe our sojourn through this world is charged with the same kind of majesty and mystique as the Fellowship’s journey and epic confrontations with the powers that threaten it.

I have found Tolkien’s story to be so moving because of its ability to open my eyes to this sort of reality in our own world. I've started from the beginning of this story I’ve read several times, but have jumped forward and read "The Passing of the Grey Company" twice already. I long to be Halbarad, who carries with him a humility and simplicity of the Ranger, but the regal presence of one who holds the weight and splendor of the Númenóreans. What kind of character walks with this grand heritage on his shoulders and yet looks at one of the Hobbits and says, "A little people but of Great worth are the Shire-folk. Little do they know of our long labour for the safe-keeping of their borders. Yet, I grudge it not." There's a lot behind that statement.

Ash Wednesday 2009

Lent: the last Christian season to be colonized by Hallmark and other trinket-making industries. It hasn’t happened yet, but I’m sure it will. It’s only a matter of time. First, they took Christmas from us. Then they took Easter with that ridiculous bunny and those disgusting Cadbury eggs. Then they moved on to snag All Hallows Eve. Next they started chipping away out our saints, like St. Patrick and St. Valentine.

But the season of Lent is difficult terrain for our capitalistic society to colonize into a profit-making season. After all, “tis the season to be… fasting” is hardly a motto that could stir the masses into a buying frenzy.

But it is for these very reasons that Lent just might be all the more significant for Christians to practice in our modern culture. There is something about it that cuts across some of the most powerful currents in our society. If for nothing else, it reminds us that we as a church are shaped by disciplines and practices that are utterly foreign to our dominant culture. Read full article

On Writing

Dylan Thomas on Poetry
These poems, with all their crudities, doubts, and confusions, are written for the love of Man and in praise of God, and I'd be a damn' fool if they weren't.

Thomas Merton on Dylan Thomas
Dylan Thomas' integrity as a poet makes me very ashamed of the verse I have been writing. We who say we love God: why are we not as anxious to be perfect in our art as we pretend we want to be in our service of God? If we do ot try to be perfect in what we write, perhaps it is because we are not writing for God after all. In any case it is depressing that those who serve God and love Him sometimes write so badly, when those who do not believe in Him take pains to write so well. I am not talking about grammar and syntax, but about having something to say and saying it in sentences that are not half dead. Saint Paul and Saint Ignatius Martyr did not bother about grammar but they certainly knew how to write.

The fact that your subject may be very important in itself does not necessarily mean that what you have written about is important. A bad book about the love of God remains a bad book, even though it may be about the love of God. There are many who think that because they have written about God, they have written good books. Then men pick up these books and say: if the ones who say they believe in God cannot find anything than this to say about it, their religion cannot be worth much.

A Proclamation about the Proclamation

By Frederick Buechner

When the preacher climbs up into the pulpit, switches on the lectern light and spreads out his note cards like a poker hand, maybe even the vacationing sophomore who is there only because somebody has dragged him there pricks up his ears for a second or two along with the rest of them because they believe that the man who is standing up there… has something that they do not have or at least not the same way he has it because he is a professional. He professes and stand for in public what they with varying degrees of conviction or the lack of it subscribe to mainly in private…All of this deepens the silence with which they sit there waiting for him to work a miracle, and the miracle they are waiting for is that he will not just say that God is present, because they have heard it said before and it has made no great and lasting difference to them, will not just speak the word of joy, hope, comedy, because they have heard it spoken before too and have spoken it among themselves, but that he will somehow make it real to them. They wait for him to make God real to them through the sacrament of words as God is supposed to become real in the sacrament of bread and wine, and there is no place where the preacher is more aware of his own nakedness and helplessness than here in the pulpit as he listens to the silence of their waiting. Poor, bare, forked animal in his [suit] with his heart in his mouth if not yet his foot. What can he say? What word can he speak with power enough to empower them, waiting there?

Excerpt from Frederick Buechner, Telling the Truth: The Gospel as Tragedy, Comedy, and Fairy Tale, (p. 39-40).

Some Christians Want Stimulus from the Government's Package

I recently received an email calling for Christians to be scandalized and outraged. Not wanting to pass up an opportunity like that, I read on to find out that Former Speaker Newt Gingrich “feels that if Christian activists would have enough courage and holy anger to e-mail and call their representatives and senators.” Over what? Well, the current administration’s stimulus package has a section prohibiting the uses of its funds. One of the prohibitions is that the money cannot not go to building or renovating buildings that are used mainly for religious or sectarian purposes. The actual wording in question is:

No funds awarded under this section may be used for - (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or construction of new facilities.

It is important to note that nothing is keeping Christians from doing their own funding. We can still send a fat check Duke Divinity School in order to renovate their chapel. And we can even still meet in the buildings being renovated, as this very email notes that in the 2001 Good News Club vs. Milford Central School Supreme Court decision, the court ruled that restricting religious speech within the context of public shared-use facilities (or schools) is unconstitutional. This paragraph simply says that the money cannot go towards chapels and buildings used by seminaries and bible colleges, or building “in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.”

And yet some Christians see this as "discriminatory," "theft," and "corruption of the highest order." Another portion of the email says,

Christians have not expressed enough outrage focused on the concept that people of faith are being taken advantage of by the stimulus bill during a time of crisis. They are being stolen from them when they are down and out and looking in good faith to the government for help. Instead of the stimulus we need, the liberals are getting the pork that they want -- for themselves, their families, and their friends. They are pickpockets and thieves preying on the down and out.

There seems to be a great irony that some of the Christians who speak vehemently against any sort of “handout” are now shamelessly offended when they don’t get a piece of the pie. I am befuddled as to why they would want to be stimulated by the government’s package. I understand that, given its size, it is very tempting, but the church has no need of the government’s aid. Sure, we’ll take what they want to give us, but we do not need it.

Furthermore, some believe this to be a slow move of edging the Christian voice out of the public square. But part of the Christian story is that we do not force our voice to be heard, nor do we shove our presence into people’s homes or even the public square. Even if there was any validity to this alarmist claim, it still does not change anything for the Church, because it is not our custom to force our presence anywhere. Christ can only be invited.