those awake

Some Recent Alarms

awakening : Alarms | posted by Shaun O

The blog front has (obviously) been quiet.  We've recently gone to the email approach for conversations, and hopefully that will lead to some interesting things to share ... we'll see.  Blogging & comments just still isn't a workable medium for conversations.  What to use, then?

But, I will share some recent "alarms" (moments/things of awakening!) for me:

• Loren Eiseley's The Immense Journey.  This was on the syllabus for the Literary Nonfiction class that I'm sort of auditing right now, and I'm stunned by the beauty of this naturalist's writing.  It's fun to be introduced to someone that you feel like you could "work" with a bit (maybe some scholarship and whatnot) - and that's Eiseley for me right now.  This book is a collection of essays and they stand alone nicely too.  If you can find his essay The Bird and the Machine (rough link to badly layed-out version here), that would be a great essay to get acquainted with! 

• Sigur Ros Heima.  
  Did you see the documentary of their intimate tour around Iceland?  As much as I'm all about this band, I waited and waited to watch this piece at just the right time ... and then I sorta forgot about it (father, forgive me), but then I remembered and watched it recently, clutching the headphones to my ears ... Yep.  I'll never regret time spent listening, and in this case watching Sigur Ros. 

• Thoreau's Autumnal Tints and our tree!  Kyndra has been out of town, but I'm waiting for her to get back so that we can read Thoreau's essay together and watch the leaves around Reno continue to fall.  I don't know if it's finally owning our own place, or just the fact that we have one prominent, cool tree that our front windows look out upon; but watching the leaves change and fall has been meditative for me.  It has woken me up to fall. 

late night thought

awakening : art | posted by Shaun O

saw a good movie and thought,

"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts."

-Henry David Thoreau

Epiphany and the kingdom

awakening : Kingdom | posted by Shaun O

The church calendar season/time of "Epiphany" will end this week, and Lent begins next week, with Ash Wednesday.  
I've enjoyed this season of Epiphany, and really only thought about it more because I preached one Sunday, helped with music on some other Sundays, and also weekly looked at texts and how to teach them to kids.  Nothing incredible has happened in the readings; but dwelling on the texts (in general) has been centering.  I've had a few epiphanies.   
(Here my mind keeps going to Scrubs rerun from just the other day, about the Epiphany Toilet!)

I've also been part of teaching the Lord's Prayer, and specifically, "your kingdom come."  I tried to share with the middle school students about the type of kingdom that Jesus might have been talking about.  I pieced together some excerpts from Jesus for President and Everything Must Change.  (Ryan, if you're reading, I passed J4P around to the kids and they seemed more interested in the images of that book than they've been in most anything we've done!  It was good to see.  Well done!).
And the moral of the story is that I've come away with new, refreshed, kingdom thoughts.  As McLaren hints, we should feel free and compelled to frame "God's Kingdom" into images that have meaning to us.  Perhaps it's the "dream of God," or the "revolution of God" or the "ecosystem of God."  What I like about this epiphany is the imagination associated with it; so much of what we do with religion is fact and truth and no poetry.  I'm finding out, it's all in who you're reading. 

And reading Henri Nouwen's Making All Things New, a few life-thoughts emerge.  He writes, "Our lives are destined to become like the life of Jesus."  I sit with that.  I imagine.  ... I know Nouwen isn't constricting our lives with this statement, he's opening them. 
Later on he considers that Jesus came to give humanity his own life.  There's that phrase in Phillipians about how Jesus did not cling to equality with God, but emptied himself and became as we are so that we might become like him and thus share in his divine life. 

And here we are with the meaning of this post:  I've struggled with the notion that God needs us.  I was taught that Jesus died, "paid the price," and all is done.  Just believe.  And one day you'll end up in heaven, in the kingdom of God.  But as I experience the world, I see lots that I can do, everyday, in an attempt to bring "the kingdom" to earth.  Every action has a reaction, and many actions of mine have consequences that are either life-giving or life-threatening.  But why does "King Jesus" need our actions to build his kingdom?  Why doesn't he just say the word and the kingdom appears?
Small epiphany today:  God likes imagination.  God likes cooperation and community.  Jesus came to offer a new life to the world.  And he emptied himself. 
I imagine Jesus pouring out his life, and what is poured out is the spirit of God, spirit of love.  And it flows around and it flows to us, and perhaps fills us to some degree.  And so we've been given a gift from God.  

But now, there is no Jesus but us.  We are it.  We are in community with God, and God's spirit, and now we build the kingdom and we bring it here.  God dreams and imagines with us, we do it together.  Jesus is emptied, but now here we are. 

So, may we keep having epiphanies, even as the season ends.  

Access the divine life, then dream, revolt, and build accordingly. 

Night of Freedom

awake & linking : Orion Magazine | posted by Shaun O

The latest Orion Magazine has a splendid article sitting at the Coda - A Window, by Hank Lentfer.
He writes,

"If I were imprisoned in a windowless cell and allowed out for just one week a year I'd choose seven days centered in September.  I'd come home to my Alaska-cabin-in-the-woods and clean a few pounds of spruce needles out of my neglected kayak, oil up a fishing reel, pack a three-day lunch, and paddle upriver.  I'd float to the top of the tide, tie the boat to an alder, and follow the bear-shit-splattered trail up stream.  I'd sit on the wet grass, listen to the rain tap away on my sou'wester, and watch for the deep flash of coho in a dark pool.  I'd then pray for luck, unwrap a sandwich and wait. 
The luck I'd pray for and the answer I await is the voice of cranes.  ..."

And he goes on to tell the beauty that the cranes impart to his life - opening windows in dark cells.

Tonight I've simply thought, what place and time would I want to be released to for a week?  Where does freedom from a cell take me?
I'm disappointed that my own experience doesn't lend me to foretell of careening up streams in my kayak, following wild bear tracks ... And, honestly, I'm hoping that my answer might be different in the next five years.
Tonight my answer wades back to high school days at church, and specifically to one night.  (I'd be interested to read other's answers in comments!)

------------
It is a Sunday evening in October in Irving, TX.  I am part of a worship service called the "Union" at IBC, and somewhere in the closing set of worship songs (there would be a ton!) ... I slip out and down the dark hallways of the rest of the empty church and out the doors to the kids' playground.  It is dark, streetlights in the distance, and after walking the grounds of the playground a couple times I finally sit on the small picnic bench at the edge of the environment.  I pick up the tiny pebbles at my feet, dismantling pieces of the playground floor, and I talk to God. 
I really talk - cause God is really there; I am not praying.  I aim a fiery monologue at the starry sky, and though the expanse is huge - planets and firmament, clouds, airplanes, rooftops and trees - I still know (beyond knowing) that I am heard. 
I have a moment.
At some point later (because time simply has no meaning at all now) I say goodbye.  I drop, toss, and fling the gravel and pace slowly back inside and back to the rest of life.  The group heads to Braums, or Nate's, or everyone simply goes home.
And I  spend the week trying to live up to what I dreamed and promised (and was promised) on that night. 

That would be my week free from windowless prison.  Free for that open night of back and forth and meaning and change on the dark playground. 

What is a Community?

awakening : Community | posted by Shaun O

It seems that "community" is more than central to political, religious, scholarly, and social life.  From whichever sphere we are focused on at one time, we could probably make a case for the undeniable value of community to the vital health of that sphere.  One question might be, what are these pursuits without community?  (okay, maybe next time)
For now, if we agree to esteem "community," what is it that we are agreeing upon?  I don't look to split hairs here, I guess I'm only hoping for some focus in my road to true community.

It's an interesting topic, with the explosion of "online communities" too!
Quickly, dictionary.com offers up:

1.  a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.

2.  a locality inhabited by such a group.

3.  a social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists

Already we have some cases of "specific locality" and perhaps another of just "sharing common characteristics."  I'm wondering about the valuable difference and the meaning of each.

To cut to the chase, a quote from Wendell Berry's What are People For?. 
He writes,

Community:  that is, a neighborhood of people who know each other, understand their mutual dependencies, and who place a proper value on good farming.  In it's cultural aspect, the community is an order of memories preserved conciously in instructions, songs, and stories and both consciously and unconscioulsy in ways.  A healthy culture holds preserving knowledge in place for a long time.  That is, the essential wisdom accumulates in the community much as fertility builds in the soil. 

For me, I get the idea of healthy culture = "in place for a long time."  Is it realistic to see communities this way in the future?  I don't know.  Is it necessary?  Should I worry to try?

M.Night & Mystery

awakening : Happening | posted by Shaun O

Reading and watching two separate things today, a connection arose! 
First there's an UTNE article, again on reason & faith relationship. 

Second, there's the thrilling (to be expected) trailer to the new M.Night film - The Happening.

Here's a tiny connection - maybe a bit of a reach, but it intrigued me today. 
The article speaks to the power of science in analysis, but how it can function as well as to become too "reductionist."  There is a place where ignoring the spiritual (or even artistic) is a drab semi-reality:

"viewing the human experience as nothing more than biology and physics allows for only happenings." 

Ah, enter M.Night - new movie "the Happening."  Now let's not pine too much on what this new movie could be about, what mighty twist awaits us all - there's got to be some extensive blog posts already going on that.  But think of his movies thus far, and what spirit they conjure.  Shyamalan writes tales of wonder and whimsy.  They require faith and mysticism and they seem to focus us on all that is quite beyond us!   If biology and physics allow for only "happenings," it's ironic for this film of this title to play with so much beyond our physical experience. 

Re-enter UTNE discussion of faith & reason.  It seems like the spiritual/scientific debate or question is also one of current philosophy and how we should all look at the world.  Peter Sellars, directing an opera called Dr. Atomic about the atomic bomb, says

“Understanding the limits to human knowledge and intervention is going to be the question of the twenty-first century.”

However fanciful M.Night's Happening, he is doing art with the limits of human knowledge.  Though massively entertaining, I think it fits now.  Let's see how far he goes. 

Community

awakening : Community | posted by Nate Wilbert

Try not to stumble.  It just doesn't seem possible to avoid it. Interaction with others eventually results in a loss of balance. A daily occurrence. I certainly see it in my life. Whether it was that part of life growing up in a family, off in college, graduated and at work, or at home with my wife. There are definite pitfalls that come with recognizing and respecting other people and their lives.

However, growth comes out of sharing our existence as well. And it is that growth which I like.  And which makes all the stumbles bearable. I'm looking forward to participating in the community here at Those Awake.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

awakening : Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed | posted by Brian Rhea

A few nights ago, we were able to attend an advanced screening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The film intends to document the unfair treatment of ID proponents in the scientific community. You can see the trailer here if you're interested: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php. Unfortunately, in its current state, the movie is disappointing in that it fails to take this conversation anywhere new or productive. One of our friends was also at the screening and he sent the following e-mail to the producers. It describes perfectly the strengths and weaknesses of the documentary and I hope they take Austin's suggestions to heart. Austin McCollum:

After seeing the director's cut tonight of the upcoming movie starring Ben Stein, I have mixed reviews. My primary reservations about this movie are the tactics used. I was open-minded a movie like this would help give Intelligent Design [ID] a fair voice in the academic community. However, I found the documentary started down a slippery slope of dogmatic accusations. If this movie is an act of war, the tactics will win decisive battles. If this movie's goal is to rally the religious masses to action, it will succeed. Does the end justify the means? In the opinion of this proponent of ID, I fear the means will simply tip the scales to the other extreme instead of bringing a healthy balance to scientific thought.

I really enjoyed the first half of the movie. Ben Stein's dead pan humor builds bridges to many walks of life while presenting some compelling investigative journalism whetting my appetite for more. But suddenly the careful examination of legitimate walls and layers of inflexibility in academia turn to dramatic correlations comparing Origin of Species Evolutionists [OSEs] to the Nazi regime. I felt tricked. I felt like I was watching a Michael Moore movie - that although funny at times, reduces itself to sensationalist devices, awkward interview questions, and clever editing to prove a point.

So let me break down specifically the good parts and then where I think the producers / writers started down an unnecessary path. First, let me explain I am no opponent to deception and treachery when used strategically and for noble purposes. John Howard Griffin's elegant deception in his work, "Black Like Me," allowed him to write accurately of the oppressive environment many black people were trapped in. He became a whistleblower to the nation giving great credibility to African American suffrage adding high octane fuel to the civil rights movement. William Wilberforce used great subterfuge, as portrayed in the recent movie, "Amazing Grace," to flank politicians upholding the slave trade in England. He finally succeeded by surreptitiously proposing laws that would first strangle the flow of profit to the slave traders instead of trying to pass an abolishment law head-on. Some of the content of "Expelled" has great potential, possibly helping to open doors to important research and great discoveries by exposing bias in the academic community, but I think it should be presented in a more subtle approach.

For instance, the profiles examining real people's consequences faced by mentioning or writing on ID should be flushed out in more detail. Even better would be to fund an open-minded advocate of OSE to go deep undercover as an ID researcher. Can you imagine the response if one of their own made discoveries of oppression and cataloged the experience with details that could be verified? The two examples of researchers openly using ID paradigms to advance their work were brilliant. If the direct correlation to their work and monetary gain could be more clearly outlined, I believe the war could be won without firing a shot. This is more eloquently explained by Salvador Cordova in his blog post at http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-idists-can-win-the-war/

An avenue I hoped would be explored further, and even exploited for greater dramatic effect is the ignorance in the mass media about what ID really is. Discussing the boiler plate phrase hit home the fact ID has been pigeon holed by news outlets as a cult of creationism. Real empathy could have been generated by representing a room full of diverse world view scientists collaborating on some ID project or seminar. Lumping agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Xenobiologists, and Christians together in conversation is different than showing real people holding those views getting together and putting aside their religious differences for the advancement of a credible scientific paradigm.

I also liked the interview with the Polish man. Someone describing greater educational freedom in their country versus the U.S. pulls at the heartstrings of nationalistic pride. The other content though, describing the court system's role in contributing to the wall of bias separating the camps of OSE and ID was muddy.

So my problem with this movie and the grassroots campaign behind it is the war it is fueling. Anytime you bring THE holocaust in, it triggers or should trigger an emotional response. What I hear though, as I play the advocate, are my OSE friends giving an example of ID sponsored atrocities to match each Darwinian rooted evil. For every holocaust, they could cite the Crusades or the Inquisition. For every Gulag or Killing Fields they could bring up Jim Jones or Heaven's gate or the latest Intifada. The advancement of scientific thought has always seen setbacks from politics, greed, superstition and human pride. Does a movie spotlighting fear and revulsion for an enemy camp really advance scientific thought? I don't want to invite my OSE friends to a movie like this. I want to reach out to them. This movie is guerilla warfare. Maybe I'm out of touch with how bad it's gotten. I'd just rather see the revolution start within the academic community instead of ruled by an emotional mob that this movie targets. I am excited to see the movie when it's finished. I just hope I can give it a better review.

He received the following response:

Thank-you, Mr. McCollum, for your insightful and heartfelt review. We appreciate greatly your taking the time to provide such an informed commentary and will take it to heart as we continue to solicit feedback.

Perspectives on Origin

awakening  | posted by Brian Rhea

It goes without saying that the origin of species is a topic best left alone in mixed company. I think a lot of my Christian friends would find it mystifying to discover that I believe evolution and observational evidence of the big bang to be more convincing and accurate explanations of the Universe's beginning than the one offered by the writer of Genesis.

 

Frankly, this bums me out and I think it's time for members of both camps (Evolution and Creationism) to not only acknowledge that some common ground exists between them, but to begin to explore that space without fear of the retribution that will certainly come from their own side for crossing the picket line.

 

A bird's eye view of the debate over our origin might look something like this:

The peach area representing Hubble's Law and its implications, evidence of common descent, natural selection and so on. The green area representing evidence for Biblical inerrancy and its implications, evidence of Intelligent Design and so on.

 

The asterisk, of course, representing what both explanations require and which both sides seem to think they have cornered the market on, that being reasonably justifiable faith.

 

Regardless of whether one finds themself resting comfortably in the peach or green area of the diagram, the fact remains that once each account is followed back to the very beginning, an asterisk is required.

 

If we look at our observably expanding Universe and put time in reverse, all matter collapses in to the singularity from which we are told the Big Bang...banged. This is an explanation that produces as many questions as it does answers. Rent or read "The Elegant Universe" if you'd like more answers...and questions.

 

And as for the green area, something like the following is often offered,"Look around. Our planet, the whole Universe is so complex and complicated. What are the odds that something so intricate could've just happened?" I've heard this many times and it only needs one extra step to unravel itself. If the world is so complex that it couldn't have just happened on its own, how does it follow that it must have been created by something? The Creator being exponentially more complicated than the creation.

 

I think there are good reasons for putting one's reasonably justifiable faith in either (or both) of these areas and I wish this was the sort of conversation that could be engaged in without people being so "on guard". Unfortunately, most people who hold stridently to their view of our origin don't see the debate from the bird's eye view, but rather from a more limited perspective that looks something like this:

Each side believing they own the asterisk and that they are not even on the same plane as the other camp.

Here's to bridging the gap.

Taking Action because ...

awakening: Global action & Faith | posted by Shaun O'Reilly

I've been taking in some sessions at the Fusion conference (a christian conference hosted at the church I work at).  The conference is geared toward 20's & 30's, and how to give them ideas, motivation, opportunities to bring their faith to life - i.e., tangible ways to do "things" for the community and the world.
On the whole, I'm cool with young adults thinking about their talents and resources and how that can serve the universal Church and world good.  And I've enjoyed some of the sessions - especially Don Miller. 
One of the main themes is: 
You have faith and it's comfortable - but use your faith and the gifts you have to impact the world! 
And, Fusion seems like they have linked people up so that they can join organizations and begin to "take action."  Kudos!

But, I feel like there is a huge perspective that is being ignored in this push to "change the world."  Particularly, there was a speaker today saying - "when we go out and feed the hungry, make water available, undo injustice, we will tell them it's because of Jesus  - they will get our message from our actions."
Okay - so I'm tracking here - I do think faith requires action.  BUT, while Christianity is striving to get current and affect the world, I think we're forgetting what seems to currently be going on in world issues.  Namely, solving world problems & crises is NOT only a Christian initiative!  There are countless ways that Americans are thinking/acting/eating/caring globally ... and many of them have nothing to do with Christianity. 
So, I think we should tap the breaks on thinking that just because we build wells people will accept Christ in their heart.  And I think that we are doing the people who have been serving and caring for global injustice a disservice when we go out and join (or start our own initiatives that basically do the same thing) but we do it in the name of "faith" - thinking our initiative is better.

Aren't we making the message of Jesus more narrow then?  Isn't Jesus' message a great one (perhaps the greatest), but it flows with MANY global messages for justice, peace, grace - it flows with the dreams of God that can be found around the world?  The message of Jesus is the one I know best - it's the one I follow - but when I gather with buddies and get excited about global action, I'm going to acknowledge that there are a lot of people out there attempting to serve the world, and I'll not expect that just because I join in it will translate into people accepting Jesus as their personal savior. 

(A good example is the ONE campaign)  I think they've got the right idea - this from their website:

ONE is nonpartisan; there's only one side in the fight against global AIDS and extreme poverty. Working on the ground in communities, colleges and churches across the United States, ONE members both educate and ask America's leaders to increase efforts to fight global AIDS and extreme poverty, from the U.S. budget and presidential elections to specific legislation on debt cancellation, increasing effective international assistance, making trade fair, and fighting corruption. Everyone can join the fight. The goal of ending poverty may seem lofty, but it is within our reach if we take action together as one. You can start now by joining the ONE Campaign and pledging your voice to the fight against extreme poverty and global AIDS. 

Here's my question:  We have already said that Christ is the only way to heaven, are we also now saying that he is the only way to stop starvation?  Is there any good outside of the Christian religion?  What will we look like when we acknowledge that?  How much more could it mean for us to join an organization that is out there already, coming and serving the human race alongside THEM?  (become one with them)
In the end, I believe "they will know we are Christians by our love."  But, I think we should go solve world problems because we don't want there to be world problems, because we care about the world and the human race.  I just think that's a good enough reason to act - it is for so many people - religious and non-religious.  And then, faith will continue to come up in our relationships as we become friends.  Before then, we should just go because we care!

Ultimately, I think I'm tired of doing things with a huge agenda in my back pocket.  I know I'll never be able to act completely objectively, and I wouldn't want to - I want to act with who I am, that's what I can truly offer.  But I can distinguish when, where, and why I go and do.  I want to be as pure as possible about that.

make sense?