Rebecca K. Reynolds

Honest Company for the Journey

The Nineveh Liturgies - Day 2 (On Truth)

DAY 2 - The Nineveh Liturgies (On Truth)

Photo Credit: http://morguefile.com/search/morguefile/3/storm/pop

Photo Credit: http://morguefile.com/search/morguefile/3/storm/pop

Holy Lord,

We have refused to accept truths that we don’t like, and we have attempted to create our own reality instead.

When we have run into commands of Yours that are difficult or uncomfortable for us, we have turned away from them.

We have relied upon our own sensitivity and our own judgment above all other standards.

We have chosen our own ideas of “right” and “wrong” without even asking You if You agree.

When Your opinion has differed from ours, we have decided to reinterpret You, creating a new god that is really just a golden idol hammered from the values of our culture.

We have made excuses for our failures, our temptations, and our bad choices until we can barely feel conviction. In fact, we have even tried to put the language of holiness and compassion on evil things.

As we have spent time with smart, funny, and powerful people, we have grown enchanted with their explanations for humanity and for the universe. We have let ourselves be intimidated first, then persuaded a little at a time that obedience to You is superstitious.

We have only kept the easy, comfortable parts of your gospel.

We haven't allowed You to direct us to do anything that would cost us everything.

In doing this, we have slowly hardened our hearts until we can barely feel our conscience. Right feels wrong to us now. Wrong feels right.

You say that Your sheep will recognize Your voice, but for so long we have replaced Your voice with ours, that Your voice feels foreign and threatening to us.

America has come now to the point where we cannot discern light from dark. The eyes of our souls cannot understand.

Many of those who claim to know You don’t understand Your ways. They are false teachers, saying things that feel good to us. They are persuasive and winsome, and we drink them down until we are drunk on fury, resentment, and self-reliance.

Lord, we ask You to remove the spirit of blindness from our land. No matter what it takes, no matter how painful it is, strip away the skins of the dragon we have grown around us.

We cannot see clearly without You. 

We are not wise enough or strong enough to do this without You. We need Your rescue.

Please flood America with Your Spirit. Make us discerning and sensitive.

When You expose our lies, give us courage to confess and repent. 

Teach us the joy of submission.

Ravish our hearts with whatever Your truth may be, and help us to dash our idols on the rocks.

A Post on the Rabbit Room

"...there are no promises from God that my charm, my research, or my artistry will create the cultural renovation I desire. There are some truths that can only be comprehended by the spirit, truths that will look foolish from any other vantage point. Because of this, there will be times when love is misunderstood or rejected. Because of this, there will need to be martyrs as well as superstars. When the values of a time are so skewed that what is beautiful, wise, and true cannot be appreciated by the masses, rejection will be an inevitable part of engagement."

A Superficial Compassion

 "They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, 'Peace, peace," when there is no peace."

Healing a wound lightly. It's such an interesting concept.

In a society without God, the best humans have to offer each other is affirmation. We can tell people that they are okay, we can accept them, and we can try to let our friendship and presence heal any wounds they have. And some kind of healing is possible here.

But only it's a light healing -- a superficial restoration that leaves the source of infection working beneath the surface.

Jeremiah says in that same passage that these people feel no shame at all for what is wrong. They do not even blush.

So in this lighter healing, a sensitivity has been lost. Mutual generosity is functioning more as anesthesia than a presciption for wholeness.

That's when God cries out, "Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is, and walk in it, and find rest for your souls."

God rejects the healing humans are offering one another --immediate emotional comforts in a shameless society. He rejects a culture of mutual affirmation and says, "Come through what is uncomfortable to what will bring lasting rest."

He calls them back to Himself -- the authority, and the power, and the truth that they have rejected.

This is why modern conversations on tolerance and compassion tend to be distorted. Yes, humans can offer a sort of topical generosity to one another.

But if our generosity prevents people from walking through repentance, sorrow, and even pain that leads to the rest a holy, living God offers, we have been harmful in our best attempts to heal.

Photo credit: MorgueFile

Photo credit: MorgueFile

On Today's News

Graham Greene's "The Destructors" was published in 1954, the same year that William Golding's _Lord of the Flies_ was released. The two stories have similar themes - bands of boys who become animals when left to their lowest instincts - but I find Greene's a tighter, more powerful plot.

 

Greene's story focuses on a gang that roams the ruins of post-WWII London looking for mischief. Amid all the bomb rubble, a single, gorgeous 200-year-old house stands, a house designed by architect Christopher Wren. The inside of the home is as marvelous as the outside, and its rooms are filled with historic and artistic treasures.

 

The boys decide to make trouble on their largest scale ever, sneaking into the house when the owner is off for a weekend and tearing everything up. They start on the inside, methodically breaking apart whatever is beautiful and worthwhile piece by piece. When this detailed work finally is complete, they fix ropes to the inner house supports, tie those ropes to a vehicle, and watch the whole building collapse as the vehicle pulls away. At last, the entire street is destroyed. What the Nazis began, the sons of England complete.

 

Greene was converted to Christianity in 1926, moved to faith by arguments that moved his intellect instead of his emotions. I am not as familiar with Greene's work as I would like to be, but from what I do know, I think of him as a bit of a contrarian. He was not the sort of traditionalist who just absorbs orthodoxy and moves on. He asked questions. He wrestled with hard concepts. So, it's super interesting watching someone like Greene rub up against postmodern thinking.

 

Deconstructionism is a postmodern movement that challenges the reliability of several foundational concepts in Western society. Everything from metanarratives (larger stories of faith and culture upon which we base smaller beliefs) to the reliability of language is disassembled.

 

Derrida, one of the chief minds of Deconstructionism, didn't write _Of Grammatology" until 1967, but forces of existential thought which fed the fires of disorientation and meaningless had been growing since the late 19th century, and they flourished in the post WWII era.

 

I don't know if Greene's metaphor in this particular short story was intentional or not, but as I look at where we stand in time, I can't help but see connections.

 

Today I read a news piece about a man in power using his political force to tie ropes to fundamental support beams in our culture. If he succeeds, a significant piece of our national architecture will crumble.

 

But as I consider this, I am reminded that the destruction of our culture didn't start with the big things. Just like the post war home in Greene's story, rebellious children of our own country have been sneaking in and tearing up what is good and beautiful piece by piece. What is now happening on grand scale began in little places with little hands.

 

I'm not sure if this problem can be fixed now or what it would take to repair it. From what I've read of the political processes of Mao and others, there are strategic benefits to politicians being provocative, benefits to throwing a society off balance into chaos. Knowing that makes me wary of being led by emotions, and almost feel like I am holding my breath. I keep sneaking off to quiet corners to just pray. Whatever action is to be taken, God's leadership and empowerment are absolute necessities.

 

In the closing scene from Greene's "The Destructors," the driver of the vehicle looks back on the ruined house and says, "There's nothing personal, but you got to admit it's funny." He sees a national treasure destroyed, a man's belongings wrecked, and he finds humor in it.

 

There is at least one good warning here, and this warning is that there is nothing funny about animalism. In the face of desolation, there is an appropriate time to grieve. It's a sign of sobriety to be sad about what is evil.

 

What happened today in our nation was ugly and wrong. It puts millions of children at risk. It is a rope around the beam of American culture, a rope around the neck of innocence, a rope around the safety of the vulnerable.

 

I hope you will take time to be sad about it. Don't diminish it. Don't laugh about it. Stay human. Feel the sorrow of the loss, for it is significant.

 

Then I would urge you to step back into your realms and find joy. Make beauty in any way God gives you. Redeem in a thousand private places. Find peace after you find tears. Mourn then look upward.

 

Multiply the gospel where it can be a balm. Ask the Living God what He would have you do, because He has planned our tasks for us since before time began.

 

Here we are, Lord. Send us to this barren land.

image.jpg

Even the Darkness is Light to Him

This morning I played a song for the first time in maybe fifteen years. "Even the Darkness is Light to Him" is on the Michael Card album that I used to use when my big teenagers were babies, and it's probably my favorite song on the record.

 

It was interesting listening to the lyrics after everything that has happened to us as a family. I felt a twinge of pain when I got to, "Would not Jesus safely keep, little ones He loves asleep?"

 

"Is that how this works?" I thought. "Does that mean everybody who isn't kept safe isn't loved?"

 

I thought about what I am reading in Shusaku Endo's _Silence_, the horrific torment of thousands of Japanese Christians, and the news stories of mass persecution and murder of Christians happening right now around the world.  I thought about the trajectory of our nation, and what is likely in the future for Christian families here.

 

I traced back through the stories of friends I know who were grossly abused as children. I hurt for friends who are fighting through serious illnesses in their beautiful sons and daughters, and I grieved for parents whose children no longer live in bodily form in this world.

 

I considered grown children of believing parents who are wandering or defiant, and I held the heartbreak, the regret, the disorientation that this creates.

 

I thought of the little girl in our area who was kidnapped a few weeks ago, about how thousands of us have been looking for her, praying for her, and how she remains in danger.

 

It almost makes me angry, in light of all that, to hear this question, "Would not Jesus safely keep, little ones He loves asleep?"

 

And yet the same Bible that tells us about Christ's love also tells us that we will be led like sheep to slaughter. It promises hardship, while telling us His yoke is light. It tells us that nothing can tear us from His hand, while saying that we must pick up our cross if we will follow Him. It urges us to rejoice in all things, then describes a world in which joy will be counterintuitive.

 

I'm currently listening to the audiobook for _All the Light We Cannot See_, and I am horrified by the vulnerability of a blind girl and an orphaned boy in the midst of a massive world war. I think part of the reason this book is so popular right now is that we all feel like this a little bit, unable to penetrate the forms of this present chaos, unprotected against overwhelming odds.

 

"Safety" is an interesting concept, isn't it? Jesus could sleep while the storm raged, even if that boat was sailing Him a few hours closer to His torture and death. He slept as if He were already safe -- then He woke to make the wind and the waves be still, almost as an afterthought. Taming nature was a far more difficult task than avoiding crucifixion. What does this tell us?

 

Was the ability to make the storm stop what made Him safe enough to sleep, or is there a deeper principle at work here? Did He understand that "safety" transcends the protection of a physical body? Is there a rest that comes with resignation to the sovereignty of a larger plan?

 

"Do not fear the one who can kill the body," the Bible says. Fear something else... but what is it? Why is that to be feared instead? What does that fear look like?

 

As I've been reading Bonhoeffer's _Life Together,_ I've been impressed that this disciple of Christ was known by his joy and gratitude, even in the concentration camp. When he was called to execution he was optimistic, telling a fellow captive that life was just beginning for him.

 

"Even the darkeness is light to Him, night is as bright as the day." As I hold all of these grave realities in the balance, I begin to see safety from a different angle. It is perhaps not divine intervention in all physical dangers, but grace that is large enough to carry us through the pain of our passing through this era of our lives. Perhaps the safety is in a love that, lo, will be with us always. Even unto the ends of the earth.

image.jpg

Salvador Dali's "The Ascension of Christ."

A friend and I were discussing this painting last night, and this morning I wrote down some thoughts that might interest a few of you. The question this painting evokes immediately, of course, is in regard to the hands of the Christ. Why would they be shown claw-like, as if he were in great pain?
 
I have a theory about this, though I'm not sure I'm right. If you have any thoughts on the matter, you can let me know what you think.
 
 Dali had a lifelong interest in physics, quantum mechanics, etc. He also did some early work on measuring the torment of the martyred saint (in "L'Amic de les Arts"). I think we might see a combination of those elements here. 

This painting was created in 1958, almost ten years after the atomic explosions of 1945 had a deep impact on Dali. He wrote, "Since that time, the atom has become my favourite subject of reflection. Many of the landscapes painted over this period express the great fear I felt at the news of that explosion. I was applying my paranoiac-critical method to the exploration of that world. I want to see and understand the power and hidden laws of things so as to gain control over them. In order to penetrate into the marrow of reality I have the genial intuition of having an extraordinary weapon available to me -- mysticism, the deep intuition of what is, an immediate communion with the whole, absolute vision through the grace of truth, by divine grace."

In the early 1950's, Dali began to synthesize his interest in nuclear fission/fusion with mysticism.  He presented a talk titled "Why I was sacrilegious, why I am mystical," which described his integration into the Spanish mystics.
 
His paintings from this era interpreted religious themes through atomic discoveries that his peers were making. For example, in 1952, he wrote an article called "Reconstitution of the glorious body in the sky," arguing for the assumption of Mary in light of atomic physics.

I could be wrong, but when I first saw this painting, I noticed immediately that there were no marks of the crucifixion on the resurrected body of Christ. Though some scholars believe the nails were hammered through the ankles instead of the feet, the smoothness Dali chooses for the feet of a traveling, rural man is shocking.
 
Is this a post-resurrection Christ? His arms are clean of scars. There is no spear mark in his side. There are no healed stripes from a whip. His skin is hairless and perfect. This shouts for notice.

In contrast, the outer world Dali chooses for the Ascension is reminiscent of a nuclear holocaust. Jesus is lifting off a world of black seas and fire, but instead of moving upward, he seems to be moving into a different dimension. Beyond this, he seems to be moving into the corona of a single atom. ("In Christ all things hold together?")

At first I was baffled that Dali's wife's face seemed to be above him. In almost every Ascension painting, Christ rises above mortals into the heavenlies. How could he dare to put a human above a God?
 
But this pushed me deeper into the idea that Jesus is not rising upward so much as inward. He is passing into and not just above. (See how he goes into the center of the painting, instead of to the top?) This is not the typical dimensionality to which we are accustomed, but a transcendence of the perceptible world, which is a profound spiritual statement instead of just a physical one.

This leads to my theory on his hands. Christ is in the crucifixion pose here. Look at most paintings of the Ascension; they never look like this. Christ is typically in a more contrapposto stance when rising to glory. 
 
Here his feet are aligned together as they are on the cross. His hands are more reminiscent of agony than ecstasy. And he is not wearing traditional Ascension clothing, but the loincloth typical of his Passion paintings. Why would Dali do this?

To me, all of this comes together to make a mighty statement about the healing offered by Christ by his death... A death that seeps into the very fabric of the universe.  This feels more like an Ascension painting made mid-Crucifixion.
 
Why would those two events be combined?Perhaps Dali wanted us to see that this is not a cheap, easy resurrection (with flowers and butterflies), but a gift offered through cosmic agony, so that we might follow Him through this portal that turns everything inside out. (By his agony, we are healed.)

And as the woman looks on, to follow, she would almost have to twist and be pulled by the current He is creating. Imagine turning a long tube of fabric inside out... this is the motion. If this is difficult to imagine, think of Christ moving in the direction that the painting suggests he is moving already, and that all that is subject to the destruction man has brought to this planet would be pulled along behind him into a new atomic center. 
 

Deconstructing Books

So many college students have bad experiences with literary criticism.

The whole discipline is handed to them in a dry and dusty way that ends up separating them from books instead of helping them mine meaning out of them.

I'm always sad when I encounter a student damaged by this sort of delivery, because literary criticism is one of my favorite things in the whole world. Understanding different approaches to reading a text has helped me squeeze books like oranges and drink their wine to the dregs.

If you're not familiar with how literary criticism works, imagine a line of spectacles with different color lenses. When you put on the first set of glasses to read a book, you suddenly notice who the author was, when the author was living, and historical and cultural influences on the writer.

The second set of glasses blocks all of that external information out. Instead you are focused intensely on the language of a text itself. You are free to zoom in to the sorts of words used and the mechanics of how a book is structured, and (to your surprise) you find that this limited focus helps you notice things you didn't pick up when looking at the text historically.

The third set of glasses allows you to explore the effect that the book has on you. It takes time to unpack how the mix of 50,000 words and your past and personality mix to create a response.

By engaging with one method of observation at a time,  readers can build muscles. Like a dancer focused on repeating one move over and over, individual observation skills grow in the reader so that over time the scope of our ability to take in new information is wide and deep.

Someday I would love to take the time to walk you slowly through the benefits of various schools and expand on why knowing criticism can change your life, but for now, I want to zoom in on one specific area -- a school called post-structuralism.

Post-structuralism is the most complicated school of criticism that I have ever studied, and I'm not an expert on it by any means. It's very similar to post-modernism, in that morality tends to be seen as relative and objective truth tends to be denied altogether.

By definition, post-structuralism resists definition, so working with this school (which isn't a school), is a bit like nailing Jello to a wall. However, I'm hoping that just by naming a few things about this viewpoint, we can understand how it has impacted our daily lives and national culture.

The chances of you running into a person who self-identifies as a post-structuralist is relatively slim. There are few people who believe in post-structuralism who do so consciously. Instead, elements of this interpretational method have broken off like tapeworm segments, and little bits of method are living in the mind-guts of thousands of hosts. The fluidity of post-structuralism allows it divide and subdivide while living off other belief systems, until like a virus, it has retrained the RNA of its hosts.

But before I explain what post-structuralism is, let's look at structuralism. Understanding what this method rebels against will help us see what it is in itself.

For thousands of years, it was assumed that people could know truths with certainty.  Even though philosophers disagreed with HOW we could know things, there was still an underlying belief that it was possible to come to some sort of conclusion if we could only find the right system for finding it.

Through time, different cultures tried out different systems. The Greeks tried to build knowledge upon logic. Descartes started with confirming his own existence, and trying to move on from there.  Hume tried to find a way to use his senses to prove truth.

Then we have larger groups. Christians claim that Truth is a Person from which all virtues and wisdom exude, which is why they say that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Materialistic science claims that because the world is observable and measurable, and because causes produce effects, we can find truth empirically through observation and experimentation.

Once one of these philosophers or people groups decides on a method for determining what truth is, a metanarrative can be created. A metanarrative (coined by Jean-Francois Lyotard) is sort of a "super story" that contains all the other stories.

For example, for a person of faith, the micronarrative of a sick child would fit into a metanarrative of sin entering the world and affecting the physical realm of health. For a person who trusts science, the micronarrative of  a sick child might fit into a metanarrative of evolution of species that is prone to genetic weaknesses. But either way, the bigger story of the universe determines how we understand the smaller stories.

Post-structuralism is deeply suspicious of metanarratives. It challenges the core assumption that any sort of singular truth exists, and it claims that all frameworks and systems (secular or sacred) are only imagined forms that humans have made up to try to make sense of the universe.

But not only do they believe these constructs are created to make sense of things, they claim micronarratives are created to control other people, to gain and maintain power, and to reinforce hierarchies.

In our American culture you might find a challenge to metanarratives in an atheist who claims that religion only exists to manipulate the masses. Or you might find it in a NRA member who believes that the government is stirring up fear about mass shootings with an ultimate goal of taking away civil liberties. Whatever large narrative is told, it is assumed that the story is told to obtain power.

By suspicion and cynicism, the hierarchies and establishments of culture are torn down. Meaning is scraped from the sides from the bowl and from between the cracks. We deconstruct what we are expected to observe and look for the marginalized and the unsaid. We doubt. We challenge. We break apart. We invite chaos and then watch for what emerges.

There are some positive aspects to this approach, of course. Power does corrupt, and it is shrewd to look behind the scenes. But there are also conclusions drawn from post-structuralism that are too extreme.

For example: language is metaphorical, therefore it isn't trustworthy. Is that statement true? If I say, "I'll take care of you," is that a threat or a nurturing promise? See how confusing that is?

A post-structuralist would look at the lack of precision in a sentence like this and say that because words cannot be definite, and because words are how we find truth, there is no truth. Nietzsche, for instance, said, "The various languages, juxtaposed, show that words are never concerned with truth, never with adequate expression."

I find that conclusion a bit whacky. Thinkers as far back as Aquinas acknowledged the metaphorical nature of language. This is not some sort of modern discovery.

Dorothy Sayers wrote "We need not"... "suppose that because it (language) is analogical, it is therefore valueless or without any relation to truth. The fact is, that all language about everything is analogical; we think in a series of metaphors. We can explain nothing in terms of itself, but only in terms of other things." ... "we must think by analogy or refrain from thought."

C.S. Lewis, likewise, saw the metaphorical nature of language as a strength instead of a weakness. Dr. Bruce L. Edwards writes, "Influenced by his friend and linguistic mentor, Owen Barfield, and cognizant himself of the cognitive power of metaphor, Lewis saw language as 'incurably' mythopoetic, inevitably and simultaneously linking hearers/readers to items, persons, and relations on one plane of existence -- while also pointing them backwards and forwards to ever deeper, resonating layers of meaning that lay beyond any single soul, lifetime, or civilization, into eternity."

So we have (at least) two options here. We can follow thinkers like Derrida and Nietzche into questioning the reliability of meaning because words are inherently indefinite. Or, we can follow thinkers like Sayers and Lewis into seeing the limitations of language for what they are, following them along a trajectory until we glimpse a bigger, more meaningful universe instead of a scrambled one.

To close, I want to include some excerpts from a chart created by Ihab Hassan, exploring some of the differences of modernism and postmodernism. As you look at each of these opposing beliefs, let your mind unpack how embracing each extreme might have an influence on a culture. What are the dangers? What are the benefits?

As an individual, what might you want to keep? Where does each position you in regard to an external authority? Where does each position you in relationship to a truth that is possibly bigger than your capacity or understanding?

Roland Barthes has written that "the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author."  That's not just a method of interpreting books. That's a belief that impacts how we engage with the world.

 

MODERNISM: form (closed)

POSTMODERNISM: anti form (open)

 

MODERNISM: purpose

POSTMODERNISM: play

 

MODERNISM: design

POSTMODERNISM: chance

 

MODERNISM: hierarchy

POSTMODERNISM: anarchy

 

MODERNISM: mastery/logos

POSTMODERNISM: exhaustion/silence

 

MODERNISM: finished work

POSTMODERNISM: the process

 

MODERNISM: grande history

POSTMODERNISM: small history

 

MODERNISM: genital

POSTMODERNISM: androgynous

 

MODERNISM: origin/cause

POSTMODERNISM: difference/trace

Photo credit: Morguefile

Photo credit: Morguefile