All posts by Rev. Keri

Activism, Politics, writing

Maxine Hong Kingston: a briliant and beautiful star

Leave a comment

In the tarot, The Star card is often encapsulated in a single word: Hope. The Star offers a respite from the deconstruction and self-examination of Death, The Devil, The Tower. The Star reminds us of our inner strength and calls us to a higher spiritual self.
That’s why I call Maxine Hong Kingston a star in the subject of this post. I just watched her interview with Bill Moyers on PBS. She has created a community of healing through her workshop, Veterans of War, Veterans of Peace, a gathering of people suffering through trauma and pain, many of them veterans of Vietnam. These people have found healing and a measure of peace through writing.
Maxine and Bill discussed the transformative power of story, especially of writing our stories. One thing that she said stuck with me. By writing our stories we take the chaotic and random memories and emotions of our lives and give them shape. We create a form, and that form can then be communicated to another person. Communication creates connection creates compassion. The authors and poets featured in their anthology have used writing as healing, have saved their lives and created a place to which others can turn for hope.

MAXINE HONG KINGSTON: That what I mean is that when people share their stories and they share their hardships, that all of us will listen. We’ll help carry the burden. And so, after writing in such a way, in which we release our feelings we take the– something that happened chaotically in the past. Or it happened so subtly, that at the time, you hardly notice you’re– there’s no time to think it over.

But later, 39 years later, putting it into words, slowly– understanding one’s own feelings, and understanding the point of view of others. And shaping what happened into a form and this form is a beautiful form. The form of a story, the form of a poem — after immersing one’s self in all of that, then there comes the understanding, recognition, reconciliation.

I am awed and amazed by Maxine Hong Kingston, not only for coming through her own trauma by creating this healing community, but for her way of expressing those concepts about writing and the healing power of story. Human beings are creatures of story. We live in story, and by taking control of the story, giving it shape through our thoughtful expression, we quite literally create our worlds.
Perhaps no one short story anthology will stop a war. No single non-violent protest will end all violence forever. But by sharing ourselves, by becoming beings of peace ourselves, by baring our truths to our community, we create a small circle of peace. That circle can expand as our communities do, as our communications do, until like the ripples left by a pebble in a still pond, the circle reaches the very edge of possibility. There lies the power to change the universe.
You can watch video of the program or read a transcript (and more than just Maxine, other contributors to the anthology are interviewed and several excerpts and poems are read) at the Bill Moyers Journal website.

Activism, Buddhism, Politics

14th Dalai Lama speaks on tolerance at Rice

Leave a comment

I am so giddy. The Dalai Lama is one of those figures that impresses no matter where you see him, but after the big-screen viewing in Central Park, hearing him speak to a relatively small crowd in a small gymnasium was a revelation.
He is so funny. And he laughs so easily, and so often – that joy was great to see. Even when speaking of the destructive emotions that fill our world today, he held out hope for humanity’s future. His talk for the Rice Community was entitled “Tolerance and Universal Responsibility“, and like Bill Clinton, he addressed the undergraduates in particular. The world is changing as we move into the 21st century, and the people who will lead us into that new reality are learning to lead, learning their values, and learning to cope now.
He spoke about the power of compassion at the community level, which I loved. When asked about bringing change at the global level, he talked about each individual changing himself, then sharing his compassion and learning about compassion with his close circle, the they all share with their neighbors and friends to become a community, and then it grows from there, until the leaders of the day after tomorrow were raised in a compassionate society. What a great vision.
He also talked about proselytizing and conversion, which I found to very interesting – that was in response to one of the hard questions from the audience. He said that for the most part, people can be happy within their own tradition, and do not need to have a conversion experience. Some people may, on an individual basis, and that is fine, if it is what is right for them as a person, to grow and be content. But mass conversions, especially conversions driven by politics or by the almighty dollar, are simply not right. (His examples for this were Indian conversions based on political or social pressures, and Korean missionaries in Mongolia for whom each conversion was worth $15.)
For the most part, his talk centered on the ideas of global community and creating a future of peace. He also spoke, though, of the Law of Causality in Buddhism, and the idea that once certain events, man-made events, reach an emotional/spiritual/societal “boiling point”, there can be no stopping of the negative fallout. So he is not suggesting that war will simply end. (And from a natural disaster standpoint, meditation won’t disperse a hurricane, either.) There may be no way solve the current world crises without further violence, simply because force has been ingrained for so long as the proper solution. But the new generation of 21st century leaders can see a new way to relate to one another – the interconnectedness of all humanity has never been more evident. His Holiness encouraged the new leaders to think of the 21st century as the “Century of Dialogue”, allowing respectful discussion and compassionate relationships to end the automatic turn to force for global solutions.
It was an inspiring talk, and at the end, one that also left us with an example of cheerful humility. A student asked what dangers students might face in today’s world, and how they might deal with those dangers with compassion. The Dalai Lama listened to the translation, needing a few clarifications, then held his hands out, palm up, and said, “I don’t know.” He went on briefly to say that the lives of students are so different the world over, but that American students especially have such freedom to acquire knowledge that they should act on it. He lamented the censorship and bias that is found in education in totalitarian states. But then he said again, that in answer to the question, “I don’t know much about student lives. I cannot answer. It is a good way to end: I don’t know.” Then he laughed, and shrugged, and we gave him a standing ovation.

Activism, New Age, Paganism

spiritual selfishness?

Leave a comment

From a mailing list I’m on…

I am wondering if anyone else out there questions spiritual practices which promote bringing something about which is of benefit to me, my family, my friends, my friends’ famlies, my friends’ friends, my afterlife, my ______ (fill in the blank). The Secret is only the latest in the line… intercessory prayer has been with us forever.

I read an interesting response to The Secret yesterday by Julian Walker which in part echoes my own thoughts:

(1) I seldom know what’s ‘best’
(2) My definition of what’s ‘best’ may come at another’s expense, most likely unknown to me.
(3) (and most importantly…) Perhaps *working through* the pain is what’s important, not the *aleviation* of the pain or *avoidance* of additional pain. I can begin to understand the lesson in the situation presented to me through close communion with the Divine and grow in the process.

Is wishful thinking perhaps escapism in disguise?

Isn’t it better to pray for the highest good in any situation? (Period, end of prayer.)

My answer to this is something that I have been examining for some time, and I find that it treads a careful line between “gimme what I want” and the “Highest Good for All” concept mentioned above. And I want to address both ends of the spectrum to make it clear why I want to be between them instead of clearly on one side or another. I’m just typing straight from brainstem to keyboard here, so forgive me if it rambles.

First, my path is very clear about the responsibility that each person takes for their actions – whether physical, mental, spiritual, or magical. Specifically, my tradition is oath-sworn never to invoke magic on another person’s behalf without their explicit permission for a specific request. This means that I do not generally participate in “Prayer Circles” and will often ask for details and permissions when the situation arises with someone I know.
The oath is taken for the very reasons mentioned above: there is no way for me to know what is “best” for any person, nor what necessary spiritual process they may be going through in their situation. Performing a healing working for someone without first clearing it with them tramples all over their free will, not to mention potentially harming them further with the interjection of foreign energy and will.
Similarly, when doing a prosperity working, the phrasing must always be considered very carefully so as to avoid trampling someone else’s will. Say not, “I want to be Editor in Chief at Vogue” because what then happens to the person currently in that role? Say rather, “I want to find a high-ranking position in the fashion industry.” Of course, the prosperity working is only the first step, there – because no matter how much intention and will is focused, if you don’t send out resumes and pound the pavement looking up fashion jobs, then you won’t get very far. The likelihood that the perfect job will land in your lap without any effort is very slim.
This structure means that just about all healing or prosperity workings are requested by the person who needs the help. With magic, one has to be able to set the intention for yourself, to harness your will, and to move forward with purpose. The fact that so much thought (and the swearing of a sacred oath) goes into the workings just makes it less likely that the requests will be frivolous. Does a splinter really require a full healing circle? If an unemployed person can’t be bothered to update her resume, is a prosperity working really going to help her job search? (If she’s lucky, maybe it will be the spur she needs to get off her duff and do something, since she got other people involved. But the spell sure won’t get the resume written.) The magical and the practical work hand-in-hand.
So from the “gimme what I want” side of the block, the path says to work for what you want, but do so with careful thought and examination. Be careful what you wish for, as the saying goes. Don’t be afraid of self-examination. And use your spiritual community for support, discussion, and reality checks.

Now, on the other side is this problematic idea of offering up a prayer (or ritual or working) for the “Highest Good of All”. I really don’t like that phrase. Gut reaction, I suppose, but even in Seminary it rubbed me a bit wrong. I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but its use seems to me to be an easy out, a denial of responsibility. We’ve done whatever we’ve done with the goal of the Highest Good, so whatever the outcome, it’s for the best. And it’s not our fault. Any statement of specific purpose or intent seems negated by the addition of this cure-all phrase, because of the very points mentioned in the quote. Nobody knows what the Highest Good is for everyone. If we say a prayer for healing “for the Highest Good of All Concerned”, what happens when the Highest Good for All ends up being a pandemic? (Or, as is likely, the Highest Good is a complete mystery, but not knowing what it might be cripples the actual practical work that needs to move forward.)
This phrase relieves the speaker of a certain level of accountability, and at the same time deprives them of the will to act in the way they think best. I believe that we can hold some idea of universal compassion and well-being and still take firm action for the good we see based on our perceptions.
I understand the comfort and the optimistic purpose of the phrase for those who use it. I just don’t think I can get behind it myself, on my path, with my experiences. This touches the core of my spiritual beliefs, which are entirely activist in their bent.
Before I took any oaths, part of my training involved an ecological worksheet. One of the assignments was to trace my drinking water from rainfall to faucet. When we invoke the spirit of water, we’re supposed to know something about how the element interacts with our environment. We’re actually supposed to think of water in our subjective reality, not just some idealized concept or imagining. And no matter how much we green organic sustainability geeks might wish it, we don’t all get to live on a farm in healthy countryside. We live in a biosphere that is affected by everything we do. Having a real relationship with the elements means understanding how they interact with the real life we live today, now, wherever we are.
I firmly believe that we should pray and direct energies and intentions toward positive change in the world, working toward the “Highest Good for All Concerned”. But in my striving for the Highest Good, I am aware that I am working with my own concept of “Good”, and I am not going to stop at prayer. The invocation should not be the end of the story, but the beginning. Follow prayer and magical working with practical action, taking responsibility for the consequences.

So what I’m saying is that I think the direction of personal energy for personal goals can be entirely valid and healthy, but it should be balanced by an awareness of the interdependence of all life and a willingness to be responsible and accountable. Nothing and no one acts in a vacuum, and that should be reflected in intentions and actions.

(p.s. For the record, I haven’t seen the movie or read any books, but based on the reviews I think The Secret sounds like a rehash of ideas about energy and interdependence that have been better said elsewhere. Also, I distrust any spiritual path that purports to be an easy fix but requires me to purchase my way to enlightenment.)

Politics

scared? No. outraged? Yes.

1 Comment

As I was walking back to my office from lunch I was stopped by a guy from the local news radio, who asked me if I was “scared to be on a college campus” following the shootings at Virginia Tech. My response was pretty succinct: “Whu? No.” He pressed, “You’re not scared?” And I said, “No.” Just like that. After a few more volleys, I said that I had just moved here from New York where there was a pervasive, daily sense of threat, and sorry but I can’t live scared anymore. “You’ve got to live your life. If something happens, you deal with it.”
As I was walking back from the encounter, I felt really cheesed off. What the hell kind of a question is that, “Are you scared?” I could get hit by a bus tomorrow, or shot in traffic, or struck by lightning, or just drop dead because some hitherto unnoticed portion of my body decided it was the day to go. Any of those is as likely, or more likely, than having some madman with a gun attack this campus. Am I scared? No. Being scared is counter-productive. (Which is not to say that I don’t get out of bed some days with a bone-numbing terror living in my heart and mind – most of my days in New York, in fact, even pre-9/11 – but what good is giving in to the bone-numbing terror when I have to grab as much life as I can before the end? I feel fear a lot of the time, and I challenge anyone in today’s world to say that they don’t, but there’s living beyond the fear and there’s wallowing in the fear mongering that cripples our community.)
Why wasn’t the question, “Are you outraged at the state of gun control (or lack thereof) in this country, or lack of gun education, or the perpetuation of the culture of violence that glorifies war and killing in song, story, movie, and TV news?” Why wasn’t the question, “How do you think we can work for change so that something like this is less likely to happen again, here or anywhere?” Because obviously we’ve been unsuccessful so far in preventing shooting after shooting, in schools or on the streets. (Ok, I know the reason – because most of the media outlets in this country aren’t about working for change or even accurately reporting news or informing people of events. Nevertheless.)
I’m sure that the guy found some folks to be obligingly full of fear and worry over the breaching of their ivory tower existence, especially since campus is crawling with prospective students and parents today. It’s a shame, though, that the ‘news’ is about perpetuating the fear. Fear breeds further violence, and that is no fitting memorial to anyone who has died.

Catholicism, Politics, What?!?!

news and views

Leave a comment

Pope is warned of a green Antichrist:

An arch-conservative cardinal chosen by the Pope to deliver this year’s Lenten meditations to the Vatican hierarchy has caused consternation by giving warning of an Antichrist who is “a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”.
[. . .]
Cardinal Biffi said that Christianity stood for “absolute values, such as goodness, truth, beauty”. If “relative values” such as “solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature” became absolute, they would encourage “idolatry” and “put obstacles in the way of salvation”.

I’m not really sure what to do with this one. I can barely get my brain wrapped around that second set of “absolute” vs. “relative” values. It makes no sense. I think the world could sure use an ecumenist, pacifist, and ecologist, though, and it doesn’t surprise me that entrenched institutions would see that as a threat. Bring it on.

In less wacky news, the Washington Post’s excellent section On Faith has answers from panelists to the question: What does your faith lead you to believe about gay unions and gay clergy? Could you ever change your mind?

Some of the responses are beautiful. For example:

In a society in which traditional marriage is in trouble and God seeks relationships that model covenant love, I welcome relationships that reflect covenant love and a durability that models the fidelity of God. As best I can tell, such traits in a marriage are not limited to heterosexual relationships.
— Rev. C. Welton Gaddy

and

Why would I form my belief about gay unions and gay clergy from my faith?
That is not where one goes for the knowledge that is the catalyst for destroying prejudice.
Historically my faith has taught that sex was evil, that celibacy was the higher path of virtue, that marriage was a compromise with sin, that slavery was a legitimate human institution and that women were created to be second class citizens.
— Retired Bishop John Shelby Spong

Nice.

And of course, swinging back to the side of WTF? is the great “Jesus Tomb” debate. Beliefnet has some nice coverage of that and other recent archaeological debates on biblical topics.