Presenting "faith journey" aka existential crisis

Every Sunday from now until January, I'm meeting with a group of Catholic women for personal formation, community discipleship, and event planning.  We will facilitate a women's spiritual retreat after our last meeting.  The dozen of us went through the same retreat last month, facilitated by women who had met together all of last year.

Event planning is well-rehearsed.  Community discipleship is new to me in terms of spirituality, but otherwise not that different from my experiences in other goal-oriented groups.  Alverno College prepared me well for both of these.

The primary way that personal formation is achieved through these meetings is through a half hour presentation, followed by "affirmations" from the rest of the group.  Most of the retreat consisted of these presentations, edited and refined throughout last year's meetings, and then reflections on them both alone and in small groups.  The two leaders of my group, seasoned facilitators, will give their presentations again and then give some light guidance while we dozen prepare our own.
These presentations will focus on each individual's personal "faith journey," how each person got to where we are now.  Guidelines are loose, though based on the presentations at the retreat most of these women speak almost exclusively about their relationships with their parents, their husbands, and their children.

It's only been a day and a half since the first meeting and I've already turned this into a full-on existential crisis!  Go me!  I'm such an overachiever!  I signed up to be one of the first presenters partly so I won't have to think about it for more than a month, and partly + selfishly so I can give a little lesson about good public speaking skills right away (if one more person clicks her tongue after every sentence, I'm going to scream).  The more I think about my journey the more I delve into gender and feminist theory, liberation theology, and nihilism vs. existentialism.  This sums up my progress thusfar ("ppl" = people):

Here is this unusual opportunity to talk about myself openly before a group for a half hour, and... this is very cheesy... if I talk about theory, then who am I?  If my developing plan to speak about my journey consists mostly of concepts that exist outside of me, then what does that say about me?  The debate and contemplation of these ideas will continue after me, the same can't be said about relationships (I wonder how many people identify through their relationships out of a fear of mortality?).  But if I end up impacting these studies through academia, does that reflect on the quality/value of my life?  If I don't, does that imply failure?
It's not that people, places, and events aren't important to me, I just can't imagine filling up more than 15 minutes with talking about only them as a reference to my self.  But these concepts, I could - and do! - go on and on and on.

At the first meeting the other day, each person summarized their personal goal as an individual in the group for the year.  Mine was "be an agent of change."  That tends to be my goal/role in Catholic communities altogether, and it's what I hope to achieve through grad school (next year???).  The retreat highlighted how alone I feel as a whole human being in these communities and I don't expect that to change as long as I aim to facilitate change.  I'm just not certain what it says about me as a whole human being presenting oneself through theory.

Millennials leaving religion

I was just listening to the "Keep the Church Weird" lecture by Rachel Held Evans and it was like lightening struck.

Rachel Held Evans says what I've been saying for years: evangelizing to millennials does not work because we have learned to avoid anything that seems to be an advertisement. Advertising is cheap and shallow, the exact opposite of what spirituality and religion should be. And I've not been the only person who's been saying this, Kaya Oakes made similar points in her book "The Nones Are Alright." Those who say they are "spiritual but not religious" leave many parts of mainstream religion behind including the contemporary commercialism, and this departure is largest among millennials.

Think of how mainstream American culture treated millennials in the late 90's, when we were in middle school. The Spice Girls, N SYNC, the Backstreet Boys, Tiger Beat magazine, claire's, etc. Because the young adults at that time had both expendable income and a modicum of autonomy unseen in previous generations, we were targeted in advertising unlike ever before. This was also when "NeoWicca" became popular among young adults, and became increasingly commercial. Perhaps the Spice Girls are the best example of how extremely millennials were marketed to; the idea of a commercial girl group was formed in order to compete in pop music, and then women auditioned to fill those roles (source). Advertising became more obvious as well, with the celebrities most popular among young millennials blatantly flaunting their sponsors' logos. The film Josie & the Pussycats highlighted this in a tongue-in-cheek manner. All of this advertising worked well when we were 10-15. I argue that the trend of wearing things "ironically" in the late 00's was a way of maturing out of that. "I got this Tommy Hilfiger sweatshirt out of a dumpster, I'm wearing it ironically." The idea of actually supporting popular brands was so odious that millennial hipsters made it blatantly obvious that wearing those brands was a joke. And if you were not in on the joke, that meant you were a sell-out.

So what does this mean for the religious bodies so desperate to bring the millennials back to their churches? The techniques that worked so well for big name brands in the late 90's worked then, but not now. The techniques that existed ("worked" is an inappropriate term for a social trend that denied efficiency) ten years ago won't work now. Frankly I don't know what will bring millennials back to the churches. But working harder at enticing us back than at sincere service to the poor is certainly not the way to do it.

God vs. Humankind

I've written before about the abusive parish in which I was raised.  In the years after I left that parish, I was very angry at God.  How could God allow such horrible cruelties, especially upon children?  How could these Christians preach about compassion and divine love out in public, but in private lock children in their basements without food or make children kneel on broken glass?  In my mind, largely because these abusers had told me so for so long and so violently, there was no distinction between God and them.

Although my relationship with the Divine continued, it was very narrowly compartmentalized.  MY God was loving and giving and powerful, THEIR God was malicious and preyed upon the weak.  Great pains were taken to differentiate myself from organized religion altogether.  Anger, obsessive defensiveness, and passive aggressive vengeance dominated this time.

After college, I mended my relationship with a whole God by separating God from humankind altogether.  This was when the healing process went from painful to soothing.  All the boundaries began to fall between God and I.  Could this have been done if I hadn't put up such a large wall between other people and us?  Probably not, as at that time the only people I knew who were interested in spirituality at all were very aggressive anti-theists.  Ultimately, I wasn't going to allow anyone to damage the new, awe-inspiring relationship I had with God.  And the most direct and effective way to do that was to separate God from humankind altogether.

That doesn't seem to be working as well anymore.  The need for spiritual community has arisen regularly for the past few years, only to fade away as I refused to make myself that vulnerable again.  Now that I'm seeking and finding community, though, I'm questioning if that boundary should still remain up.  The last thing I want to do is to let down my barriers only to have someone or a group of someones give me good reason to put them back up again.  As to seeing God present in any human being, that is a long way off yet.

Pastoral Plan Listening Session

The parish I've been visiting the past four weeks had a Pastoral Plan Listening Session a few days ago.  This was a meeting in which lay parishioners could give their feedback to a pastoral council about things they like about the parish and things they want changed.  I haven't been there long enough to contribute in great detail, but since I have the freshest impression they wanted me to communicate it with them.  They requested an email, as long as I wanted, and I thought I would share it here (edited to leave out personal details):


Greetings,

I attended the Pastoral Plan Listening Session at St. ... the evening of Tuesday, May 31st.  I had to leave early, but the facilitator at my small group table encouraged me to email my feedback.  

Firstly, I'll introduce myself and give you some idea of my background.  My name is K, I am 30 years old, I am both single and childfree and have no intentions of changing that.  I earned my bachelor's degree at an all-women's Franciscan college in Milwaukee, I graduated from a Jesuit high school in a Chicago suburb, and I attended a so-called Catholic K-8 school in Chicago.  It was only when I graduated from this K-8 school, when the Church sex abuse scandal was beginning to hit the mainstream news, that I discovered that this school was not alone in its abuses and that it wasn't part of the Chicago Archdiocese.  Because the school was so cruel and extreme in both doctrine and practice, the Chicago Archdiocese refused to include it among its parishes.  Although I left the Church personally when I left that school, the Jesuits and Franciscan nuns worked very hard to help me heal and to understand that the cruelties of the abusers were not the acts of God.
Roughly four years ago I began returning to the Church very gradually.  Initially, my reasoning was that if there is going to be a certain amount of my life spent in Mass, I don't want the majority of that time to have been spent under the control of those abusers.  I began returning to Mass in order to tip the scales, and through that healing process the priority became ... finding a community that is spiritually connected.  This has proven to be very difficult.

At the Pastoral Plan Listening Session, I both explained to the facilitator and wrote on my worksheet that what has stood out most to me at St. ... is the hospitality.  Although I have lived in Austin for a little over a year, ... I attended Mass at five or six churches in the Austin Diocese before going to St. ....  At those other churches, either nobody spoke to me or I was given a book/pamphlet and told "this will tell you everything you need to know about X parish" and that was it.  My first time at St. ... was morning Mass 5/2/16 and as soon as the service ended and I walked through the narthex, a parishioner introduced herself and shook my hand.  Before moving to Austin, I explored parishes in Nashville and Milwaukee as well as Quaker meetings and American Catholic churches - St. ... was only the third place in which anyone extended this hospitality, and the first Roman Catholic parish.  

After this parishioner introduced herself and asked me a few polite questions, she invited me to Connections and emailed, from her own personal email, me information about the group.  I came the the next night and about half of the participants welcomed me in a similar manner.  I've attended every Connections meeting I could as well as Sunday Mass.  Intellectual discussions pertaining to theology and service are very appealing to me, and I enjoy the exchange of ideas at Connections.  

Hospitality has been a remarkable strength of St. ..., as well as its diversity of ministries and the comprehensive information about them provided both on the parish website and at the parish itself.  Church life is evident there every day of the week rather than just on Sundays, and that is very refreshing.  The one specific thing that comes to mind that St. ... could work on immediately is the website's page about Spiritual Direction & Mentorship.  Who are these three directors/mentors?  What's their availability?  What are their foci?  How much do they charge?  The webpage says they are trained, but where and through what programs?

A less easily-defined area for growth that I see is St. ... is a very common issue in the Catholic community as a whole in America.  Although both the parishioners at Mass and the group at Connections have been very welcoming and friendly and nonjudgemental (save for one lady's claim that the devil uses disloyal Catholics to tear down decent Catholic communities, but there's one sourpuss in every crowd), I am among the youngest participants and I think the only unmarried and childfree women.  I am a "Millennial," alone as far as I know in the community I've found at St. ....  Forbes, the NY Times, Psychology Today, The Atlantic, and dozens of other distinguished publications have all connected several trends among my generation.  We postpone marriage and parenthood, many rejecting both altogether, and view chastisement for these decisions as disingenuous, unsolicited judgements.  We also participate the least in religious communities, by the widest margin yet recorded.  Most of these listed publications have noted connections between these trends.  The overall pattern thusfar is that we reject the idea of following tradition for tradition's sake - this is evident in home life, business, economics, and religion.  The phrase "spiritual but not religious" is a concise summarization of "I want a connection with God but don't want to blindly follow arbitrary rules set by authorities who don't listen to their flocks."  While some of the biggest reasons my peers have given for leaving the Church are political, I will not get into that.  The political disagreement, anyway, is part of a bigger issue.  The average middle-class Millennial who got good grades, participated in extracurriculars, had a good GPA at a good college or university, and followed the prearranged track to marriage + mortgage + children, ultimately graduated during the Recession.  Following prearranged rules "for your own good" ended up in debt and worthless degrees.  And on top of that, the average middle-class Millennial raised Catholic was Confirmed right around the time of the mishandling of the Church sex abuse scandal.  The 2000's were a terrible time to come to adulthood, and most of those who had that misfortune have now come to reject what they see as unfounded authority altogether - the Church being at the top of that list.  
Religious communities, especially Catholic and Mainline Protestant as they have lost the most followers among Millennials, have been trying to figure out why so many 25-35 year olds have been leaving and how to get them back again.  Those who do stay tend to be very passionate and active, the Easter/Christmas church-goer may well be on the way out with older generations.  Although my K-8 experience was a very extreme example, most of my peers have experienced similar painful disillusionment with their childhood parishes.  They also haven't had my Jesuits and Franciscan nuns to show them that both compassion and sincerity are still present in the Church.  Were it not for those two groups in my life, seeking out a parish community and discovering St. ... never would have happened.  
The author Kaya Oakes has perhaps done the most comprehensive journalism regarding the Millennials' split with the Church.  I highly recommend reading both her books Radical Reinvention(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13239764-radical-reinvention) and The Nones Are Alright(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27397708-the-nones-are-alright) with an open mind.  Very many churches, particularly Evangelical Protestants, have attempted commercial advertising in order to bring in the missing generation - this has backfired, as advertisements are typically viewed as insincere.  Do not assume that poor hospitality is a deterrent, as most Millennials don't even make it to the step of parish shopping.  Because most "recovering Catholics" my age see the Church as a cold, monolithic authority that gives its services only unreasonably conditionally, more subversive tactics may be needed.  Be active in needy communities, listen nonjudgementally, and display compassion modestly.  Matthew 6:1-8 and the Beatitudes in action would make a greater impression that could open an intergenerational dialogue.  Most of my friends think I'm nuts for having any interest in the Church, especially considering my childhood parish, because they haven't experienced the compassion and listening that I have.  I've already seen the potential for this at St. ... and while it's maybe a little unreasonable (maybe not, God works in mysterious ways!) to expect this parish to overcome the generational trend of the western world, helping even a few individuals heal the right could mean the world to them.

Something else that I would like to see both at St. ... and in the Austin Diocese as a whole is more interfaith networking.  Whether this takes form in discussion forums, visits from neighboring pastors/priests/monks/rabbis/imams/etc, joint community service events, etc.  I'm acquainted with the Society of Friends Meeting of Austin and while Quaker and Roman Catholic doctrine could not be more different, both communities seek to spread Christ through service to the needy.  Not to mention that connecting members of different faith traditions decreases the frequency of hate crimes, which have been on the rise in the past few years nationally.  I see interfaith networking as a wonderful bridge to a larger, closer, more compassionate community.

I realize that my background is very unique to St. ..., my parish ideals are individualistic, and that I am in many ways unlike the St. ... community.  It would be unreasonable to expect any parish to change to fit the needs of one person, especially one without children and who doesn't plan to stay in the area for more than a couple years.  But what both welcomes and keeps quality parishioners above all else is sincerity.  Thusfar St. ... seems sincere in its efforts and values, as highlighted by holding the open Pastoral Plan Listening Sessions and asking for this kind of feedback.

Thank you very much, and I hope to hear back from you,
K

OkCupid question about altars

I used OkCupid with great success for years, and disabled my account a few months ago for a variety of reasons.  Less interest in new dates for the time being, an increase in creepers, and an increase in militant atheists (friends who also used OkCupid at the time experienced the latter two trends as well).  For those unfamiliar with OkCupid: among the best ways to meet quasi-compatible people is to answer questions in a quizlike fashion.  A list of people who answered these questions similarly is provided.  There is a text box to include comments for each question, and you can read other people's written comments as well.

One question was "On your first visit to a friend's home, which would bother you more, the open display of a religious altar or of a porn library?" For the first few years, I focused more on the reply to the porn library part of the question - I was learning and discussing a lot about sex work, sexuality, etc. so that was more directly relevant to my life.  It did still seem silly to me that a religious altar in the privacy of one's own home would bother anyone.

Among the noticeable signs of the increase of militant atheists on OkCupid was the rise of more rabid responses to this question.  Not only were more people, primarily white men, replying a dislike of altars, but also more written explanations against them.  To be clear: when I say "militant atheist," I mean a person who speaks out against anything religious solely because religion is involved, a person who judges any non-atheist as an idiot.

I don't have a home altar and I have no interest in getting one, but all the people I've known who have had their own (Pagan, Catholic, Buddhist, nondenominational Protestant) took great personal comfort in them.  Many of them told me, upon my asking (after asking if it was ok that I ask), "this house/apt feels like my home because it's where my altar is."  The idea of anyone judging them for that is disgustingly sad.

How about this:
Whatever a person has in their home that doesn't hurt* anyone is ok.
And a person who doesn't want that same thing in their home is ok too.
Let's just not judge someone based on a thing that has no effect on anyone other than the person doing the thing, ok?


* Yes, cultural appropriation is hurtful.  Example: if you're white and making a Hopi Kachina, stop.

Anti-Theist vs. Spiritual

A recent trend in my life is that most of the outspoken atheists I know are less compassionate than the outspoken theists I know, who are in the minority.  This trend coincides with a shifting of my active spiritual development from recovery to exploration.

For many years, I shied away from theists (save for NeoPagans during high school) because most of the ones I knew had used spirituality/religion to manipulate and hurt people.  My personal search was that of a victim/survivor trying to get away from trauma.  Ideas of What's Going On, commonly referred to as God to the detriment of theological language, were separate in my mind from the terrible people around me.  Blame the music for the douchebaggery of the dj?  Blame the art for the snobbery of gallerist?  No, I try not to mix the unmeasurable with the measurable so it never made sense to me to blame "God" for the acts of humans.  Other people can come to their own conclusions.  Nevertheless, it took a long time for me to stop judging theists.

After years of theological and philosophical study, summer '13 was when I chose to stop being a victim/survivor and to begin being a practicant, however curious and hesitant a one. Although I have yet to actually talk to anyone at any of the parishes that I have visited - including the one I've found that promotes both compassion and intellectual search - largely because I still distrust dedicated parishioners in general, I have opened discussion of spirituality/theology with friends, family and appropriate acquaintances.  The trend I find today is disturbing.

At this point I should make a distinction: "belief" is a word that I shy away from using.  A religious belief used to mean a lifestyle (traditions, symbols, holidays, values, languages, rituals, etc.) that a person practiced.  What a "believer" actually thought didn't matter; an atheist was simply someone who didn't practice what any established religious community practiced.  The meaning of belief changed when our culture changed away from separate groups of lifestyles.  The understanding of belief as an idea that's accepted as measurable reality, an understanding promoted by both anti-theists and fundamentalists, is relatively new.  I hate to say it, but I find that this definition cheapens the personal meaning that a person can discover - whether it's through religious practice, scientific research, or something else altogether.  In any case, when I say "atheist" I mean a person who refuses any religious affiliation in all aspects of life, and when I say "theist" I mean a person who regularly participates in religious practice.  Most people fall somewhere in the middle.

What a person accepts as reality/truth, whether it's 100% scientific evidence or angels, really doesn't matter to me.  It's frankly none of my business, nor are my "beliefs" anyone else's business (though I'll gladly discuss it with any interested, non-judgmental parties).  But the trend among many of the vocal atheists I know today is to harshly judge anyone who isn't as reliant on science as they themselves claim to be.  What is the point of this?  I can agree that certain ideas are, for lack of a better word, stupid: arbitrarily attaching doctrine to something mundane and trendy.  But who does more harm, the person who prays before every meal or the person who refers to pray-ers as cattle?

It's common for anti-theists to deride all religion altogether because of atrocities done in the name of religion: the Spanish Inquisition, Al-Quaeda, the Exodus (ex-gay "therapy") program, witch-hunts, etc.  To affiliate violence with religion, either a specific one or in general, both devalues the benefits of religion as well as shifts the focus away from actually solving violence.  I've met atheists who advocate genocide of all theists, I've met people who are atheists because scientific research brings more personal meaning to them than anything unmeasurable, I've met theists who win religious community service awards while locking children and dogs in their basements without food or water for days, I've met people who began volunteering at poverty-stricken nursing homes because The Virgin Mary "told" them to.  The religion isn't the point, the practices of both compassion and personal meaning are the point however they are brought about.  What disturbs me is that many of the very atheists who blame religion for cruelty are beginning to act out the same hostilities.

I used to block out theists because the only ones I knew were malicious.  Now, I try not to categorize people through their practices - and I don't want people in my life to line up into patterns of spite that way again.  That does appear to be the trend, though, among many of the atheists I've been meeting the past couple years. As I establish myself as a practicant rather than as a victim/survivor, it is a priority to distance myself from those who would put me back into that state.  After all, it seems to me that anyone who thinks less of me because I find personal meaning through spiritual practice would also think less of me because I find personal meaning through art.  They're both unmeasurable, personal, nonverbal, harmless exercises that I enjoy and have spent years studying.

Forgiveness

Someone recently accused me of being unable to forgive, despite having known me for many years and having seen me forgive several people.  The authorities of my childhood parish also accused me of an inability to forgive.  Both parties are correct in one sense: they demanded immediate forgiveness on command, which I can not do.

Forgiveness is not an easy thing to define, it is more than simply saying "it's ok" when someone has caused harm.  It involves releasing resentment, moving on both as an individual and as a relationship from an incident, letting go of hurt.  One can forgive another without ever speaking to the transgressor: forgiving someone who's hurt you doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to resume a relationship.  It's also possible to forgive someone who's died!

Functioning as an individual and as a member of a community is eased through forgiveness.  The act, which is an almost entirely introverted event with fuzzy boundaries, ameliorates harmony both internally and communally.  Forgiveness has been such a prominent religious concept because religious communities involve so much intangible vulnerability between participants.  Both forgiveness and spirituality exist on the line between logic and emotion.

Time between the hurtful occurrence and forgiveness (whether of the self or of the transgressor) is immeasurable.  The idea of needing to forgive in order to harmonize the self and the community is very old, and many ancient ritualistic religions involved going through some kind of ceremony in order to bring about forgiveness.  Some of these traditions also argued that to die without having forgiven would cause disaster: ritual fixed this dangerous chance.  Catholicism makes the same point, but with intimidation rather than facilitation*.  The line of the Our Father "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us" meaning, at least as it was posed to me, that if you don't forgive everyone right away then God has no reason to forgive you so you've doomed yourself to Hell if Jesus could forgive while on the Cross what's stopping you?!?

No matter who demands forgiveness on command, the forgiveness itself is insincere when done through intimidation or fear.  The fault of the insincerity is on the pressuring party, not the forgiver.  I was already in the process of forgiving the person mentioned at the beginning of this post and the accusation of my inability only hindered the process.  Thinking and writing about the nature of forgiveness is a step in resuming that process, which has an unknowable duration.

* It may seem logically inconsistent to many that I would return to the very Church that hurt me so much.  Seeking out a parish of compassion and re-establishing myself as a practicing (keyword: PRACTICING.  Practice, not doctrine.) Catholic are steps in my forgiving of the Church.  By attending Sunday Mass and studying Catholicism, I'm harmonizing myself both as a spiritual individual and as a very tentative, doubting member of a community.

Actively Recovering Catholic

My life progression thusfar: Catholic, anti-Catholic, angry ex-Catholic, apathetic ex-Catholic, recovering Catholic, actively recovering Catholic.  My active recovery began as genuine interest in how most parishes differ from the abusive parish of my childhood (St. Monica's in Chicago), then how they differ from each other; eventually each Mass I attended became more personal as it was one not influenced by St. Monica's.  My Catholic identity never really went away, despite how rightfully opposed I was to it for a long time, and I want a more active healing than apathetic distance can offer.

And now I have no idea what I've gotten myself into or what I'm doing or where I'm going.  My stance on dogma hasn't changed: I just don't believe it.  I'm not Christian in any sense: Jesus was a cool guy according to the Gospels but the Messiah, salvation, sin, etc. aren't a part of my spirituality at all.  The theology absolutely fascinates me and I love learning it.  I do believe that something is going on, and attending a nonjudgmental Mass makes me feel just as connected to that something as hiking through the mountains does - just in very different ways.

Aside from my apathy regarding dogma, I do believe in the Catholic Church: when open-hearted people gather together in a sacred (sacred in the sense that it isn't mundane) setting to share a ritual passed on by generations, something is attained.  Yes, the Church hierarchy has done many terrible, awful things and I face those head-on and call people out on their bullshit.  And few people know better than I just how cruel  laypersons, even those who win community service awards in their parishes, can be to each other.  It is because I know the horrors in the Catholic Church that I value the goodness in it and seek it out and want to be a part of it.  Other religions have similar disparities and rituals of togetherness, Catholicism is just the religious language to which I'm attuned.

Of course I'm ready to become more involved in my local Catholic community AFTER moving to an area where there's almost none.
I really have no idea what I'm doing.

Meaning vs. Discipline

I'm currently reading The Unlikely Disciple by Kevin Roose.  A student at Brown, Roose spends a semester at Liberty University.  Liberty U is the conservative, evangelical Christian, homophobic, creationist school founded by Rev. Jerry Falwell and Roose argued, correctly, that it's more foreign to the average Ivy Leaguer than most European countries.  He pretended to be a freshly converted evangelical in order to better fit in and learn secrets, he also took on various cultural behaviors such as no swearing or sex and joining the church choir - this was both to pass better and to experience the culture more effectively.  His main shock, at least up until page 170, was that nearly everyone at Liberty U was exceptionally friendly while also violently homophobic.

The second Gen Ed course, which he was able to take as a "foreign exchange student," focused on social and political issues and how an evangelical Christian should approach them.  These were largely simplistic and scathing stereotypes on gay people, people who have premarital sex, wives who have jobs outside the home, etc.  One statement by Roose jumped out at me:

"But aside from the patently offensive content, my biggest issue with [Gen Ed II] is the way it bundles political and social issues with religious issues, and what that means for a guy who's trying to give Christianity a fair shake."

This goes along with my previous post about dogma pushing away people, particularly young people, who're looking for personal meaning through religion.  Liberty U and many other religious institutions argue that personal meaning follows discipline.  I'm not saying that they're 100% wrong (mostly because it's not a right/wrong issue), but that argument is a poor way to interest potential peers.  Roose began to reap some spiritual connection through his altered behavior, similar to how his mentor A. J. Jacobs became more spiritual through his year of following Biblical laws (The Year of Living Biblically).

I argue that while it is possible to find spiritual connection through discipline, the process isn't simple enough to teach in a class.  Both Roose and Jacobs CHOSE to alter their own behavior, not because someone told them to, and they didn't do it out of shame.  And both of them explained that the discipline didn't lead directly to spiritual connection: instead, the decision to alter their behavior also included the decision to alter their attitude.  That isn't something that can be taught, demanded or shamed - which is precisely what evangelicals don't understand.

Spirituality vs. Religion

http://beliefsoftheheart.com/2013/07/23/i-wonder-if-sunday-school-is-destroying-our-kids-2/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/27/why-millennials-are-leaving-the-church/?hpt=hp_c4

More and more people are seeming to realize that personal meaning draws people to spirituality, while dogma pushes people away from even trying.  Sometimes I wonder if the fall of the Catholic Church and religious hierarchy overall would be the best thing, so regular people can start over ourselves without the bullshit.

My Liberal Quaker History

There are alotsa new people in my life now, and it dawned on my yesterday that most of them (you?) are unfamiliar with my Liberal Quaker past. I'm reading The Battle For God by Karen Armstrong and she included a bit on the Quakers; that brought back some long-forgotten memories.

When George Fox founded the Society of Friends in the 1640's, Europe was already in great upheaval not only between the Catholics and Protestants, but also in shifting religion from the field of intellect to emotion. So then this podunk upstart comes along comes along with his atheistic anarchy, according to the standards of the time. After initial insanity among the Society of Friends, they've ever since been active supporters of equal rights and the underdog.

In theory, Liberal Quaker beliefs and practices still make the most sense to me. All life is a manifestation of the divine and united, thusly, in equality. Seek out your inner light through personal methods. Meetings, rather than Masses, are times of quiet contemplation/meditation, with secretaries rather than authorities. Personal ideas of faith/spirituality are PERSONAL and just fine, they come second to the practices of equality and humility. This all makes sense, it leaves room for spiritual wanderings and doesn't repeat Catholic habits.

In practice, at least among the Liberal Quakers with whom I've talked, attending Meetings and active participation in the Society of Friends are demanded. I requested respect for my independent meanderings, and that was denied. Now that I think about it, that was a hypocritical attempt at authority...and the Friends with whom I spoke berated my sharing of information and questions solely because I'm not affiliated with a Meeting. The Society of Friends, at least the ones with whom I had contact, repeated the same issues of organization shared by other religions.

"make use of [your] own understanding without direction from another." - George Fox

Recovering Catholic

I've had a loose concept of Catholic-based paintings/artwork for about a year now, it's been very slowly coming together. Aside from acrylic paint (<3), I'm using rosaries, pendants, prayer cards, flyers, etc.

It's difficult to describe, verbally, what this artwork expresses (thus the painting!). All the little icons and such are from a thrift store in Milwaukee. Going through the box of Catholic items there has been a very odd experience: everything is familiar, but my more recently acquired logic wonders wtf all this crap really DOES. Emotional comfort vs. rational reason.

The fact that there is some emotional comfort in these familiar things is pretty odd, considering all the terrible things I endured at St. Monica's Elementary. Discovering that St. Monica's is so extreme that it isn't acknowledged by the Chicago Diocese, though, has helped so much. I'm discovering actual Catholicism now, separating it from extremists. Many horrors occur in Catholicism and there is no way I'll convert back - I'm sifting the pleasant out from the abusive. Obedience to a cruel hierarchy is separate from artistic/musical/poetic appreciation. The comfort of some supernatural mother figure makes no logical sense but can be emotionally appealing.
That's one of the main reasons why Catholicism has been so successful for so many centuries: the emotional appeal tends to be much stronger among uneducated people.

Individual people and greed for control are responsible for what I've endured, just like with most evil committed in the world. I can appreciate parts of what they twisted, even if just as a familiar and complex myth. If I abandon that solely because I don't logically "believe" in it, how am I any different from the people who avoid fiction because they're afraid to feel anything? Like it or not, Catholicism is among my roots and I'm clearing away the weeds they planted.

Seems to me that there are three reasons for following a religion:
1) actual belief. "This deity actually exists, this special person actually did that, and I must do this." Logical thinking minus measurable evidence
2) cultural tradition. "We are this group and we do this. If this deity actually exists, it would be an additional benefit." Communal functioning.
3) emotional appreciation. "The symbols and stories are aesthetically appealing to me." No different from secular work.

I primarily have #3, but can appreciate #2 to a degree. My family has a mix of #2 and #3 and I would attend mass with them because I enjoy any time spent with them - if we're appreciating beauty together, even better!

Times like these I wish I had some sort of spiritual guide (an actual person, not an angel or something). The one great priest I knew has been warped by an administrative job and the Quakers to whom I reached out demanded community obedience in exchange for discussion. I'm done searching; though it may be lonely processing these icons by myself (nobody else from St. Monica's cares, or they're perpetuating), it's certainly safer.

And when my shitty 8th grade principal told me that I could never be non-Catholic since I was baptized, I thought she was just bullshitting me. No other religious culture could ever feel so familiar, make such irrational sense.

The Word

I'm currently reading Looking For Alaska by John Green http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Alaska-Paperback-Green-John/dp/B00144R62Q/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273553488&sr=8-3 and it, like his other FANTASTIC books, is about a geeky high schooler. He's taking a World Religions course and the fossil of a teacher assigns the class to write its final paper on what the post important question is.

Up until reading Lamb by Christopher Moore http://www.amazon.com/Lamb-Gospel-According-Christs-Childhood/dp/0380813815/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273553596&sr=1-1 I dunno what I would have considered to be the most important question.

Growing up super-Catholic, "The Word of God," "The Word made flesh" and other references to "The Word" were frequently said in mass, class, prayer, educational films, etc. I understood nothing in kindergarten, "The Word" didn't stand out. I paid little attention as I grew up since thinking about things over which you have no authority is sinful. When I finally rebelled, I didn't think about anything except for emptying my head of that brainwashing. Years later, when I returned to the pile of brain-guck I had scooped out, I didn't understand "The Word" any more than as a child.

In Lamb, Jesus is told that what the Hebrew people needed was the Word of God. They were poor, struggling, had no control over their own lives, and their political activists were getting publicly slain. Moses, Elijah and other prophets had heard and delivered the Word of God in bad times before. Jesus needed to BE the Word for them now. He needed to be the manifestation of the Word of God in order to lead them.

In this way, human beings ARE our most important question. We are the question of time, will, adaptation, creativity, destruction, society, etc. manifest and we are also the answer.



Sometimes I miss school (certain classes) because you don't often encounter questions like these with the will to answer them otherwise...except for blog geeks like me. Thanks, John and Christopher!

Being Grateful

I'm currently reading "A Year of Living Bibically" by A.J. Jacobs. It is very interesting, especially since I just finished "The Poisonwood Bible" by Barbara Kingsolver. Among the remarkable contrasts between the two books is one point that illustrates Jacobs very well: a character in "The Poisonwood Bible" says that growing up is when you realize that you can't just sit and wait for someone else to take care of something (cleaning, cooking, food-gathering, mending, etc.), you need to do it or else it probably won't get done. Jacobs, at least when it comes to raising his young son, seems to have missed this lesson. "A Year of Living Bibically" so great because he interviewed and collaborated with so many brilliant people!

"The Poisonwood Bible" is historical fiction (and it's fantastic!) about the history of the Congo in the 60's-80's, mostly about the extreme poverty. People were happy to get a hubcab in which to cook what little food they could get. And then to read Jacobs pining over a Jaguar in NYC...coveting was one of his greatest struggles. We all want things, of course, and that's a habit almost impossible to lessen, let alone break. Wanting isn't necessarily bad, but wanting to the point of ignoring what you already have and those who have less than you is...capitalism.

There are a lot of things that I want, of course - the primary one being to have no debts. But appreciating what I have (health, food, clean water, heating, electricity, indoor plumbing, shelter, medicine, soap, clothes, the internet, cell phones, public transportation, friends, family, an awesome girlfriend, a nice assortment of rights and privileges, etc.) and even what I don't have (a car, slaves, a house, a pimp) is very humbling. And it helps me connect to others in a way that no things can and, even if they aren't, I can be grateful for what they have and don't have as well. It's like intercessory prayer, only intercessory thanks!

Belief isn't necessarily a bad thing

One thing I've noticed while working at a busy Midwestern airport bookstore is that a huge amount of books - fiction and nonfiction - deals with or mentions religion in some way. It's a huge part of the human experience whether you're in it, outside of it, or dallying right down that fine line (where I am right about now). The religion/spiritual section in each of the 6 stores is rather small, monotonous, and unpopular; the only religious text available is the Bible, of course (one store has two versions). Then there are a ton of Karen Armstrongs, Deepak Chopras, Chodrons, that super-popular pastor guy with the huge teeth, C.S. Lewis, the Dalai Lama, etc. Two of the biggest and most popular stores also carry Dawkins, A.J. Jacobs, and Hitchens. And, of course, The Shack is everywhere - I have yet to read this.

I'm still trying to figure out how to tie in my personal beliefs (ambiguity defines them best, not agnosticism) to the rest of life, that is my main issue right now. Although I'm a long way from forgiving all the teachers, administrators, clergy and laypeople who used religion-spirituality to chisel away at me, I'm making peace with religion in general...trust is still a big issue.

I've read "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens and C.S. Lewis' Christian non-fiction. I don't see any difference between declaring that God doesn't exist because of church corruption and declaring that God exists because the North Star exists - both miss the point entirely! Figuring out how to relate my spirituality to the rest of life is such a delicate process because I don't want to slip into either of these habits.

In short: there is nothing inherently wrong or harmful about believing in something or not. What really matters is how it affects the rest of your life.

Review of Roman Catholicism in America by Chester Gillis

I read this to gain a better understanding of my strict Catholic upbringing; Gillis went above and beyond my expectations! Because I can now understand the empty traditions, hostility, and control exerted by the staff, administration and clergy, I'm one step closer to forgiving them.

The fact that this was written before Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who, as recanted in this book, is a destructive slimbebal) became Pope Benedict and before the pedophilic scandals came to their worst point is actually a strength. It's easy to read the book from this point and see how the Catholic church does change drastically over time whether it wants to or not.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231108710/ref=cm_cr_mts_prod_img

Fulfillment

Before I started my new job, I was very stressed/depressed over my financial situation. I felt like I had little control over my situation and my fears over what could happen snowballed into terrible worries. I had difficulties sleeping, concentrating and enjoying anything. Starting my new, full time job has greatly helped because I'm making steady money now, I'll get benefits in 90 days, and it's distracting. It makes me too tired to worry; I want to use my energy toward activities more fun/leisurely/productive than worrying now.

Before I got the job, I finally began to understand one of the reasons why so many poverty-stricken people are very religious. Religion is a constant, it's distracting, it gives you hope that something better awaits you and it feels better to surrender control to a higher power than to collectors.

my girlfriend thinks i am an awesome sexy pants

Thank you, Kelly. <3

ANYWAY! I was reading "Self-Made Man" by Norah Vincent at the time and, while she masqueraded as a man, she spent a few weeks in a monastery. I was disappointed at how little of her report included, you know, SPIRITUALITY, but it was very interesting. I looked up monasteries and convents online to learn more. The websites focused on spiritual journeys, the "Call," and doing manual labor as meditation.

Honestly, giving up on the material life and focusing on something higher is appealing. The dogma and utter obedience, however, are unappetizing. And the accounts of read of monks and nuns have so little to do with actual spirituality and focus, instead, on rules. THAT IS NOT THE POINT!!

My material possessions and obligations feel shackling. I knew the whole time I lived in WI that I wanted to come home to Chicago and that, as soon as I would, I'd want to travel everywhere else. I'm so happy to be back here, but all I want to do is to go to new places. The feeling of being trapped is there, but I'm ignoring it because there's nothing I can do about it except to work towards ending my debts.

Related to the want to see and experience new things is a need for spiritual fulfillment. In Dogma, it's stated that spirituality is like a cup of water that constantly needs to be refilled; when you're little, the cup is small and it grows as you do. During that tough, financially stressful period, I did turn to spirituality a little; now that the intense worries are subdued, that need for spiritual fulfillment stands out more.

I don't quite know where to turn for it. I'm too wary of communities, rituals and most clergy because of past experiences. I went to my first Sunday Mass in years a few months ago and I knew the Jesuit; it was wonderful and he said things that need to be said (service, compassion, love, peace). He has since soured in my eyes, though, as a school administrator who has strayed from that message.

And I'm well aware that this need for spiritual fulfillment is probably an aspect of this need to see/experience new things. How to fill those glasses in my obligated situation, I don't know.

Since when is personal spirituality a bad thing?

I'm very fortunate to have friends and family who have strong, personal spirituality; we've all come from very different backgrounds - Catholic, Jewish, atheist, Buddhist, Neo-Pagan - and come to similar places. There is the fable of the blind monks examining an elephant, each one claiming to have discovered a tree, a hose, a fan, a rock, etc. We're all monks, but have admitted that we are blind and that our interpretations cover only a portion of what there is - indeed, only a portion is really what humans can hope to achieve.

After graduating in May, the only fundamentalist, evangelical, super-conservative religious folk I saw/heard were the ones online and easily shut off. Their utter rejection of science, compassion, acceptance, and secular society disgusts me. Instead I bit my tongue as some atheists wrote/said that people who believe in God/whatever might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy. After all, these people understand that science is necessary and that theocracies are A BAD IDEA so what does it matter that my timid spiritual statements get brushed aside?

And now I have coworkers who believe that, without ever having read it, the Bible is 100% factual. These fundamentalists have as much influence over me as the evangelizing atheists: however much I allow them to influence me. Because we live in a very diverse, secular society, nobody will ever get all that we spiritually want but we will get what we need: the ability to practice in private. Which is as it should be: PRIVATE.

I't just so strange to me that the two extremes who hate each other so much would act so similarly towards someone in the middle...but I'd still take science and secular living over theocratic insanity.