Living heroes

(Updated: I suppose I should give a quick reason why these folks made my hero list. )

I have quite a few heroes who have passed on, but thought I'd jot down a few who are still living (other than my family, of course).

In no particular order:

• Jimmy Carter - He practices what he preaches, is a peacemaker, diplomat and cares for the least of the least.
  
• Kofi Annan - Certainly a flawed man, but he worked tirelessly for human rights and justice and carried himself with a quiet strength. He's also from Ghana, where Annie grew up.
  
• Asne Seierstad - She's a journalist and an author from Norway who travels tirelessly to tell small stories about people from Kabul to Chechnya. I envy her life.
  
• Nanni Moretti - My favorite filmmaker. From Italy; I own most of his films and watch them over and over. Quirky, sad, lonely, funny, irritating.
  
• Eugene Peterson - A true pastor's heart, author of books that always challenge me and translator of one of my favorite versions of the Bible. A gentle man who loves stories.
  
• Gurinder Chadha - It takes real talent to tackle a subject like the role of Indian women in British society and make it so fun. And Gurinder seems to have a great personality to boot.
  
• N.T. Wright - Renowned British theologian, his book Jesus and the Victory of God made what was once common new.
  
• Peter Kreeft - The surfing philosophy professor. Always writing with a twinkle in his eye, his books give definition to some rather murky subjects.
  
• Richard Dahlstrom - A pastor in Seattle that continues to mentor me through his blog and sermons.
  
• Christiane Amanpour - Working on assignment with CNN, she always covers the hot spots with a level head and years of experience.
  
• Colin Powell - Always trying to form international coalitions, trying to moderate between extremes, used by many leaders for their own gain, Colin Powell continues to remain dignified and a diplomat.
  
• Sofia Coppola - Director of Lost in Translation, she knows how to capture nuance and subtlety. And if the behind the scenes documentary is true, she is one of the most laid back directors in Hollywood... a rarity.
  
• Stanley Hauerwas - Has championed the cause of those with intellectual disabilities since the 1970's.
  
• John Irving - A Prayer for Owen Meany. Period.
  
• Paul David Hewson - OK, so I put Bono on the list. I truely do admire his determination for helping Africa. And I could listen to Vertigo anytime.
  
• Mira Nair - Another excellent director who deals with cross-cultural issues. Start with Monsoon Wedding.
  
• Julian Schnabel - Filmmaker and bold artist. Reminds me a lot of a friend of mine.
  

They say you can tell a lot about a person based on their heroes...

Why I went to see Tropic Thunder - Part I

(It didn't start out this way, but this is turning into a three-part post. So if you find yourself getting upset with something I've said, I hope you will indulge me until the end. If you're still upset, well, we'll take it from there I suppose.)

I went to see Tropic Thunder last night. The theater was packed, the majority of the audience young guys, probably in their twenties, many with dates. There were also groups of girls sprinkled here and there. I saw a few "older" people, like, in their forties (we're so old), but not many. It was approaching 9pm, after all.

I've been following the call for a national boycott on most of the blogs that I frequent, as well as many of the excellent links provided by Patricia Bauer's website. I watched the interviews with Ben Stiller on Good Morning America and on Nightline, as well as watched the various reports on CNN concerning the protests. The editor of the online magazine that I just started contributing to also called for a boycott, as did all the other contributors. I read how the Special Olympics, ARC and many Down syndrome organizations support the boycott, and have even launched a new campaign to help bring an end to the use of the "R" word, as it's often called.

I've also read literally dozens of well-written, thoughtful, provocative and heartfelt posts on blogs that I subscribe to via Google Reader, many of them angry, others hurt, most just wanting to support their children, as I do.

But after seeing Tropic Thunder, I still cannot support the boycott. Nor can I sign a petition calling for a ban of the "R" word.

First, my thoughts on the film. I did laugh. It is funny. Robert Downey Jr. is amazing to watch, Ben Stiller's "straight man" comedic timing is spot on and Tom Cruise, well, his performance will haunt me for quite some time as he conjures up one of the funniest characters I've seen on the screen in a long time. Aside from his performance on Oprah, of course. But the film wasn't that funny. Not side-splitting funny like I've read in some reviews. Maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind, or was wondering how I was going to pay for Ian's hearing aids or maybe it was just after 9pm and past my bedtime.

And the satire? I'm sorta-kinda in the biz; I've worked with many local prima donna actors and producers. Shot some behind the scene footage on some low budget films. So I got all the film industry references, and they were mostly funny, but more "Yeah, I know someone like that" kind of funny. I got the references to big budget films, to sequels, to high-maintenance actors, etc. But the use of irony and parody were, well, a bit weak. The Family Guy is much better satire; it's tighter, smarter, more self-aware and sheds more light on hidden truths, which is what comedy and satire aspires to do. At least good comedy. The film's saving grace were the performances, the high budget feel and just enough laughs to keep you wanting more.

I give the film three out of five Rambo knives.

(Next: Simple Jack and "retards")

Toddler theology

Silvi stumped me last night.

She was stomping on ants.

"Silvi, remember how we talked about how it's better for things to live than to kill them?"

"Uh huh." Stomp stomp.

"Come on, Sivli. Stop killing the ants."

"But you said dead things go to be with God. I want them to be with God."

"Umm..."

"And you said God helps us. God can help these ants, right?"

"Umm..."

She leans down and talks to a crushed ant. "Come on, little guy. It's OK. You can get better."

"Uh, Silvi, just stop stepping on ants, OK?"

Stanley Harwuz...Hour...Hauerwas

Last night I went to the University of Minnesota to hear Stanley Hauerwas, named America's best theologian by Time Magazine, present the Twelfth Annual Holmer Memorial Lecture.

Wait, wait, come back. Oh alright, go.

About half my readers just walked out of the room. For you remaining few, notice how much elbow room you now have? Spread out; make yourself comfortable.

I went to hear him because he is one of leading advocates for people with intellectual disabilities. For the past 40 years he's written many insightful books that reflect on the lives of people with disability, such as Down syndrome.

He emphasizes friendship and community, as well a life of service to others, as the primary dimensions of what it means to be human and to live humanly. (This, in my opinion, is the main weakness in the ethics of the philosopher Kant, who calls us to treat others as an end instead of means. While this is a good thing, but does not go far enough.)

Last night he was giving a lecture on the role of theology in the university. I won't go into details about it here; he wrote a book on it if you're interested. In brief, he doesn't think theology should be taught as a discipline, but should serve learning by shedding light on how the disciplines are and are not connected. This, he says, must be accomplished without a return to Christendom.

OK. How's it going out there. I see one or two people are still here.

I think I've found a new favorite writer in Dr. Hauerwas. I went up to him afterwards and told him that I appreciated all the work he has done on behalf of those with intellectual disabilities. He seemed affable and gentle, although you wouldn't know it from his talk.

One other thing. Stanley Hauerwas is an outspoken pacifist. Many of you know that I spent some time in the service about twenty years or so ago. Yup, that's me in my Army uniform, doing some jungle school training down in Panama.

I wish I had a few hours to talk with Dr. Hauerwas. I haven't solidified my thoughts on "just war" or outright pacifism, although I'm probably closer to Billy Carter than George W. Bush. I'm constantly torn between William Wallace and Mahatma Gandhi.

Well, I just saw the last person walk out the door.

Anyway, I went to hear a lecture last night. It was cool.

Rabbi Heschel

"When I was young, I used to admire intelligent people; as I grow older, I admire kind people."

That's a famous quote from the late Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, one of my spiritual mentors. His book, God in Search of Man, helped me to better understand the difference between knowing and kneeling. Last night I started his work on The Prophets, and already I can't wait to find more time to spend with it. If you haven't read him, I highly recommend his earthy and "lived" perspective on life with God.

"The Greeks learned in order to comprehend. The Hebrews learned in order to revere. The modern man learns in order to use."

"God is not a hypothesis derived from logical assumptions... He is not something to be sought in the darkness with the light of reason. He is the light."

Absolution

I "confessed" my sins at Absolution-Online and here is what is required of me (I can only assume that I received such severe penance because I "confessed" that I am not part of The Catholic Church; either that or it was gluttony.)

May the Almighty God have mercy on you, and forgiving your sins, bring you to life everlasting. Amen.

May the Almighty and Merciful God grant you pardon, absolution, and remission of your sins.

Venial Sins

Recite 283 Hail Marys and 15 Our Fathers.

Mortal Sins

Consider the implications of what you have done. You must take all steps possible to undo what has been done, and make right what you have done wrong.

You should fast for 9 days. If this is too much to do at once due to the length of the fast, or infirmity, it is acceptable to break a fast into smaller sections. If you are unsure how long it is safe to fast for, consult a doctor.

If your sin also broke the law of the land in which you live, you must confess to the authorities.

I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the Saints, what good you have done or what evil you have suffered be to you for the remission of your sins, growth in grace and the reward of everlasting life. Amen.

Vulnerability and strength

It is difficult to resist the conclusion that twentieth-century man has decided to abolish himself. Tired of the struggle to be himself, he has created boredom out of his own affluence, impotence out of his own erotomania, and vulnerability out of his own strength. He himself blows the trumpet that brings the walls of his own cities crashing down until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, having drugged and polluted himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.
Muggeridge

Bookstore

Annie, Silvi and I went to two used bookstores last night to find copies of Perelandra, That Hideous Strength and any book by George MacDonald (I settled on The Princess and the Goblin, one of his better known children's books). I also bought another Bible, a used NRSV. I often buy books based on aesthetics, and Bibles are no exception. I would rather buy a trade paperback over hardcover, and try to stay away from mass market paperbacks. I also hate buying the "movie" version of a book. I looked for a copy of Contact without Jodie Foster on the cover with no luck.

I own about ten Bibles. (apologies to Brother Andrew): the NIV, NASB, The Message, New Living Translation, The Living Bible, The Complete Jewish Bible, and the New English Bible from Scotland. The last two I purchased in an effort to free myself from Reformed and conservative evangelical theology (although the CJB was translated by a graduate from Fuller Theological Seminary). I needed to view the Scriptures through a new lens, gain fresh insight into the words. I wanted a literary Bible, one with language that was both poetic and true to the spirit of the texts. I found that in the NEB.

I bought the NRSV last night as a version with which I can commit verses to memory. Much of the NEB's language, although movingly poetic, is difficult to follow in that it is written for readers in the United Kingdom. (Examples include asphodel, batten, bustard, distrain, felloe, hoopoes, keen (as a verb), lapis lazuli, panniers, reck, ruffed bustard, runnels of water, and stook.) I also like that the NRSV is used by Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox believers.

Blog depression

There are a few blogs that I glance at most days. It's starting to get to me. Being the contrarian that I am, I like to frequent opposing viewpoints. I find myself reading a few Emerging Church blogs, such as TallSkinnyKiwi and Backyard Missionary, then click over to Slice of Laodicea or Apprising Ministries to read some rather forceful critiques. When I'm done with the "serious" discussions, I pop by Purgatorio for some old-fashioned satire. I sometimes follow links to the people that comment on these blogs, and their blogs usually reflect similar positions.

By the time I finish with these writers, I usually need a shower. I find some refreshment from reading Rain City Pastor, the blog of the pastor (obviously) I knew in Seattle. His thoughts are usually balanced and matured, seasoned by years of pastoring a rather large metropolitan church.

A few months of following the battle within the walls of the Church has me longing for something - solid. Maybe that's why I find myself gravitating toward Lewis and Chesterton and MacDonald. I'm searching for the "mere" in the chaos of modern-day Christianity.

Statistics

One of the primary arguments for the need for propositional and foundational apologetics is the "crisis in the university." According to many traditionalist organization's estimates, 75% of Christian students lose faith when they attend college. They attribute this to the fact that when students "have no idea why they believe what they believe and have no ability to defend their beliefs, they’re taken captive by ideas for which they aren’t prepared."

I think this issue is more complex. But first, I have to challenge the statistics a little bit. Statistics are all too aften misleading. Statistically speaking, Vatican City is the most dangerous place in the world while Yemen is the safest. Of couse, reality is much different.

Is it true that because students are ill equiped to face the ideas they encounter in the classroom that they walk away from a relationship with Christ? Sometimes. But I think that ideas that challenge faith are only a part of the problem, and may indeed may not be as significant as claimed.

I assert that proximity and peers probably have more to do with any loss of faith than contact with abstract ideas. Proximity because for most students it is the first time in their lives when they experience freedom from the watchful eyes of parents. Peers because it is friends that shape and reflect who we are within. True, false cerebral ideas often do lead the faithful astray. But let's not forget the role of relationships in this battle for the heart.

And let's be more careful with statistics. I know higher numbers mean higher dollars, but sometimes they only mean greater fiction.

Abstraction

I am prone to live in the world of abstraction. I enjoy philosophical language not only for it's poetry and ability to clarify, but because it can transport me into an ideal world. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. I was reading, re-reading, Subversive Spirituality by Eugene Peterson and he says that only stories can rescue us from abstraction. Once we lose our place in a Story, we tend to interpret the events in our lives disconnected from any greater meaning.

The lady who lives across the hall was arrested last night. Two police officers banged on her door, and in the matter of a minute or two, cuffed her and took her away. She talks to Annie almost every day, telling her about her recent divorce, custody battle and losing her daughter to her ex-husband. She's been drinking heavily nearly every day, and lost her job last week when she showed up drunk. She broke a restraining order yesterday, trying to get her daughter back. After the police took her, she never came home last night.

I tell you this because I have a question: How do you stay in a Story if the Story is filled with pain and heartbreak and loss? Peterson encourages us to revisit our Stories, to live in the concreteness of life, to abandon abstraction. I agree with him, but what he asks of us is almost impossible.

Peterson calls us to see our stories in the light of the bigger Story. Only there will the seemingly random occurences in our lives find the thread that will weave them all together.

Legalism and alcoholism

I thought this was excellent (by John Piper):

Legalism is a more dangerous disease than alcoholism because it doesn't look like one.

• Alcoholism makes men fail; legalism helps them succeed in the world.
• Alcoholism makes men depend on the bottle; legalism makes them self-sufficient, depending on no one.
• Alcoholism destroys moral resolve; legalism gives it strength.
• Alcoholics don't feel welcome in church; legalists love to hear their morality extolled in church.

Leap of faith?

I was thinking about yesterday's post and the phrase "beautiful and terrifying leap of faith." In some ways, that phrase is a cop-out. It really doesn't mean anything. It may have a nice literary ring to it, but it is neither precise nor practical.

"Leap of faith," of course, refers to Kierkegaard. Without delving into his dense and complicated theology, suffice it to say that I tended to side with him on matters of faith rather than with one of his fiercest critics, Francis Schaeffer. I reference Schaeffer because his methodology is so prevelant in many circles today. At least the circles I run, or ran, in. I believe that Schaeffer places too much emphasis on the use of the mind to find our way to God, to discover truth with a capital "T."

However, I also have to agree with Kierkegaard's critics that he places too much emphasis on subjective and individual faith.

So where does that leave me? And why did I refer to the "leap of faith?"

Most of my early spiritual journey was shaped by Schaeffer's methods of searching for Truth. Eventually, I tired of Schaeffer's dogmatism and sought refuge in Kierkegaard. Over the past few years, I have found a third way. I have slowly returned to Schaeffer, modified by Kierkegaard, and framed by Marcel, Buber and Levinas.

What is missing in both Schaeffer and Kierkegaard are the categories of hope, trust, community, love, mystery, and responsibility. Schaeffer may offer an explanation for the way things are, yet he does not touch us where true change is possible: the heart. Kierkegaard touches on hope and love and despair, yet he has us face the struggle alone, without companions.

Marcel, Buber and Levinas affirm the mind, address the heart and tell us that we need each other to find Truth. It is a "leap of faith." But it is not taken alone.

Leadership, Life and Theology Institute

Solomon's Porch is hosting a Leadership, Life and Theology Institute next month. There are a few events I am interested in attending. (The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann being one of them. Reading the Questions: Interpreting the Bible with Hints from Derrida and the Ancient Rabbis also looks interesting.)

Commitment brings freedom

You all know that I like to think of myself as an existentialist. (a modified one, to be sure) In my reading, I stumbled across this quote from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, the 19th century German writer.

"Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness concerning all acts of initiative and creation. There is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too, all sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen events, meetings and material assistance which no one could have dreamed would have come their way. Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!"

So much of my theology is framed by "waiting on the Lord." "Be still." I much prefer the theology of commitment. Is there room for both?

Money and Power

While eating an excellent turkey bagel sandwich on this gorgeous afternoon, I reread the first chapter of Jacques Ellul's book Money and Power. You can read the whole book online here. (I listed this book in a previous blog as having impacted me many years ago.) Ellul is sometimes called a "Christian anarchist," and his thought is highly influenced by Marx.

Moretti? Ellul? Am I becoming a socialist in my old age?

"When we open the Bible we do not find a philosophy, a political statement, a metaphysic or even a religion. We find instead the promise of dialog, a personal word addressed to me, asking me what I am doing, hoping, fearing‑and especially what I am."

"The texts (Scriptures) are therefore never a "solution." To the contrary, they get us started on a journey, and the only answer we can hope to find is the one we ourselves give by our lives as we proceed on that journey."

Accidental world

A Baha'i friend and I recently met for dinner at an Indian restaurant, with a buffet straight from Vedic heaven. We talked about all the turmoil in the world and how we might, in some small way, mollify some of the pain and conflict around us. Most of the Baha'i faithful work for world peace. My friend supports the United Nations financially and believes that disputes between nations will one day achieve pacifism.

There are many reasons why I do not believe complete unity between nations will ever be possible; I could discuss theories of human nature and emphasize the inherent traits of greed and corruption and revenge and lust. Or I could make my point by addressing the limitations of living in a broken world of famine and drought and the innate drive toward self-preservation when one is threatened with extiction. I could make my case using Scripture, pointing to verses about the poor always being with us and reapers sowing and brothers against brothers.

My Baha'i friend believes that if the people of the nations somehow were able to really know the other, that this level of intimacy and understanding would solve most discord. Knowing is loving.

But I want to talk about accidents.

Suppose my Baha'i friend asked me to pick up his grandchildren from the airport. God forbid, but suppose, caught up in conversation, I missed the red light and his grandchildren were stripped from him. My friend then finds himself at a crossroads. Does he forgive and embrace me and we continue our friendship, or does he seek restitution, or even revenge?

Assume my friend chooses to 1) forgive me. Is it possible to return to the former level of intimacy? Or will the pain of loss prevent my friend from sharing the part of him that is so necessary for the transparency of friendship? Or perhaps my friend 2) cannot forgive me and breaks fellowship? Or maybe he now 3) hates me and seeks my destruction?

I assert that the loss due to accidental misfortune creates an impenetrable wall of sorrow. I further assert that this sorrow can only be consoled from without by He who heals. Therefore, it is only He-who-heals who can unite daughter with mother, son with father, brother with brother, wife with husband.

The greatest contribution I can make toward the reconciliation of the sorrowful is to remain receptive and vulnerable to the touch of He-who-heals.

"Blessed are the peacemakers."

"If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Quantum Physics and Spirituality III

At the risk of being tiresome, I am going to briefly summarize the physics topics covered each week so that we will remain on the same page. Or you can skip to the conclusions that we reached during the discussion by skimming down to the appropriately named heading - conclusions.

Topics
Last Thursday our DVD series covered the problems surrounding the calculation of the speed of light. (Not the speed it travels, but it’s relative speed.) Physicists at the close of the century struggled to determine what the speed of light could be measured against. Anyone who has taken an introduction to physics course knows that objects can only be said to be in motion relative to another object. The earth is in motion relative to the sun and other planets, a car is motion relative to the earth, a tennis ball is in motion realtive to the tennis court and the player, etc. But what is the motion of light relative to?

Aether(ether), theorized the physicists. Something must exist everywhere, on the earth as well as in the great vastness of space, that is static. Something that light is moving relative to. Otherwise light does not adhere to Newton's laws of motion. Therefore, physicists said, a substance - which they called ether - must exists. An invisible, unmoving substance surrounding all that is.

This theory held until Einstein sent physicists scurrying back to chalkboards around the world. That's next.

Conclusions
About half the group did not show up as Doug was away at a conference and, unfortunate as it may be, there is no discussion without Doug. At least not yet. Those of us who did show up fumbled with some of the ideas, but the discussion quickly came to an end, as George Costanza would say, "... of it's own volition." And so, as we await the return of author, speaker, pastor, blogger, physics discussion leader Doug Pagitt, I will address the comments of a certain Jon P., prognosticator extraordinaire.

Jon questions the scope of our knowledge compared to the knowledge of God. He also questions if more knowledge equals more love. (I hope I am representing his position correctly.) I agree with Jon that our knowledge is nothing more than a whisp of quickly evaporating smoke in comparison to the knowledge of God. God, claiming to be the basis of all knowledge, dissiminates such knowledge at his discretion and pleasure.

Jon and I are in agreement that more knowledge does not equal more love. I may pursue countless PhD's without ever gaining the knowledge, or love, of a child (or a mentally retarded person).

But our physics discussion does not aspire to acquire more knowledge, rather we hope to see hidden things anew by attempting to shift our starting-point.

We all have a starting-point. This starting-point - the intellectual, spiritual and emotional pad from which we launch - influences our praxis, that unreflective, habitual way of behaving. We engage the world, others and God based on this starting-point. Our behaviors spring from it. The very actions we put into practice in the act of loving God are based on it. If our starting point, for example, is justification by faith alone, we engage the world accordingly. If our starting point is tradition and iconoclasm, we act upon the world differently as well.

What is your starting-point?

Quantum Physics and Spirituality II

This afternoon Annie and I took Silvi to the park for her first solo on the swings. She loved it; her face broke into a huge smile each time the swing reached its apex and she experienced that brief moment of weightlessness.

Silvi was completely unaware of the physics involved during her time on the swings. She didn’t realize that she was proving Newton’s theory that the natural state of an object is to remain at rest unless acted upon by a force. Nor did she understand the reason she didn’t float off into space was due to the pull of the huge ball we call earth beneath her. She also didn’t realize that each time she passed close to the earth that she, too, was pulling this “ball” toward her, however slightly.

She just giggled and smiled her gummy smile.

I, on the other hand, understood at least the basics of the physics involved in the movement of her swing. Which brings me to my question: How did my comprehension of the physics involved in the operation of the swing influence my interpretation of that gummy smile?

We watched two more parts of the physics series at Doug Pagitt’s home last Thursday night; about a dozen of us, most in our late 20’s to mid-30’s crammed into his living room to watch a DVD of a professor walk us through the foundations of Classical Physics. We haven’t begun our study of quantum physics yet, as it is important to grasp the basic principles first.

Doug began the night by summarizing the purpose of the discussion. (I’ll paraphrase to the best of my recollection.) “There have been three major paradigm shifts in thinking and speaking about the cosmos. The first was formulated by Aristotle; his theories about the division of the heavens and the earth was the prevailing view of the universe until Newton provided a largely accurate description of the movement of planets and all objects on the earth. These scientific “laws” ruled until Einstein and his “Theory of Relativity.”

“The way we see our world influences the way we see, and speak about God. As science changes, so does our theological view and language. Because of Aristotle’s influence, the Church spoke of the God “up in the heavens” and humans “down here on the earth.” With Newton, the Church began to speak of the God of order, the God of absolute “laws,” and the clockwork universe."

"Einstein shattered this mechanistic view of the cosmos with his theories of relativity, and people’s perception of their place in the universe shifted once again. The Church however, has been slow to reconcile with these new findings, and continues to use Newtonian concepts to speak of God and the world.”

“The findings and language of quantum physics are poised to address the spiritual questions being asked today.”

That brings me back to my question: How does my understanding of the cosmos influence my relationships with those I love? My wife? My daughter? My God? If I had an Aristotelian view of the world, would I have interpreted my time with my daughter differently? If I had lived under the strict influence of Newton, would Silvi’s gummy smile have struck me more one way than another?

How much is my love for God influenced by my view of how the world works? And can I grow in my love for Him, and others, by studying quantum physics? Time will tell. Unless it’s all just relative.

Quantum Physics and Spirituality

Last night was the first of an eight-week discussion on Quantum Physics and Spirituality, hosted by Doug Pagitt, pastor of Solomon's Porch. We met at his home to watch the first two episodes of a 24-part series on Quantum Physics, then discussed how this revolution in science might help us to better understand God.

Pagitt's premise is that we (the Church) use too many incorrect metaphors to explain the universe and spiritual matters. Most of the Church continues to use Aristotelian or Newtonian language when speaking of God. These ways of talking about God convey the idea of a mechanical universe, one that can be figured out, a world that is static, controllable. Pagitt purports that the language of Quantum Physics is a better method of communicating the relationship between the world and the heavens.

I'll post more on this later.