Month: July 2017

Posted on

Creation, Day Seven: The Temple

Then the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.  And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the Sabbath day from all the work he had done.  So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.  Genesis 2:1-3

Jack’s seventh-day dream

It’s late Saturday afternoon in Pleasant Valley subdivision and Jack Johnson is relaxing, remote in hand, in his new Laz-E-Boy recliner with the tweed upholstery that complements the carpet.  His wife is cooking up a stir-fry in the kitchen, and though he would prefer steaks or hamburgers, he didn’t volunteer to man the grill.  So he will take the consequences, which aren’t that bad.  She uses a lot of garlic, and that’s some compensation.  Also long-grain brown rice with that full-bodied nutty smell that could almost tempt him to vegetarianism if it weren’t for things like grilled hamburgers.  Or bacon.  Ah, bacon . . . He had some for breakfast this morning, and he could write a poem about it, if he were a poet.  Were I of poetic mind,/ What excellencies might I find/ In thy tender waves of salt and crunch/ That beckon me to munch a bunch—

Ow.  What’s that in his jaw?  Lower right molar?  Is his toothache coming back?

Jack turns his head to ease the pressure. The sounds of his children drift through the open window from the driveway, where they’re playing pick-up basketball with some neighbor kids.  At least, 10-year-old Ashley is trying to play.  Jack can tell from her piping tones that Calvin lets her take a shot now and then.  Cal is a good kid, for a teenager.  They’re both good kids.  Thump.  Thump.  Thump.  Clutter-clutter-CHING!  “Two points!  Lay it up, Ash.”

Calvin’s voice cracks a little on the “up.”  Jack has to smile, remembering himself at fourteen.  Wouldn’t repeat it, but there’s a touching vulnerability about—

Ouch.  He shifts in his char again.  Might need to set up a dentist appointment tomorrow.  Hates to go, of course—who enjoys going to the dentist?  But sooner or later . . .

From the kitchen, on the classic rock station Julia is listening to, comes the flat-string cadence of an unmistakable rhythm—bum-bum-bum-ba-dum, bum-bum-bum-ba-dum—followed by a catchy melody he can’t help humming: “. . . lookin’ out my back door.”  Boy, that takes him back.  Summer nights down by the river, hot girls and cold beer; his foot is tapping out the rhythm to John Fogarty’s plangent tone: “Just got back from Illinois . . .”

Julia echoes from the kitchen.  He pictures her swaying in time to the music, her hips moving in that cute, innocently suggestive way that sometimes puts ideas in his head—

The remote bounces off the carpet as Jack clutches his jaw.  That does it.  First thing tomorrow, he’s calling Dr. Groves and demanding to get in.  Or if they say they’re full, he’ll just show up in the waiting room and tell them he’s not leaving until–

“Argh!”  His recliner bolts upright as Jack doubles over.  Pain rips through all other sensations; everything that pleased him thirty seconds ago now mocks him.  Crisp bacon, lilac blooms, plush pillows, fond memories, love for his wife and children—mean nothing!  Pain chomps through the veneer of his peaceful life with jagged teeth.  He clutches his head, choking back a scream . . . .

. . . and tumbles headfirst into a dream.  Or is he awake?  The pain is certainly awake, stomping gleefully on all his nerves like a demented two-year-old.

But maybe that’s the wrong way to think of it.  This is all going on inside his own body, after all.  The pain is part of him.

No, the pain is you.  You are the pain.

Who said that?  Did he say that?  It’s not the kind of thing he’s apt to say.  His conversation is more on the order of, Has anybody seen the hammer? or, How about those Raiders?

At any rate, it doesn’t hurt so much now.  Jack feels around his head and meets no walls or boundaries.  The sensations of sight, sound, smell and touch don’t go away but they seem to swirl together, a spiraling symphony of separate strands all joined at the center.  He must get to the center, where the self resides.  Except that he seems to have shrugged off self; it’s dropped like a ton of bricks.  He doesn’t miss it at all.  His wife and kids and every other living creature meet him here, where all is truly one and pain and suffering lose their power to disturb.  This is rest.  This is peace.  This is genuine, true . . .

Ow.  Ow ow ow OW!

This isn’t working.  His brain dials up another vision.

There’s a sword in his hand—a light saber.  Aha!  This is more like it.  He takes a practice swing and cleaves reality in two.  Dark side, light side.  Good-evil, up-down, wet-dry, male-female, war-peace, sick-well.  He gets this; it’s all a struggle between opposites, a lack of balance.  One tooth has decided to rebel against the rest of his body and he must call the darn thing out.  Get back in line, you misbegotten knave!  Get back in harmony with your fellow teeth and stop calling attention to yourself!  Backing the pain into a corner seems to lessen it, though it still snarls at him.  But then a question sneaks up from behind: if life is a matter of us/them or me/is, who is me, and who or what is my opposite?  And is there an opposite of pain, other than not-pain?  He flourishes the light saber again, but the questions persist, making it hard to concentrate, and soon his whole head is throbbing, not just his jaw.

Jack wakes up.  That was some ride, though he has no clue where he went.  Slowly his life resumes its normal dimensions of sounds and smells and the second hand sweeping around the clock face over the mantel.  And yes, he has a toothache, which has hunkered down to a dull, persistent throb.  Resolutely he puts his hands on the nubby surface of the recliner arms and pulls himself up.  First, aspirin.  Then he’ll find Dr. Groves’s home number and beg him to meet him in the office in half an hour.  The dentist’s office is no place to spend a Saturday but at least it’s a plan.

_______________________________________

How to have a conversation

The Brick Bible, by Brendan Powell Smith, purports to tell the whole Bible Story in Legos.  This seems like a clever idea but in reality it’s deeply subversive, and not only because Smith is a professing atheist with a declared interest in undermining faith.  Even if he were a devout Baptist with a gift for tinkering I wouldn’t recommend his book, solely for its depiction of God  as a Lego man in a white robe, with a white beard and angry eyebrows.  For the first six days he conjures up pebbly water and blocky vegetation, building up to a big finish with the appearance of a naked Lego man.  And on the seventh day, angry eyebrows still intact, God strings up a hammock between two of the trees he made, pours a tall glass of lemonade and “rests.”

From Powell-Smith to Michelangelo is a huge leap, like that from a backyard studio to the Sistine Chapel ceiling, where God stretches out his fingertip to ensoul Adam.  Impressive as he may be, with his muscled chest and flowing beard, Michelangelo’s Jehovah is as inadequate as Smith’s.  God on a chapel ceiling and God as a two-inch plastic figure are equally reductionist—not only because we don’t know what he looks like, but because even that terminology, “What he looks like,” takes us down a false path.

Up until now we have taken a lot for granted.  What’s that? you say.  Time, space, direction?  Didn’t we go back and account for all those things that other creation stories take for granted?

I’ve tried to show that, for God, creation is not a matter of reorganizing what’s already there, but actually making a “there.”  What we haven’t considered yet is God himself—who or what is he (she, it, they)?  On the seventh day, as God “rests,” we should take the opportunity to turn away from what he made and contemplate Him.

Because he is not really resting, or not in the sense of kicking back in a hammock with a tall one.  Perhaps he is pausing, as he asks us to do on the seventh day.

Classic Christian doctrine teaches that God is three persons in one being.  Jews and cults deny it, agnostics ignore it, atheists dismiss it, and even some Christians brush it aside as irrelevant or impossible, or just not very interesting.  An orthodox church will include Trinitarian teaching in its syllabus, especially in relation to how God works in salvation (the Father wills it, the Son accomplishes it, the Holy Spirit applies it).  Which of course is excellent.  But the application of this doctrine extends far beyond salvation.  I suspect the doctrine of the Trinity is the key to the nature of personhood, thought, creativity, knowledge, and reality itself.

I am here.  You are there.  We are located somewhere on a planet, the planet in a solar system, the solar system in a universe.  This is evident, but how did it happen?  If it’s created—which mainstream science denies but almost everyone believes—what sort of being created it?  Systems and dogmas and modern-day mashups claim to have the answer, while agnostics claim there is no answer.  But boiled down to their essence, we are left with only three possibilities.*

1. Monism: God is everything, and everything is God.

Finally we’re at rest. But . . . what are we?

In the beginning, out of Himself, God said—no wait, God didn’t say anything, and in fact it’s meaningless to speak of God as himself because “everything” can’t be a gender or singular personality.  In the beginning there just Is, and all that arises from That Which Is—all landscapes and species, all molecular arrangements—are manifestations of the One.  And ultimately all distinctiveness is an illusion, because All is One.  That leaf, that raindrop, that butterfly is of the same Oneness as you, and their goal is the same as yours: to get back to perfect unity where there are no distinctions.

When pain intrudes, human consciousness recoils; where can it find relief?  Where there are no distinctions there is no strife, no suffering, no pain.  No gain either, because the concept of value disappears.  No part of Oneness is more necessary or precious than any other: “part” is itself an illusion, for remember, All is One.  Which means there can be no loss, because there is, ultimately, nothing to lose.  And the soul is at rest, if it’s anything that can be called a soul.

Monism seeks peace at any price, and the price is human personality.

That’s one problem with monism—we can’t keep from behaving as though we had a personality, even if we think it’s only temporary.  The other problem is that Oneness cannot create; it can only differentiate.  All distinctions that we perceive are a result of maya, or illusion.  Maya is a bad dream from which all humanity will awake, eventually, to the perfect Oneness where

Nothing.  Ever.  Happens.

If the toothache is bad enough, we would welcome perfect Oneness (i.e., oblivion).  Otherwise, particulars have a way of intruding.

2. Dualism: God is a continual dynamic between opposites (unless he taking one side or the other).

In the beginning was pure energy, which split itself in two.  And now we’re getting some action: the universe is locked in perpetual struggle of yin and yang, light and dark, and its goal is to achieve harmony or balance between them.  The object of life is struggle.

Pythagoras was a fan, and perhaps the first to clearly articulate a dualistic system.  Opposites fuel the

If we ever come to terms . . . no more movies!

cosmos, beginning with the primary dichotomy of limited/unlimited.  Nine more pairs of opposites, added to the first, summed up to a perfect Ten: odd/even, one/many, left/right, male/female; rest/motion, straight/curved, light/dark, good/bad, square/round.  Farther east, Zoroastrianism and Taoism came to the same conclusion: reconciling yin and yang is the aim of life and human history.

Georg Friedrich Hegel’s famous “system” is the soul of dualism.  Hegel saw human history, both global and individual, as a clash between duty and self-interest, a perpetual struggle between truth and falsehood, good and evil.  As a culture moves forward in time it develops a thesis–an overarching principle of how the world works (for example, Might Makes Right).  A competing idea develops, usually within that same culture: the antithesis (such as Right Serves Might).  Variations of these themes will appear also, but the two main ideas will go at it hammer and tongs, trading taunts and punches and sometimes bullets, until the society achieves some sort of synthesis between the two.  This will have to sort itself out before it acquires a label (Might Serves Right unless No One is Looking) and becomes an operating principle, which may enjoy a brief heyday at the top before the antithesis develops and we start the whole process again.

Heraclitus would be proud, because the river of time is continually in flux.  His theory of perpetual change is vindicated . . . except when (if) we achieve perfect balance, at which distinctions collapse and labels become meaningless.  Parmenides smugly smiles and the rest of us (if we’re conscious at all) ask ourselves (if there’s anyone left to ask), what that sound and fury was all about.  But if, on the other hand, perfect balance is beyond our grasp, we may as well sit back and enjoy the ride.  Rest is not happening.  Thing and not-thing, quality and anti-quality are locked in continual struggle, not eventual resolution.  It moves, but it’s not going anywhere.

3. Trinitarianism: God alone is God, and God is not alone.

In the beginning God spoke and acted and everything that is came to be.  Think about that.  I just wrote that sentence: fourteen words, arranged in a grammatical order that makes sense—not just to me, but to you.  You may not agree with the idea expressed in the sentence, but you understand the idea.  A triangular process was just completed: the words I wrote, the words you read, and the understanding that now exists between us.  Without all three sides of that thought, there is no communication.

Now consider—

The Creator conceives an idea: “Let there be.”

The idea takes on Form and substance: “And it was so.”

That form and substance provokes a Response: “And God saw that it was good.”

Without a creator who is diversity-in-unity, there is no creation.  Monism can make no distinctions; all it can say is I = Everything.  But nothing truly acts, and therefore nothing reacts.  All exists to be eventually distilled into Oneness—or, if you like, pure Noun.

Dualism is all Verb: act, react, theorize, anti-theorize, do, undo.  It’s dramatic and exciting and looks great on a movie screen.  But it makes no provision for how it came to be, and its logical end is oblivion.

The Trinitarian God is neither noun nor verb; if we’re speaking in grammatical terms, he is a sentence.  He even expresses himself as a sentence: I am.  In him is the thought, and the meaning of the thought, and the shared understanding between the thinker and the meaner.

We’re looking at the only kind of Creator who could be in creation without being creation—that is, the only kind who can actually create.  Instead of somehow diversifying what he already is or manipulating what is already there, the three-personal God has started a conversation within himself (“Let us . . .”) in which thought and meaning produces material reality.  He has established, from the ground up, all that is necessary for anything in the material universe to exist: space and time, stability and change, growth and proliferation, forward motion and pause.  In biblical terms, he has built his temple.

On the seventh day, he enters it.

If you missed earlier episodes of this series, here’s Creation, Day One: Where Does Darkness Come From?

____________________________________________

1. Do a little research into Zen Buddhism and think through an imaginary dialogue about creation and where it came from.  Or better yet, have such a dialogue with a Zen Buddhist.  Or, if you happen to be a Zen Buddhist, write it.

2. How do popular stories and superhero legends like Star Wars, The Avengers, Percy Jackson and the Olympians, etc., reflect dualism?  How about the Babylon creation story?

*Thanks for the following to Ellis Potter’s 3 Theories of Everything.

 

Posted on

Creation, Day Six: Consciousness

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, livestock and creeping things and beats of the earth according to their kinds.”  And it was so.  And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind.  And God saw that it was good.

Part One: the Buck Stops – Here.  (With a nod to the opening scene of The Last of the Mohicans, 1992)

Anticipated by a full orchestra fanfare, the scene opens on a breathtaking view of mountain ridges, receding in folds of blue.  Our view gradually closes in on a thick hillside forest, intensely green and dappled with sunlight.  The music narrows and intensifies; a thrumming of low strings hints at little lives spinning out beneath our notice.  Spiders swing out on barely visible threads; flies perch and swipe their robotic heads with robotic forelimbs; ladybugs crawl on their pencil-stroke legs; worms chomp mindlessly through loamy soil.

The music picks up speed.  A lolloping squirrel pauses, sits upright, beady eyes glistening, ears pricked.  A few yards away, a nose-twitching rabbit does the same.  Something rides the wind—speed, threat, fear, haste, heart, pant, pain–

Rabbit and squirrel take to all fours and dart away as it crashes on them, with heaving dun-colored sides and sharp, precise hooves.  Even in his present extremity, he is magnificent: a full-grown buck crowned with antlers that rattle overhead branches as he leaps over a log across his path.  One eye flashes, wide with terror.  The forest swallows him up again, and after the excited whisper of leaves has faded there is no sign he was even there.  Except for a thin red line, spooling out like a thread.  And if we listen closely, a pounding of footsteps, a steady two-beat rhythm unlike the syncopated clatter of four hooves on the packed ground.  Listen: it’s coming closer, closer, closer . . .

Then God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . .

 

A two-footed creature, light and swift, leaps into view.  We in the audience feel a little jolt, like Robinson Crusoe stranded on his island, coming upon a human footprint.  The man belongs in this woodland scene, but he is not wholly of it.  He is as graceful in his way as the buck, but something sets him apart: purpose.

He is not motivated by instinct, much less by blind, unrefined terror.  He is not running for his life, or even (not entirely) for his needs.  The buck (once captured) will supply food, clothing, and shelter, but also challenge, drama, joy, and poetic imagery.

His body is covered with a long shirt and leather leggings that provide some protection from stabs and thorns, but the feathers braided into his hair serve no useful purpose, nor the beads jumping against his chest.  In one hand he clutches a rifle.  The rifle is a manufactured item, with an iron-forged barrel and an oak-carved stock, loaded with a lead ball he made himself.  There was another ball, now spent in the hedge after grazing the buck’s.  On long strides, the man bounds across our field of vision.  Still trembling with that first start of recognition at the sight of his face, we follow.

Another figure in homespun and buckskin flickers through the brush on the overlooking ridge.  From below, a third is working his way up.  They are converging on their prey, closing in on the last stand.

It’s not far.  The buck stops in a grassy clearing, as though he instinctively knows his time is up.  His grating breath echoes harshly in the glade.

Boom!

A second lead ball burrows into his neck and he obediently drops.

The man and his companions approach confidently but respectfully.  They greet the dead animal as their brother and thank him for providing for their needs.  With swift, practiced movements, they gut the buck and truss his lifeless body on a pole.  They are exercising dominion, as all human societies have done for all time.  The killing is about survival, but the blessing is about ceremony and commemoration, and an unspoken need to shape experience.

Of course it’s a shame that the beautiful buck had to die in the first place.  But that’s getting ahead of the story.

___________________________________________

Part Two: Something to Think about—and Someone to Think

By the end of Genesis 1 the earth is bubbling with plant life and creature life—so why do we encounter this puzzling passage in Genesis 2?

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and watering the whole face of the ground—then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (vss. 5-7)

Higher critics call Genesis 2 an “alternate” account from a different Jewish tradition, and I’m not here to argue.  It’s the same story, but we seem to be coming at it from a different angle: chapter 1 is the summary view, an answer to the philosophical question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”  And the scientific question, “Where did it all come from?”  Chapter 2 may be intended as an answer to the ontological question, “What does it mean for anything to ‘be’?” From the image of a world already wildly proliferating, the scene is suddenly, oddly barren.  No bush, no small plants, only a desert-y stretch of ground.  “In the land,” some commentators say, probably refers not to the whole earth, but to the selected piece of earth where God plans his final act of creation.  With startling particularity, we’re told where it is, or at least what is nearby: the River Euphrates, which can still be located on a map under the same name.

Imagine God scraping aside the vegetation, brushing away the debris, rubbing his hands together, flexing his metaphorical fingers, bending down.  All other animals he “created” (Gen. 1:21, 25, 27).  Man, he “forms.”  It’s a particular act from a particular medium, the “dust of the ground.”

Why not mud, or clay?  Every child knows that dust doesn’t stick.

The Hebrew word (apar) is not one of those flexible terms interchangeable with “mud” or “clay.”  Apar is

(detail of “Ex nihilo” sculpture by Frederick Hart)

a powdery substance that can be flung in the air to express disapproval (Luke 23:21) or paired with ashes to accompany deep sorrow or repentance (Job 42:6).  It doesn’t stick together.  Nevertheless God “forms” something of it, the first time that particular verb is used in the creation account.  It implies a personal connection, a hands-on, deliberative, intentional, well-thought-out and considered act.  Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . .

Watch this: the outward image takes shape—a head and a trunk, two arms and two legs, similar in many ways to the other mammals now roaming the earth, and yet strikingly different.  No one, least of all the beasts themselves, would mistake him for a beast.  The Divine Holiness has planned this form down to the last brain cell.

Perhaps he contemplates it for a moment, this ultimate creation, the habitation of his image visible for the first time in a body.  This is revolutionary: spirit and flesh are about to be fused in awareness, and that which eats and digests and defecates and mates and sires and bears will plant one foot in the infinite.  God himself, by his predetermined will and focused energy and infinite power, holds the particles of this quintessence of dust* together.  He bends down and breathes into it,

and man became a living soul.**

The soul with the breath of God in it can never die.  And the Immortal Breath has committed himself to human history with a kiss.

And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the East, and there he put the man he had formed.  (Gen. 2:8)

“Adam, arise.  Come with me.”

The man pulls himself to his feet in a graceful, coordinated motion of golden limbs.  He understands at once, he loves immediately.  He walks across the bare land in a melting sunrise; for the first time ever, the image of God casts a long shadow.  The sweetness of water meets his nostrils and the chirp of birdsong reaches his ears long before the green of the garden brims on the horizon.  As he approaches, leaves rattle like tambourines, butterflies startle their wings and prowling cats prick their ears and tilt their exotic faces.  The garden buzzes with a rumor of the king’s approach.  When he enters, the entire animal assembly is waiting for him, called together by the same voice that brought them into being.

Now, says the Lord: What are you going to call them?

  1. If it’s warm enough, find a patch of ground outside and lay on it.  Try to overcome your scruples and forgo the blanket; nothing between you and the bare ground.  Spread your fingers and flatten as much of your body as possible.  Imagine the great round ball of the earth in all its physicality, and try to feel yourself as one with it skin, bones, vital organs, every part of you.  Recall that one day (if the Lord tarries) your body will be one with it, and take a few deep breaths.  Do you feel infinite?  Why?
  2. Spend some time contemplating the family pet, or the birds gathered around your feeder.  Look into their eyes, if you can.  How do you feel kinship?  How do you feel alienation?
  3. Write a list of the frustrations you have with your body.  Then make a list of the things your body can do.  Which list is longer?
  4. Go people-watching in a local park or mall.  Imagine them all—young and old, fat or thin, lively or weary—as immortal souls that will never die.  How does this change your view of them?

_________________________________________________

*Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2, “What a piece of work is man” speech.  In medieval thought, “dust” was the fifth element, after earth, water, air, and fire: the mysterious, invisible substance out of which God created life.

** KJV.  Most modern translations render this phrase as “and man became a living creature,” or “living being.”  I’m sure that’s closer to the Hebrew meaning, but from the context it’s clear that this living creature is distinct from all the others, so I prefer the older translation here.

Next up: God “rests.”  Did anything happen on Day Seven?  More than you know . . .

Posted on

Can We Talk? Janie and Charlotte on Assimilation and Shared Values

Janie and Charlotte, good friends from college who have gone their separate ways politically, try to be reasonable about some hot-button issues.  We’ve talked about religious freedom, the proper role of government, and state-supported health care.  Most recently the topic was the wide-open one of immigration, which led to a slight narrowing of focus, as follows:

Janie: In our last conversation, we left off with a question from you: “Why does diversity cause such fear and anger in people? And how is unity possible when there is a fundamental rejection of our inherent diversity?”  We also agreed to look further into a widely-discussed Atlantic article by Peter Beinart: “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration.”

To address your first question: Diversity causes fear and anger in some people regardless.  I do believe that the majority of Americans, both conservative and liberal, have no problem with diverse groups who come to America wishing to be Americans.  It’s true that most of us are more comfortable hanging out with people who are like us, with common interests and goals, but that’s only human.  By and large Americans take a live-and-let-live approach to other cultures as long as we perceive no threat.  Most of us, I think, even get a little misty-eyed when a naturalization ceremony is televised, when new citizens of every shade and background express their joy at becoming part of this nation.

As for the second question, I’m not sure about your premises.  I read your blog about Unity in Diversity and found some of it puzzling.  You say, “Our unity has always, will always arrive out of our shared values and our common dreams: liberty and justice for all . . .  a union the Founders conceived in the midst of the creative diversity of their day and . . . still being perfected here in the ethnic, religious, and intellectual diversity of our own day.”  The stated shared values of the founders were “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but I would say liberty was the chief value that pulled all thirteen colonies together.  That was in opposition of many of their own citizens who didn’t see the need to separate from the mother country.  The “creative diversity” you mention wasn’t nearly what it is today—almost all the colonists were white, Christian (by identity if not practice), and of European descent.  Their very real regional diversity was not a source of strength—it was a serious weakness that tore the nation apart in a mere fourscore and four years.

Over the last thirty years or so I’ve been hearing that American strength lies in its diversity.  But that makes no sense on the face of it; strength lies in unity.  Diversity is great for expanding our little worlds, learning generosity and humility, and trying lots of delicious new recipes!  But diversity in itself is not strength.  We are stronger when can come together in spite of our diversity, not because of it, and that means discovering our shared values and being willing to defend them.

That’s what makes some of us nervous.  As Beinart says near the end of his article, “Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity.  They’re less sure that liberals celebrate unity.”  What are those shared values, exactly?  What do we have to fear from immigrants and even native-born citizens who regard most of American history as a chronicle of injustice?  How should we feel about undocumented immigrants waving Mexican flags at protest rallies?  What about groups like LaRaza and the New Black Panthers, who don’t appear to have any interest in unity?

You asked about assimilation.  To me, that does not mean giving up your culture, your special holidays and observances, or even your language.  It does mean accepting the Constitution as the law of this land, obeying the laws, learning English (or at least encouraging your children to learn it), and pledging allegiance to the flag.  What about you?

Simple, no? Well, no.

 

Charlotte: I said at the outset of these conversations that I believe you and I can find much to agree on and I think we are finding some of that agreement here. For example, I can certainly agree with your description of assimilation above and I appreciate that you don’t think assimilation demands giving up one’s culture. Of course all people who live here should accept and obey the laws. But I have to wonder if your statement implies that immigrants and newcomers disrespect and disobey laws more than natives do. You said before:

What some fear…is allowing in more immigrants, “legal” and not so much, who do not subscribe to American ideas and want to change it to something else. Or they’re coming for welfare benefits or criminal activity or outright subversion. These are the minority, I know, but there are significant numbers to cause concern.

Where is this coming from, this conviction that there are “significant numbers” of immigrants who do not subscribe to American ideas and what to change it to something else? I know it’s out there; I see it too. But I don’t believe it’s nearly as real as many Conservatives think it is.

Stereotyping is rampant and over the top these days: Hispanics are all illegal and here to steal your jobs and rape your daughters. Muslims are all terrorists and secretly plotting to subvert the Constitution into sharia law. A LOT of people actually believe this stuff! How do we combat such harmful prejudices?

You say you don’t understand the premise of this question of mine: “How is unity possible when there is a fundamental rejection of our inherent diversity?” Then you quote from my blog and say some things there “puzzle” you. I am puzzled why you are puzzled; it seems pretty straightforward to me. I have been a huge advocate for unity for years and I thought my blog portrayed that passion.

Old and Young. Rich and Poor. Gay and Straight. Religious and Humanist. Black and White and Brown. E pluribus unum. From many, one.

When we move out of our uniform, homogeneous tribes and recognize the shared humanity inherent within our wide-ranging diversity, that’s when we will discover a glimpse of a true unity that is far better than any sort of uniformity.

So I am agreeing with you that affirming our shared humanity and our common goals is an important source of our unity. See my blog post, “The Problem with Unity Is Uniformity.”

But then again, I have had experience talking to people who seem to believe even naming our differences is divisive. I’ve heard people say they are “color-blind” and they only see how we are alike. But that’s just not possible. We ARE different. Our diversity is a fact. And honoring each person’s uniqueness honors their humanity.

I do believe that both our variety AND our commonality provide strength for America. Tapping into people’s different perspectives, abilities, experiences, insights and then crafting all that varied wisdom into approaches that help us attain our common goals is what this nation has done again and again. Our variety gives us a broader base of resources. If my husband and I are unified in our desire to buy something we want but really can’t afford, then that unity is no strength. On the other hand, if one of us says: “Wait. Let’s look at if from another perspective,” then it’s our differences that make us stronger.

Our disagreement here is slight. (I would not say our strength is “in spite of our diversity.” That’s too negative a phrase.) But we both make the point that our strength lies in coming together from our diversity into unity. (But not uniformity, as I say in my blog.)

Here is a moving essay from Parker Palmer, wise Quaker. He too celebrates the strength of our American diversity and understands its valuable contributions to our efforts for unity.

I’m arguing from my perspective on the Left and I asked an honest question about “Why does diversity cause such fear and anger in some people” from the Right. And I have to say that all my reading and pondering and conversing brings me to this conclusion: White Christian America is being displaced and diluted and I believe much of the anxiety we see has to do with that loss of power and privilege. When we look closely, it’s pretty obvious that the immigration debate is primarily about Brown people.

Back to the Peter Beinart article in The Atlantic. He says this:

Studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam…suggest that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.

Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age…

This echoes my own diagnosis. And it repeats my question: why does greater diversity reduce trust and cooperation? Are we doomed to such a small practice of our shared humanity? Or can Conservatives and Liberals find our common ground and widen it into a great space?

Janie: Okay, I’ve been thinking about this.  I do believe conservatives and liberals need to find common ground in order to make policy, but I’m afraid “shared humanity” is so broad as to be unworkable.  Let me offer two examples.

In 1867 Karl Marx published Das Kapital.  By the end of the decade hundreds of Eastern European immigrants to America were committed socialists.  The years between 1878 and 1898 saw bloodiest labor wars the USA has ever experienced.  There were lots of reasons for this, not just immigrants with bad ideas.  But in most of those riots and shootouts, eastern Europeans were prominent players.  There were some positive effects in focusing attention on severe labor abuses and gradually bringing change; I suppose you could say diversity helped bring about eventual unity.  But it was at a great cost over an issue that could have been handled other ways, and made socialism seem like a viable alternative for the US, at least for some.  I don’t want to debate the virtues of socialism just now (!), only to say that, in my opinion at least, socialism as a system is not compatible with the nation that was founded in 1776.

Another system incompatible with the US, and with the western tradition generally, is Sharia Law.  I have no idea how widespread the notion of imposing Sharia Law in this country might be.  In some areas of high Muslim concentration, such as Dearborn and Detroit, judges are trying to figure out how to balance practices connected with Sharia (such as female genital mutilation) against American civil law.  But the huge influx of Muslim immigrants is becoming a significant problem in Europe.  A couple of weeks ago I came across this article with a scary title:  “I’ve Worked  with Refugees for Decades.  Europe’s Afghan Crime Wave is Staggering.”  The point is not that Muslims should be barred from safe havens in Europe, but that certain Muslims who subscribe to a radical form of Islam (which includes imposing Sharia Law) are wreaking havoc by their utter contempt for Western standards.

Could that happen here?  The US is very different from Europe, culturally and geographically, so I don’t know.  But I think that is what some are afraid of, and an example of what I meant by certain  immigrants wanting to make this country into something else.  What are we willing to allow?  What are we prepared to defend?  What principles of this nation must be protected at all cost, and (this is crucial) what policies will help protect them?  “Liberty and justice for all” is not a policy; it’s an ideal.  As we encountered before in our debates about health care:  Nobody is arguing about the ideal, but how do we institute these noble goals without bankrupting ourselves or committing suicide?  More to the case, what policies do we need to continue as a welcoming nation committed to liberty, free speech, and opportunity?

Charlotte: A lot of my liberal friends and I wonder if the agenda of far right white Christians is our own homegrown version of a kind of “sharia law.” I have to say some of the proposed policies of my Texas legislators are “alarming” and “wreaking havoc” in our communities. Here’s an article for you to consider with a fair number of comments that voice some of our anxieties. https://www.facebook.com/coffeeparty/posts/10156438091398327

How bout I read your article and do some homework so I can respond to your concerns and you read my and tell me how you would help allay my fears? Sounds like another challenging topic for our next conversation. I’ll start.

Janie: You’re on!

Posted on

Let Them Come: Teaching Children to Pray

Prayer is not a part of Christian life.  It is Christian life.  It’s what your conversion was about: union with Christ.  It’s your side of the conversation, your participation in the divine nature (II Peter 1:4).  And so many of us suck at it.

That’s the problem most of us have in teaching our children to pray.  But it’s no excuse—we teach children every day those things we may not be so good at ourselves: be patient, don’t yell, say you’re sorry (and mean it).  We don’t want to hinder these little ones from coming to Christ.  So, when thinking about how to teach them to come to him through prayer, we should first think about what hinders us?  Some possibilities:

  • Bullet-point lists (excuse the self-referential irony).  “Five tips for improving your devotional life.”  “Top ten secrets of success from the experts.”  “Six ways from Sunday.”  Goal-oriented people can’t resist a list, but their neatly-numerated charm is deceptive.  If a human being were a collection of parts that could just be oiled up occasionally we’d be easy to operate, but we’re no more likely to put a numerated tip into practice than a well-spoken word from mom or an insight from C. S. Lewis.
  • The automated head-tip.  If you were brought up in a Christian home you should be familiar with the posture your body assumes at the words, “Let us pray.”  We’re accustomed to bowing heads and closing eyes at meals, bedtime, before the sermon, after the sermon, all during communion.  This is not to be despised, but it creates a ritualized fog around something that should also be personal and intimate, and the longer we’ve been in church the more automated our prayer life can get.  When your head bows, does your mind go on auto-prayer?
  • Our Martha mode.  We’re “anxious and troubled about many things” (Luke 10:41), including how to pray.  Sometimes the prayer guides and books make us even more anxious, because the suggestions don’t seem to “work,” or what helps for a while doesn’t hold up.  The Lord’s gentle reminder about “the better part” doesn’t always help either—easy for him to say!
  • Endless distraction.  I wonder if it was easier for the saints of old to pray when their lives weren’t so crowded with entertainment, shopping lists, stuff to buy and stuff to get rid of, places to go, errands to remember—they pop up in our prayers like ads on a website.  (And if those annoy us, just imagine how God feels about it!)
  • This weird, other-worldly relationship.  You’ve heard the comparisons: if you had an appointment with the President of the United States, or even the president of the local PTA, you would have something ready to say and the proper attitude with which to say it.  But if you were married to the POTUS, or the boss of the PTA was your mom, every encounter would be ad lib and subject to the emotions of the moment.  What we have with God is intimate transcendence, invisible presence, everyday awesomeness . . . come up with your own oxymoron, and you probably wouldn’t be too far from the truth.  But then, the whole Christian faith is stuffed with these alarming juxtapositions (that we could not have made up ourselves).
  • Lack of faith that God is really there and really listening.  Is that really what it comes down to?

The good news is that grownups and children are on this journey together.  We grownups actually never stop being children in the Kingdom of Heaven, and having actual children in the house gives us a chance to revisit those lessons we didn’t fully learn the first time.

My main suggestion, for lack of anything wiser, is to become just a little more intentional about prayer as the kids grow up.  Bullet-point list coming up!  Some of these ideas may help; if not, they may be useful as a stepping stone to other ideas for weaving prayer, or an attitude of prayer, into the hours as they pass.

  • The old ACTS formula—prayer consisting of four elements of Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication—makes a helpful outline for instruction.  At prayer times (family devotionals, bedtime, grace at meals), you might emphasize one or two of these (not all four): What can we praise God for today?  What should you ask forgiveness for?   Is there anyone we can ask God to help?
  • Speaking of bedtime prayers, this is a great time to review the day.  Talk about things that might be troubling them or things they might be especially happy about.  Share things you’re thankful about, discuss ways God can help with problems, probe for faults that need to be forgiven, etc.  These topics may pop up naturally at the end of an outstanding or traumatic day, but if it’s just ordinary, ask a leading question or two to draw out prayer material: What was your favorite part of today? What would you like to do tomorrow? Who do you know that needs help?  Keep these conversations brief, unless some issue comes up that needs to be talked out.
  • If you have more than two children, spending time with each at bedtime may not be possible.  That’s okay; just try to arrange time for an evening chat twice a week, or every other day.  If something comes up with a particular child, the schedule may have to be rearranged, but flexibility is a skill worth learning.
  • Remember Jesus.  If you’ve ever read Mere Christianity, you may remember Lewis’s discussion of prayer as a kind of trinitarian group project.  When we pray, it’s the Holy Spirit within prompting us, God the Father before us, and Jesus beside us.  I’ve drawn great comfort from two verses about Christ’s intercession: “Who is there to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died and was raised and is now at the right hand of God interceding for us” (Rom. 8:34).  Also Hebrews 7:25: “Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”   These passages would be good to memorize, and frequently thank Jesus for being there “Before the Throne of God Above” for us.
  • In times of crisis, don’t pray alone!  When appropriate, include the kids in lifting up Grandma’s cancer diagnosis, Dad’s unemployment, big brother’s emergency appendectomy.  Use your judgment about this, though.  Don’t bring the kids alongside your marriage problems (they need Mom and Dad to at least appear unified) or burden them with too much trauma.  Just show them that you, too, carry burdens that Jesus is willing to share.
  • Speaking of crisis, let prayer come naturally when you’re in a jam.  Several years ago, during a car trip from Texas to Missouri, the alternator in our old station wagon went out.  I didn’t notice the battery light, so we just ran it out until the vehicle simply stopped, giving me just enough time to pull over.  Since my husband wasn’t along I was the only responsible adult, and my first impulse was blind panic (What do I do???).  But the Holy Spirit prompted me to say, “We’re going to pray about this.”  So I did, and within a minute after Amen a highway patrol car pulled up behind us.  (My sister has a similar story about getting hopelessly lost in New York City.)  Such a prompt reply is not necessarily going to happen every time, but pray anyway, and God will take care of the rest.
  • Make prayer a conversation.  Even in informal settings, we tend to take turns, keep our heads bowed (furtively peeking when someone gets up), and if someone starts her turn the same time we do it’s so embarrassing.  No one conducts conversations this way, unless it’s by the aid of a shaman-esque talking stick or mic.   A group free-for-all wouldn’t work, but if it’s just you and Molly and Dan (for instance), you shouldn’t be afraid to ask a question in the midst of a prayer (“Who was that lady you mentioned?”) or add a coda (“And thanks for Molly’s first time on the big slide—that was fun!”).  You may not even feel the need to bow your heads: hold hands and look up occasionally, or sing a short praise chorus or Psalm.  (And singing during prayers is perfectly fine!)
  • If you have family devotionals, you might do occasional popcorn prayers, where you ask each child (and include Mom and Dad) to make a specific petition, offer a particular praise, thank God for something that happened during the day that made you happy, etc.  You might even put slips of paper in a jar for each family member to draw out.  That’s their prayer “assignment” for the evening.  And it’s okay to swap.
  • If we’re in too much of a hurry to get to petitions, praising gets neglected.  Cultivate a habit of praise during the day: if you hear a beautiful piece of music, enjoy a clear blue sky and a fresh breeze, witness a perfect figure-skating maneuver or home run, comment on it, and remember to praise God for it during prayer time.  It’s fine, of course, to praise God for it in the moment, as long as the praise sounds natural and not calculated.

As I hope you can tell, all this is more attitude than checklist, habits of thought before action.  I can’t tell you or your kids how to pray.  Only God can do that—keep asking him.

(This post is a continuation of “Hinder Them Not“)

Posted on

Creation, Day Five: Being and Soaring

And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.  So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.  And God saw that it was good.  And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”  And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

Why did the philosopher cross the river?

Time: ca 500 B.C.

Place: a river somewhere in neutral territory

Characters: The philosopher HERACLITUS* and his followers, a noisy, busy band of clowns, and the rival philosopher PARMENIDES** and his followers, a staid, stately group of stiffs, converge on opposite sides of the river.

HERACLITUS.  Ah!  Parmenides of Elea.  We meet at last!

PARMENIDES.  Heraclitus of Ephesus, greeting!  Our encounter was in the stars and thus there is a sense in which we have always met.

CLOWNS (ad lib).  Huh??  What’d he say?  What the–!

H. thought you might say that. But even as you speak, time passes, and the Parmenides I now behold is not the same man who spoke moments ago.

STIFFS.  (all with question marks over their heads and puzzled expressions)

P.  Nice try, Heraclitus. But you and I both know you’re just being cute.  The world could not possibly operate on your principle.

H.  Au contraire, Parmenides! I present to you the evidence.  Observe this river.

The dueling duo as imagined by Raphael. In real life, they probably never met.

CLOWNS comically observe with popping eyes.

H.  I place my foot in, like so—

extends foot into water

H. And now I withdraw my foot . . . .

The foot comes up, dripping.

H. And when I do, it is no longer the same river, because all the water that first embraced my foot is past, never to return. Ergo: you cannot step in the same river twice!

CLOWNS cheer, turn cartwheels, slap high fives, etc.

P.  (arms folded, surrounded by followers who do the same) That’s ridiculous.

H.  I beg to differ, esteemed sage! We cannot escape the stream of time.  Everything that is, is in a state of flux—you, me, this river, this tree.  Everything is on its way to becoming something else.

P.  Something else? Does that mean you are only Heraclitus temporarily?  Will I one day have the pleasure of meeting a Demetrius or Sophocles instead of you?

H.  Well . . .

P.  Will this river cease to be a river?

H.  Uh . . .

P.  Will this tree become something other than a tree?

H.  No, but—

P.  Will your nose migrate to another position on your face, or become an eye, or a mouth?

H.  Don’t be silly.

P.  Then how can you call anything by its name, other than by reason of its being, unchangeably, what it is?

STIFFS.  (in unison, uniformly pleased)  Bravo, Master.

H.  (grabbing a clown baby from among his followers) Remember when you were this age, Parmenides?  Would your followers have recognized you?

P.  That’s not fair . . . .

H.  And when you’re old and gray and can’t remember where you put your stylus, will they still be around?

P.  Let’s not get personal. Just tell me what matters most: being, or becoming?

H.  Without becoming there’s nothing to be!

P.  Without being there’s nothing to become!

H.  So it seems we’re at the same place we started—

H and P. (together)  IMPASSE!

______________________________________________

The argument between Parmenides and Heraclitus is still going on.  It’s a fundamental question—if not the fundamental question—of both philosophy and science.  Is life a matter of being or becoming?  Is reality best described as particles, or process?  If “life is but a brief candle” (Macbeth, Act V, Scene 5) that burns brightly for a relative second of time and then disappears in a trail of smoke, what was that all about?

Something tells us there’s more to life than movement and cessation.  If selfhood means anything, there must be an essential self, a being that is immutably Ben or Asaph or Samarra, who will somehow survive its death and live on in some fashion (He has also planted eternity in the heart of man, Ecclesiastes 3:11).  We resist growing older, continually express surprise at how fast babies develop and kids lunge from childhood to adolescence, even though it literally is the most natural thing in the world.  We accept that newborn Sarah is the same as septuagenarian Sarah, but it just doesn’t seem right.

Yet who would live forever, unchanged?  In Tuck Everlasting, by Natalie Babbitt, a family drinks from a secret spring whose water keeps them from ever growing older.  The main character, a ten-year-old girl, is offered some of that same water but eventually refuses it.  As anyone should.  As frightening as our forward motion through time, feeling sometimes as rudderless as Noah in his ark, we wouldn’t have it any other way.  Change is where things happen.

But not just for the sake of happening.  During my teen years the daytime soap opera Dark Shadows, with its two romantic leads Barnabas and Quentin Collins, was all the rage.  Barnabas was immortal and had a propensity for biting lush young females on the neck.  Quentin had an unsettling habit of growing facial hair and sharp teeth during the full moon.  Every day’s episode would end on a typical cliffhanger, ensuring the audience would be back the next day even if they had to cancel a dentist appointment or rearrange their shopping schedule (no TiVo or cable then).  One summer I watched an episode to see what all the excitement was about, then watched another, and another, and found myself hooked.

Besides paranormal sexiness, change was the attraction, as it is for every soap.  Every single day brought new plot developments and twists and secondary characters tracing their arc across umpteen episodes.  Would she, won’t he, could she, will he—and suddenly I realized that the show had no being, only becoming.  Barnabas’ story would never resolve; nor Quentin’s.  Just endless cycles until, like me, everybody got fed up.  Dark Shadows was a smashing success for about two years.  When the novelty wore off the mechanics of change-for-the-sake of-change were exposed for all to see.  Other soaps, like Days of Our Lives and General Hospital ran on the same principle, but doctors and rakes and gamblers and vamps have more than one trick up their sleeves, and could keep an audience guessing longer than vampires and werewolves.

That’s the problem with Heraclitus.  Change for the sake of change ultimately satisfies no one.

Everybody wants to be somebody, and I don’t mean Somebody with a capital S.  We simply want to know ourselves.  Project yourself back to high school—or worse, junior high—and recall how desperate you were to know how to act.  “Just be yourself,” the grownups said.  But the swift changes of adolescence had swept you away from who you were.  Everybody was looking sideways at the cool kids, trying to pick up cues.  Did you just give up and set out to be a nonconformist, only to find you didn’t have the courage for it, and maybe that wasn’t really you either?

But Parmenides has his problems too.  Change can come too hard and fast, but what if it never came at all?  The weightlessness of adolescence terrifies, but it also exhilarates.

Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth

And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;

Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth

Of sun-split couds and done a thousand things

You have not dreamed of . . . .           

(John Magee, “High Flight,” 1941)

Any history of human flight begins with the dreamers who launched themselves from cliffs, flapping madly their homemade wings constructed of canvas and balsa wood.  Except for fulsome phrases about “man’s longings to soar,” these jokey introductions to human flight hardly ever pause to wonder why an otherwise sensible human being would feel compelled to leap out into empty space.  Our body structure, weight and substance are not in any way adaptable to larking about in the sky.  Nothing could be more obvious, and there’s plenty to do on land, so why even think about it?  Why dream about it, as many of us do?  “I dreamed I was flying,” we say, and the implication is almost always good.  We love those dreams.  What is the source of this deep-rooted envy of our fellow creatures who can simply lift their wings and launch into three-dimensional movement?

Swimming is the closest we can manage under our own power, but only the best swimmers experience it, and for only as long as their breath holds out.  If I could choose an animal to be for a while, my choice would hover between an otter and a whale.  Otters have more fun, but they are subject to being killed and eaten by predators.  Nobody bothers a whale (except of course for humans, but we can leave them out of the equation for now).  And they seem to have their own kind of fun, as I gather from videos of them launching their huge bodies out of the sea to kiss the air in a shower of sunlit drops.  Wouldn’t that be the life—no predators, no food shortages, full rein of the boundless ocean, living large while propelled solemnly about on massive flutes.

Air and water—home of three-dimensional movement, of effortless fight and endless wave, darting and dodging, soaring and diving, never at rest.  And never—to speak figuratively—in the same place twice.  Birds build their nests and salmon return to their spawning beds, but their symbolic habitat is the never-ending Now, where no creature plants a foot or fin.

We need both: we need the solid ground, where we can build and plant.  But our hearts yearn for the waters and the air, for “High Flight” and trackless sea:

I must go down to the sea again; to the lonely sea and sky

and all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by.

(John Masefield, “Sea Fever”)

To be fully ourselves, we need to venture out in unexplored territories and uncertain futures.  We need to grow and change: a human who doesn’t grow and change may have more qualities in common with an amoeba.

But also, to be fully ourselves, we need to be . . . ourselves.

On Day Five, God creates inhabitants for the depthless sea and the lofty sky.  Their scales flash in the sunlit water; their feathers strain light as they lift for flight.  Though they live measured lives, they cannot measure.  Birds don’t build birdhouses; whales don’t plant plankton farms.  They are there to feed us, and to be fed, as a Jewish teacher pointed out during a sermon on a hillside: “Consider the birds of the air.  They neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns.  And yet your heavenly Father feeds them” (Matthew 6:26).

On another hillside, or perhaps even that same one, after the sermon, he confronted a crowd of 5000 hungry people.  Time for a practical application, as five small fish multiplied in his hands like a huge haul in a net, and filled every person there to the full.

The inhabitants of sea and sky feed our bodies, but they also feed our imaginations.  Our bodies can’t fly, but our minds can.

Creation, Day Six – Consciousness

  1. Think back on your childhood, from as early as you can remember, up through early adulthood.  Are you still 7, or 10, or 17 somewhere inside?   Do all those stages of yourself still exist?  What age to you best remember, or most identify with?
  2. How would you divide the phases of your growing-up years (e.g., early childhood 4-11, pre-adolescence 12-13, adolescence 14-17, young adult 17-25)?  What color would you give each phase?
  3. What’s different about you or your surroundings from last week to this week?

___________________________________________________

*Heraclitus of Ephesus, a pre-Socratic philosopher, ca. 500 B. C.   Though little is know about what he actually taught, he is credited with the idea that all matter is continually in flux.

**Parmenides of Elea, born ca. 515, wrote a poem called “On Nature,” of which about 100 lines survive, sketching his view of nature as all one thing and change as an illusion.

Posted on

“Hinder Them Not”

You know the story, pictured in so many children’s Bibles and Sunday school literature: Jesus and the Children.  When the officious grownups—his own followers—tried to brush off women who were bringing their babies for him to bless, his rebuke stopped them cold and still warms every mother’s heart: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belong the Kingdom of God.”

This implies a lot—that little children would run to Jesus if they had the opportunity, that they are often hindered from coming, and that they possess some quality that preeminently suits them for membership in the kingdom of God.  You’ve heard sermons on the “for such belongs” part, so I won’t dwell on it here.  I’m interested in “Let them come” and “do not hinder.”  Two questions: Would little children freely come?  And if so, how are they “hindered”?

The answer to the first question is probably yes and no.  In himself, Jesus is inherently appealing, as every excellent and beautiful thing we cherish in this world owes its very existence and character to him.  But our minds are clouded by less-than-excellent and beautiful motives, distractions, and impulses.  If we could see him clearly, we would all run to him, not just the little children.  But we can’t, so most of us don’t, and that includes little children.

However . . . let’s say our motives are honorable and we have welcomed Jesus as our Lord and Savior and earnestly desire our children to do the same.  Can we still hinder them?

Yes—with the best motives in the world.  Here’s how:

  • A too-literal interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:7: “You shall teach [God’s law] diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise . . .”  It’s one thing to apply God’s law in ordinary conversation, and another to drop leaden exhortations.  Character education was a thing back in the 80s and 90s—remember that?  (And did you notice any general improvements in character as a result?)  Often this came in the form of reminders to “Be diligent” or “Be kind” coupled with mini-biographies of people who modeled these virtues.  Too often it sounded like school, as though everyday relateable Mom or Dad switched off for a moment to let Preacher Mom or Dad make an announcement.  As soon as Preacher Mom comes on, the kid tunes out.
  • “Jesus” training.  You know the Sunday-school joke about the right answer to every question being “Jesus”?  (It happened to me just a couple of Sundays ago, when I asked what the first five books of the Bible were.  The answer, of course, is “Jesus.”)  The statement “Jesus is the answer” is literally true but not always truly literate.  That is, it takes a few steps to get from the problem to the answer, so when the kids come to you with a problem (or clearly have one they don’t want to talk to you about), don’t be so quick to solve it with the Jesus answer.  Take some time to explore the issue, and as you do, you’ll find that Jesus almost certainly said something that applies.  And if he didn’t say it, he did it.
  • Shutting down honest doubts.  If you ever get a fluttery feeling in your stomach when your kindergartner wonders how all those animals could have fit inside the ark, or your pre-teen asks who made God, or you high-school senior demands where God was during the Holocaust . . . relax.  It’s often a good sign; it means they’re thinking.  Talk through their doubts, share (where appropriate) your own questions and uncertainties, explore possible answers, and offer to look into it further.  You can be sure every question has been answered and no doubt necessitates unbelief all by itself.
  • Non-engagement with the culture.  You will not protect children by isolating them from the world.  Their main problem is within, not without.  The question about how much to “engage” is a vexing one that parents need to think through carefully, since what may be appropriate for one family could be damaging for another.  A mom’s background in literature or psychology, for example, could help guide her teen daughter through a suicide novel like 13 Reasons Why, where another mother with a super-sensitive son might be well-advised to skip the novel altogether (and the TV series even more).  Don’t ever forget: They’re going to grow up.  They’re going to leave you.  They’re going to have to make these decisions about engagement on their own.  Your job is to prepare them, not protect them.
  • Creating your own “culture.” As a homeschool mother from 1985 to 1996, I encountered parents who told me that homeschoolers were God’s new shock troops who were going to change the culture.  They related everything to religion, scattered Bible quotes throughout the house, referenced Jesus everywhere, spoke in a certain vocabulary and dressed a certain way.  Especially around their children.  Many of these kids turned out just fine, but many others broke loose at the earliest possible moment.  And by the way, they didn’t change the culture.
  • Relying too much on ourselves and our own resources.  See “Creating your own culture,” above.  With some parents, the impulse is almost frantic: If I don’t do x, my kids will fall into y.  Chances are, they’re going to fall into some kind of sin; you may steer them away from drinking but they’ll stumble at sex.  Or if they avoid all the fleshly pitfalls, they’ll fall prey to spiritual pride, which is even worse.  Your Savior is also their Savior, and he is supremely able to do what you can’t.
  • Failing to be genuine.  Is your speech more “religious” when speaking to your kids than when you talk to your peers?  You can be sure they pick up on that, too.

If none of these apply to you, you are the perfect Christian mom or dad.  Bad news: You’re not.  Good news: Though you have a vital job to do, its success doesn’t depend on you.  Even better news: God is fully aware of your weakness and has already accounted for it.  That’s what the cross is about.  So everybody take a deep breath and then we can get practical.

Once we become a little better about not hindering, we can start encouraging.  The children in the story didn’t come to Jesus on their own accord; their mothers had to bring them.  Even today, in a society vastly removed from first-century Palestine, it’s usually the mothers who bond early and teach their little ones to walk and talk and eat what’s good for them . . . and take their first steps toward God.

One very basic step along that road is learning to pray.  Chances are, the very first person a child hears praying is a parent.  It should be so easy, yet it’s hard to teach.  In fact, the inspiration for this blog post is a mother asking me for advice in teaching kids to pray.  She had little confidence that her children, ages 10 and 12, had never learned to pray on their own, in spite of all her modeling and teaching.

I told her I could at least think about it.  So I did, and I came up with some thoughts.  But you’ll have to come back next week to see what they are.

Posted on

Creation, Day Four: Dancing with the Stars

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night.  And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.”  And it was so.  And God made the two great lights—the greater light to light the day and the lesser light to rule the night and the stars.  And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness.  And God saw that it was good.  And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.         Gen. 1:14-19

Hum the first two notes of “Over the Rainbow.”  (I’m not kidding: hum it!)

You’ve just hummed an octave, with eight musical steps between the low pitch and the high pitch (octave stemming from the Latin word for “eight”).  If you’ve ever taken piano lessons or sung in a choir, you know what a musical scale sounds like: do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do.  From the first do to the next do is eight tones, and if you sang only those two notes with no others in between, it would sounds like the first two notes of “Over the Rainbow.”

Image result for do re mi scale

Now try humming the first five tones of the scale: do-re-mi-fa-so.  Hum the first do again, then go directly to so, leaving out the notes in between.  One time, but hum do twice, followed by so twice.  Does it sounds like “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star”  (or “The Alphabet Song”)?

One more: think of the first three notes of “Taps,” the bugle call played at military funerals.  Or the first four notes of Wagner’s “Wedding March,” also known as “Here Comes the Bride.”   Or, if you’re from the same great state as I am, “The Eyes of Texas.”  With the first note as do, the second note is four steps up the scale: do-re-mi-fa.

We call the interval between the pitches in “Somewhere over the Rainbow” an eighth, or an octave, the opening interval in “Twinkle Twinkle” a fifth, and the opening interval in the “Wedding March” a fourth.  And none of this seems to have anything to do with Day Four of creation, when heavenly bodies appeared in the sky.  But roughly 2600 years ago, Pythagoras thought differently.

Pythagoras is such a shady figure he may not have existed at all.  But no one doubts the existence of the “Pythagorean School” of scholars and mystics who congregated on the island of Samos and pledged to eat no meat and have no sex.  For a small group of bachelor vegetarians with a possibly mythical leader, their influence on history was profound.

A major principle of Pythagorean thought is that reality is based on mathematical relationships.  His famous theory of triangles* is only part of it.  Even more fascinating, and apropos for our purpose, were his experiments with music.

Pythagoras discovered that a string tuned to any musical tone, when cut in half, will produce the same tone at a higher pitch.   Hum the first two notes of “Somewhere over the Rainbow” again.  These two notes have a precise mathematical relationship.  Pythagoras had discovered the octave; to get the same tone, eight steps higher, divide the string exactly in half.  Mathematically, the ratio is 2:1.  Scientifically, the half string vibrates exactly twice as fast as the full string, producing a note that is equal in tone but higher in pitch.

Continuing his experiments, Pythagoras cut an identical string 1/3 from the lower end.  The new pitch, combined with the original, now sounded like the first notes of “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.”  (Could Pythagoras have been the mythical author of that ancient ditty?)   Not an echo, like the octave, but a pleasing transition with, again, a precise mathematical relationship: 3:2.  The short string vibrates two-thirds as fast as the long one.

What if he divided another identical string in half, and half again, so that the length of the string was one-fourth the length of the original?  Now the transition between the two notes sounded like “The Eyes of Texas” (or rather, “The Eyes of Samos”)—another pleasing interval with a mathematical relationship of 4:3.

As it happens, the Octave (Somewhere), the Perfect fifth (as in Twinkle, Twinkle), and the Perfect Fourth (Wedding March) are musical intervals common to all cultures everywhere.   Eastern music and primitive music have distinctive scales, tones, and rhythmic patterns that mystify Westerners , but all cultures make use of octaves, fourths, and fifths.

All melodies consist of stepping from one note to another, and the distance one note to the next is noted mathematically: not merely fourths and fifths, but thirds, seconds, sixths, sevenths, and descending, augmented, and diminished versions of all those.  Pythagoras would have said that music is mathematics, and mathematical relationships are a form of music, extending throughout the cosmos.  Each heavenly body, each star and planet, has its own pitch, hummed in harmony with all the rest.

Here the mystical side of Pythagoras overreached the scientific, but he was on to something.  A couple of thousand years later, Western science would come to the conclusion that the key to the universe, its language or code, was numbers—or, more precisely—numerical relationships:   intervals, measurements, calibrations.

___________________________________________

Let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years.

You want numbers?  Here are some numbers:

  • Two of the great forces in the universe, gravity and electromagnetism, have to be balanced in a precise ratio, namely 1 over 1040, or one part in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion.  If the ratio is off, physical life is impossible.
  • Space energy density, or the self-stretching property of the universe, can’t vary more than one part in 10120 and still produce stars and planets.
  • Our home galaxy, the Milky Way, measures approximately100,000 light years from one arm to the other.  Our sun is located far from the center, but if it were any closer radiation would have destroyed it.
  • The distance from earth to the moon varies a bit depending on where the moon is in its orbit.  The average is 238,857 miles—much closer, and the moon would have crashed into the earth.  Any farther, and the moon’s gravitational effect would have no influence.  As it is, that cratered chunk of rock stabilizes the earth at an axial tilt of approximately 23.5 degrees (it varies slightly with the moon’s orbit).  Without the pull of the moon, earth would wobble from burning hot to freezing cold, a variation of 200 degrees.  Because the moon is where it is, we have signs and seasons, days and years.

Signs and seasons, days and years.  Light exists—we know it does, even if we haven’t exactly figured out what it is.  Time exists, too—we know that because there was “a beginning.”  But what was the form of time?   Were days always marked by twenty-four hours, or was there a time when time itself roamed outside the discipline of measurement, stretching thin and bunching up?  Is there a master clock?  When was it set, and who set it?

Day Four marks several new developments.  First, the heavenly bodies appear: a kingly sun, a queenly moon, and attendant stars beyond number.  The language of Genesis gives a nod to mythological notions of the sun “ruling” the day, like Apollo’s flaming chariot, and the moon presiding over night like the huntress Diana, stalking her prey.

Secondly, Day Four sets up a parallel structure.  On days one, two, and three, we have regions, or territories: the heavens (and earth), air and seas, dry land.  Day Four begins the process of populating those regions.  “The heavens” are the realm of heavenly bodies, whose mysterious influence and regular movement would occupy thinkers and observers for millennia.

But another significance of Day Four is often overlooked: in it, God establishes the principle of measurement.  Not only for time (“days and seasons and years”) but also, I think it’s safe to infer, for space.  I remember past events based partly on where we were at the time: the where indicates the when.  I interpret what happens to me partly by locating myself in space.  Spatial relationships, ratios, and measurement are essential to figuring out where we are, where we’re going, and how to get there, both practically and scientifically.  And numbers are the key.

Pythagoras may have been the first to link numbers with music and space.  But two thousand years later, in the pursuit of science, Johannes Kepler made an amazing discovery that hearkened back to the Island of Samos.

While drawing a geometric figure of a circle within an equilateral triangle, circumscribed by another perfect circle, it struck him that the ratio of the two circles equaled the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.  What if all the planetary orbits displayed a similar geometric relationship?  The hypothesis didn’t work out quite as well as he hoped, but speculation along this line led to Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion and the discovery that a) orbits are elliptical, not circular; b) a planet’s speed varies between aphelion (when it’s closest to the sun) and perihelion (its farthest distance from the sun); and c) the duration of any planet’s orbit depends on that planet’s distance from the sun.

We learn this in science class and file it with our other sets of “three laws” to remember for the test.  But Kepler’s laws not only provided the necessary foundation for Newton’s principles of universal gravity, they also reached back to the Pythagorean notion of universal harmony.  Pythagoras envisioned the planets ascending from earth at regular intervals, as though on the rungs of a ladder.  Each “rung” corresponded to a musical interval—the same intervals he had discovered on his cut-up lyre strings.  The cosmos, Pythagoras believed, danced to music.  Music was good for the soul and the body, and no wonder; it’s part of the stuff we’re made from.

In formulating his second law (that planets moved faster at perihelion and slower at aphelion), Kepler calculated their velocities at these two extremes and wrote down the ratio.  Saturn, for example, moves at a rate of 106 degrees per solar day at aphelion and 135 degrees at perihelion, thus a ratio of 106:135.  After he factored these numbers and cancelled the common factors the ratio differs by only two seconds from 4:5, or the interval of a major third.  It wasn’t just a coincidence: the ratio of velocities of all the known planets closely corresponded to musical intervals.

But that’s not all.  When he compared the velocity ratios for combined pairs of planets, (such as Jupiter’s perihelion and Mars’ aphelion) he found the intervals of a complete scale.  Jupiter and Mars sing a minor third, Earth and Venus a minor sixth.  His discovery of elliptical orbits was a disappointment to him at first—it seemed to spoil the beauty of perfect concentric circles.  But as the planets rolled along their elliptical paths, shifting speed and velocity, they described recognizable patterns, even harmonic chords.  “Henceforth,” he wrote, “it is no longer a harmony made for the benefit of our planet, but the song which the cosmos sings to its Lord and center, the Solar Logos.”

Modern science, while it doesn’t come to the same metaphysical conclusion as Kepler, finds his measurements to be “frighteningly good,” as the famed astronomer Fred Hoyle observed.

This is my father’s world, and to my listening ears

all nature sings, and round me rings the music of the spheres.

Mathematics and science were created on this day.  And so was music, “While the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.”**

Creation, Day Five – Being and Soaring

_________________________________________________

*Pythagorean theorem: a fundamental relation in Euclidean geometry among the three sides of a right triangle. It states that the square of the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.

**Job 38:7

Posted on

The Church of Facebook

Mark Zuckerberg may be feeling a wee bit guilty.  He’s had six months to reflect on how Facebook, his own brainchild, disseminated enough false information to swing an election and betray all the liberal values his heart holds dear.  So he would like to redeem that wrong by making Facebook more of a force for good, to bring people together instead of driving them apart.  Like a church, you know—or a little-league team.

That’s the reason Zuckerberg has been touring the U.S., stopping in every state.  Political observers can’t help observing how much time he’s spent in Iowa, but maybe he likes the corn.  His stated goal is to spread the gospel of community-through-Facebook across the land and eventually the world.  That was the theme of the first-ever Facebook Communities Summit, held in Chicago late last month.  Group administrators were invited to attend free of charge in order to network, share ideas and feedback, and hear from Facebook executives, including Zuckerberg himself, “about new products we’re building to help admins grow and manage their groups.”  The founder elaborated on this vision in the Thursday-night keynote speech: “People are basically good.  Everyone genuinely wants to help other people.” With that principle in mind, Facebook intends to make it easier for good folks to join other good folks for good purposes online.

The church, he said , used to meet that need and supply that sense of purpose.  But with the decline in church participation, as well as in other local organizations like sports leagues, community spirit has taken a hit.  “We started a project to see if we could get better at suggesting groups that will be meaningful to you. We started building artificial intelligence to do this. And it works. In the first 6 months, we helped 50% more people join meaningful communities.”

Good for him. The executive board seems to be grappling with some of the implications of balancing free speech and social responsibility—see the Hard Questions they’ve posed.  I’m going to assume Zuckerberg is completely sincere about these means and ends . . .

But surely he must recognize that the internet, and social media in particular, is one reason local communities began to fall apart in the first place.  Or if not a cause, at least a facilitator.  Where else can you stream a movie, watch a football game without commercials, join a whole platoon of World of Warcraft gamers, and order a comfy couch (with free shipping) to serve as your base of operations?  The internet allows us to live our entire lives inside our four walls if that’s what we want.  It takes effort to pull yourself off the couch and go to church or a little-league game, still more to volunteer to teach Sunday School or coach a team.  With so many family bonds broken already, more and more people see less and less reason to bind themselves.

Here are a few Hard Questions for Mark Zuckerberg:

  • If people are basically good, and everyone genuinely wants to help other people, why is there so much meanness and nastiness on Facebook?
  • If meaningful communities are formed around common interests alone, what’s to keep them from becoming echo chambers where everyone has the same opinion and dissent is not encouraged?
  • Also, if common interest is the glue, what happens when group members lose interest?
  • What is a “meaningful community,” anyway?  Are there any guidelines in place?  Will Facebook reserve the right to disallow any communities it thinks are not meaningful?

Facebook now has over two billion users, and I am one.  I’ve joined a few groups and I’ve found links to interesting articles and I’ve enjoyed seeing pictures of weddings and grandkids.  But I never confused it with community, because true community is not based on convenience, or even interest.  The strongest communities, it turns out, are not voluntary: family, church, military, nation.  You don’t choose them; they choose you.  The glue is shared responsibility, and that can only be face to face.  Not Facebook.

Posted on

Creation, Day Three: The Story Takes Root

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”  And it was so.  God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas.  And God saw that it was good.

And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.  And it saw so.  The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to kind.  And God saw that it was good.  And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.                 Gen. 1:9-13

_______________________________________________

Once upon a time, “going to the movies” was as much an event as the movie itself.  I barely remember this, as a child in the 1950s growing up in Dallas, Texas.  Our down-market movie experience was the drive-in (with its own tacky romance, gone forever!) but once in a great while I recall getting just a little dressed up to go downtown with my family to the Majestic or the Palace, both of which began their lives as vaudeville theaters.  Rocking in a tip-backed, velvet-upholstered seat, staring into the firmament of a domed ceiling so high it made me feel dizzy, was the closest I came in those days to concentrated anticipation.  The lights would dim, a clash of windy chords would sound, and the MIGHTY WURLITZER organ rose ponderously from the orchestra pit.

The thing was so huge (in my memory, at least), with such a multiplicity of keyboards and stops, it was a bit shocking to locate the little person in the middle making it all go.  He or she probably played no longer than ten minutes before the platform descended and the massive curtains in front of the screen rolled back.  Perhaps it’s not surprising that I remember the prelude to the movie more than the movie itself, and when I think of “let dry land appear,” the first image that comes to mind is the Mighty Wurlitzer rising from the dark depths, all flash and dazzle.

________________________________________________

But we don’t know exactly how it was.  “Let dry land appear” could mean something like, Bring dry land up from the waters like a thousand erupting volcanoes.

Or it could mean, Set dry land down among the surging waters.

Was the land already “there,” like dry land was there under the Red Sea and merely required a bit of water removal?  Were the primeval waters pregnant with molecular bits of minerals that coalesced on command?  Or did God voice it into being ex nihilo?  Perhaps none of those possibilities, or a combination of all, but we must guard against the habit of thinking that the dry land was already hulking under the water waiting to be shaped, like granite awaits the stonemason.  God calls things that are not as though they were (Romans 4:17), and when he calls, “it is so.”

The earth was in his mind, and then, whether the work of a day or a billion years, the earth was outside his mind.

Was it spectacular, a gigantic swirl of molecules pulsing with light and shouting for joy before each took its proper place as stone or soil?  Or was it a steady shuffling of elements until all had shaken out?  However it happened, it was without conflict.  No element butted heads with another or struggled for pride of place.  Just as, much later in time, the stormy winds and sea would obey the command, Peace!  Be still!–just so, at their master’s command, granite, marble, sand, iron, loam, clay, gold, limestone, diamonds and chalk “appeared” in the midst of the water.

With all the elements we call “earth” came everything we would need: stone for shelter, soil for food and cotton and flax, metals base and precious waiting to smelted out of the cracks:

Man puts his hand to the flinty rock

                        and overturns mountains by the roots.

            He cuts out channels in the rocks,

                        and his eye sees every precious thing.

            He dams up the streams so that they do not trickle,

                        and the thing that is hidden he brings to light.           Job 28:9-11

But in addition to all that, ground gives us grounding. Terra firma.  Out of the flux of waters comes a place to stand.  Columbus could not discover new worlds without starting from an old world.  He could not venture forth without venturing from.  To use the old metaphor of life as a voyage, we little Columbi are always venturing out from something: a home, or a family, or if we’re lucky, both.  The location of home and the composition of family may change, but our greatest emotional need is a place to belong, and our first creative necessity is a place to begin.

This is what we were given on the third day: a home.  The scenery of the earth would change, and one given spot may overbuild while another is destroyed.  But we always have home base, a place to build.

Except for the one time it was taken away.

Picture Noah, adrift in a huge wooden box for seven months.  The waters above the earth have wrung dry and the fountains of the deep have exhausted themselves and the primeval chaos is back for a return engagement.  In a massive act of judgment, God temporarily reversed creation, pouring water back over the land he had earlier brought forth.  Forty days and nights of deluge was only the beginning; after the rain stopped, 150 days passed before the waters even began to subside.  But all this time, The Lord had Noah in mind. (Gen. 8:1, NIV).  Just has the Lord had had the ground itself in mind before causing it to be.  On the seventh day of the seventh month, “the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.”

Peter Spier’s classic picture book Noah’s Ark shows a rough landing: the ark strikes Mt. Ararat’s rocky peak like a fist and everything slews sideways.  Correcting waves would level it a bit, but that one pictorial moment is enough to suggest that the re-creation of the world, its second reclaiming from chaos, was not nearly as smooth as the first.

The water recedes slowly, blown by the wind.  It would be another four months before dry land “appears” again in bountiful measure.  The flood was a warning, an example, and a reminder that we can’t take our foundations for granted.

The other vital element of creation established on the third day: continuity.  Plants grow, and with them, seed.  Organic life takes root on dry land, and because the land isn’t going anywhere, the plants will have time to propagate themselves.  Imagine what is stored in each tiny seed: the potential to grip the soil while reaching upward toward the light.  Each tiny seed packs generations that will span millennia.  Generation (from the same root as “Genesis”) means beginning but it also means continuing.  It’s a promise that this page will be turned; history itself emerges from the watery flux and takes root with the first plant.

Sp the three great realms of creation are established by the third day: sky, sea, and finally earth, rising like the Mighty Wurlitzer with all the stops pulled out and its bellows going full blast.

Now we can turn the page.

Creation, Day Four: Dancing with the Stars

_____________________________________________________

  1. Go outside on a clear night and lay down in the grass.  Spread your fingers wide and imagine yourself holding on to the earth as it turns.  Can you feel it?  Close your eyes and try to tune out artificial sounds; can you hear it?  What does it smell like?  Does it seem dead to you, or somehow alive?
  2. This is a children’s exercise, but I still get a kick out of it.  Fold and roll up enough paper towels to fit inside a clear drinking class.  Tuck several seeds of different kinds (flower, vegetable, even tree, such as a maple wing) between the glass and the paper towel.  Water the paper towel until it’s damp but not dripping and keep the glass in a dark place, such as a kitchen cupboard, for several days.  Keep the towel damp, and after just a few days you should see the seeds begin to sprout.  What does this tell you about the life stored inside them, and the capability they have of renewal?