Inappropriate Conversations

Incongruous 'Legal' Ideas

You can almost divide Christianity into two camps. One group, including the Apostle Paul, believes that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled all of the Jewish Law. There are details, of course. Did this happen through his life, at the crucifixion, through the resurrection, only completely at the point of ascension or even afterward, at Pentecost?  Details, details. The point is that Jesus gave us two commandments that fulfill all of the law: love God and love your neighbor (Luke 10: 25-28). Loving your neighbor as you love yourself fulfills “all the law” meaning not just 10 Commandments but hundreds more (Romans 13: 8-10).

The other group believes that Jesus did not fulfill all of the law, despite what Paul and others have taught. Using an extra-Biblical concept of “civil and ceremonial” laws versus other commands found in what Christians call the Old Testament, only some of those laws were fulfilled. This group of believers is not interested in the idea that loving God and neighbor covers all of the “moral law” ground, as Paul explicitly taught the Roman church.

For this second group, Jesus’ statement in the Sermon On The Mount (Matthew 5: 17-18) about “not one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (King James Version) means that The Law must still be in effect. For them, Jesus saying “It is accomplished” from the cross just prior to his death had nothing to do with those laws.

One little problem, though: those “civil and ceremonial laws” are absolutely jots and tittles, dots and iotas, the smallest letter, the least stroke of a pen, the least point, the smallest detail. Jesus cannot be saying that such things will not pass from The Law if the interpretation of the second group is valid.

From a New Testament perspective, at least through the letters of Paul, Christians are under no obligation to bear the burden of The Law. The entire letter to Galatians hammers this point home repeatedly. What about those who choose instead to embrace the non-Biblical concept of “some laws still being in effect”? Jesus is pretty clear. Every jot and tittle applies, and Christianity has long failed – intentionally failed – to measure up to that standard.

Of course, the Sermon On The Mount in context doesn’t expect us to walk that line. That yolk doesn’t come from Christ. It comes from Christians who clearly love The Law more than The Lord.

Jots, tittles, dots, iotas.

Re-blog: A Witness

I have never “re-blogged” before, so I cannot say if I’m even doing this correctly. A friend I knew from a previous church has given me permission to share her words, so I will. I have taken one subtle step to make things anonymous. I’m not using her name, for example. Having said that, I found her words too powerful to ignore.

As a Christian, I am passionate about witnessing. “Tell me what the Lord is doing in your life” is, for me, the heart and soul of any sermon. Too often, church members are unwilling to hear the witness of anyone they find to be “too different” as if xenophobia has replaced agape within many Christian fellowships. Well, I’m listening to someone whose experiences are totally different from my own. I hope you will, too.
-IC_Greg

Sooo, I am just going to say this. It is long, I warn you.

Firstly, I want to thank and honor all who have given their blood, sweat, tears, and for some, their lives for this. We would not be here if not for you. Deeply, I thank you.

Yet, I realize that there are some out there who are very upset, disturbed, and saddened over the recent ruling from SCOTUS. I want to say, I get it, I really do. I was with you once upon a time. I felt that my religious convictions lead me to an understanding that marriage as we know it today was only by God's design to be between a man and a woman. I felt that it was totally unnatural and completely morally wrong to do anything otherwise. I admit, and those of you who have known me my whole life know that I was quite a zealot back in the day. I was pretty hardline. And so, for people to say to me now that I am not seeing "their" side, is completely false. I WAS on your 'side'. I argued it, heavily. Then I got to a point where I could 'understand' where it would be more comfortable to be with the same sex, but I still did not agree at all that it was in God's design, my religion taught me that.

But, as you go through life, you grow and you learn, and sometimes you have people in your life who gently point out some things you may not have thought of before.

I had no idea what I was really saying back then. I had no clue what it all really meant. I knew people who were gay, and they were a bit of a novelty to me growing up in the small town that I did, I loved them, but I didn't agree.

And then, one day, a dear friend’s mother and I had a very, very long talk about the whole issue. She pointed out things I had never even considered. She pretty much gave me a taste of my own bible beating medicine, but in a totally and completely loving way, something I hadn't particularly learned quite yet called tact.

From then on I really started questioning and researching and asking people and talking with people. Not just accepting what I was being told, but really digging into my own life and the lives of those around me, and searching my own soul. I still wasn't sure about the whole thing, but I started seeing people as people. And love as well, love, and just because I didn't care for it in particular, that didn't mean they were scary or bad people, and did I really have a right to say whether or not they can love who they love?

Somewhere in this time I had written out a list, and sent it out to the universe, to God, to bring into my life a person with certain attributes. The things that were really important to me. I did this as part of a book I had been reading about being a single christian. Irony....

Then I met K.

This was out of left field for me. I had no idea that I even could like another woman, let alone fall in love with one. Before I even knew it, my friends and family members had their eyebrows raised in wonder. And one day, I realized that I had completely fallen in love with a woman.

Some say that God does not condone this sort of 'behavior'. I was one of those people. Well, let me tell you how I see it now. Not only do I believe that God perfectly created this woman for me, I believe that God placed her directly in my path. Period. And, do you know that she just so happened to embody that entire laundry list of what a suitable, Godly mate would look like that I made so long before. Every. Last. Word. My best friend pointed this out to me. I never even asked God for a gender. I was looking for the important things....same beliefs, same interests, likes me for me etc.

And, now, before I start hearing, oh but you're being deceived by the devil (yeah, we struggled through that one together, being that we both come from very religious backgrounds.) Let me tell you this. I have grown more as a person, and most importantly, more in my faith and spirituality and have drawn closer to God in the time that I have known K., than I ever had in my life previously. Why on earth would a 'devil' want to put me directly in the path of someone who would challenge me to pray more, be closer to God, to dig deeper into the bible, to learn more about my own self and spirituality? That seems quite counterproductive to me.

And one of the biggest things I have learned is that love and commitment are so not what I thought. It is so much deeper, amazing, and sometimes downright freaking harder than I ever imagined. And I know that people are saying, well, why use the word 'marriage'? Why take a christian sanctioned word and change it. Well, I challenge you to look deep into the history of that word. I challenge you to look at what the idea of it means throughout the world. Because, I sure was surprised.

It has evolved over time, influenced by culture, religion, and force of power. It has been used and abused in many ways. But when we get down to brass tacks, I think we all know that what this particular word means today, here, now is about basic rights of two people who love each other and want to be afforded the same things their male/female counterparts are afforded. Good and bad.

It isn't the final step. We have so much farther to go. I would like to see a time when I don't have to be nervous about who knows what in a job situation, for fear of being fired. I already know what it feels like to have people be in that awkward uncomfortableness at work when I overhear very demeaning things said about people 'like me'. I know how it feels to have people pity me because I was such a nice girl. (I hope that hasn't changed?!) I already know what it feels like to wonder if we are going to make it out of a restaurant in a rural town in a different state without being harmed. I have lost friends, I have lost respect. I have strained relations with some because I am not equal in their eyes. But I am lucky. There are many, throughout time and to this very day who have been beaten, killed, discriminated against, and some have even taken their lives just because they happen to be attracted to the same sex. So yeah, I am pretty damn lucky that I have only endured a fraction of what others have. And so I will keep moving forward until we can all be so lucky.

So, if you don't want to be friends with me, fine. If you still think I/we are trying to push some sort of political agenda, fine. I am not here to change your mind, we are all on our own journey. I had to come here on my own, with the help of some loving friends, and the help of an ever loving Creator God, who nudges me every damn day to act in love. I am only here to share my view on this whole thing, from where I stand. Because, quite frankly, I am tired of seeing the hatred. I am tired of seeing the subtle, subversive ways that people are covering their distaste. And I am tired of the words I am hearing that I used to say to people, just like me, once upon a time.

There aren't “sides” folks. We are all human beings. We are all in this thing called life together on this planet we call earth. And I for one, am for love. I was created in love. And I want to be a beacon of love. For it is the most powerful thing on earth.
-J.

 

It’s Not Just a Concern

How do I tell this story? Perhaps without using any names or many descriptions. You see, I am not convinced that LGBT people can be considered safe from violence at the hands of people -- including self-proclaimed Christians -- who don't like laws and court rulings related to equality and are seeking aggressive and "creative" methods of responding.

None of my friends in high school were open about being gay. There were a couple of casual acquaintances, but that is it. Today, more than a few Facebook friends from high school are, relatively speaking, very out about their homophobia. Oh, they wouldn't call it that. They'd use terms like "conservative" or notions of old-fashioned values related to how we were raised in the Bible Belt.

Here is where it gets strange, though. A mutual friend that I believe we all respected is gay. We didn't know it then. Many don't know it now. I wouldn't exactly call her "open" about it, but I can tell. I know, for example, that she hears my "tone of voice" online and appreciates it. As a Christian, this brings me great joy. As a graduate of this particular high school, it makes me sad.

I'm sure my friends on the political right, people who are in many ways so wrong despite believing they are right in multiple senses of the word, still hold the same affection for our old classmate. Odds are they don't know that she is a lesbian. I didn't for decades, so why should they? Here's the question, though: what would change if they were confronted with the ultimate freedom Christ offers to his followers -- aka, Truth (the Truth will set you free)?

If they know what I know, would they reject this person or update their assumptions and "beliefs" with new information? This mutual friend of ours wasn't just somebody that we used to know. I always saw her as an ally -- take from that term whatever you will. I valued her advice and leadership, although I probably rarely sought it. I believe our younger friends trusted her to the same degree or more. It is, though, these younger friends that concern me the most.

Some would be indifferent to the news I never intend to share because it doesn't belong to me.

Some might stop in their tracks, which is an encouraging thought.

All of that is overshadowed by my fear that some, even though we came from the same circles, might just add her to the list of people that they don't believe should be allowed ...

I can't even finish that sentence without holding my breath. Allowed to what?

* allowed to shop in the same stores I do,

* allowed to live with (and certainly not marry) the person she loves,

* allowed to hold a job without pretending she just hasn't found the right man yet,

* allowed to share her life story openly without a threat of violence, either verbal or worse,

* or perhaps even allowed to live.

No, I don't believe I have some old friends who would sentence other old friends to death just because of who they are (whom they love). But make no mistake: some of these people defend views like Mike Huckabee's or worse. By worse, I'm talking about the California attorney who wants gay people to be shot in the streets. By worse, I'm referring to multiple Christian (typically, but not exclusively, Southern Baptist) pastors who think we should round up homosexuals and permanently isolate them in internment camps or prisons.

What, though, should I do with all the talk about "taking our country back” if I don’t draw the inference about what we do with enemies in a culture war? The line between rounding people up and respectfully disagreeing with them becomes far too fine to measure. I want to believe that putting faces and names to people who are irrationally described as enemies will make all the difference, especially when mutual friends are involved. I am right to be concerned, though, that the ending might not be affirming.

This train of thought comes from an article I read today on an online friend’s blog. Michelle used her Word Of A Woman site today to provide a platform for someone who has more to share than just concern. It’s fear.
It Isn't Power. It's Fear.

Let me admit something else that I haven’t really shared before. More and more, my own feelings are not just about concern but fear. Would I be safe putting these thoughts on the line with people from our old school? Probably. Isn’t that shocking, though, that the honest answer is only “probably”? Whether it reveals something about me, like perhaps my own trust problems, or something larger about the debate over equality, it is still a true reflection of my doubts.

Look, it isn’t a big jump to move from rounding up your enemy to rounding up “their sympathizers” because we’ve seen this in almost every fascist system you can find in a history book that hasn’t been whitewashed by the myopically patriotic. I can’t tell you where the utopian vision of those who don’t really believe the American mantra that “all people are created equal and have certain inalienable rights” (including the pursuit of happiness) would end.

Does their version of patriotism deny a gay couple the right to get married? Clearly, yes.

Is it aggressive about ensuring that a bakery that wants to segregate its customer base (on a highly arbitrary standard from a Judeo-Christian perspective) faces no legal requirement to treat customers equally and fairly? Certainly, yes.

Would they burn a cross (or a building) of companies that eagerly pick up the business of customers who are rejected in this manner and any other customers who prefer to spend their money with people who choose not to separate, isolate, and humiliate anyone? I’m desperate to say no to this question, but it’s neither clear nor certain to me right now.

So, I worry about old friends who have to hide facts about other old friends from mutual old friends. Honestly, I also worry that even sharing these feeling could make me unwelcome in some corners of my old hometown. On the next Walk The Earth (#25), I’ll talk a little about cakes and cookies and a fear of being poisoned by people who don’t like my ideas.

It’s irrational. I used to say that I know it’s irrational. I still do believe it’s irrational, which simply suggests that all of us are irrational about something. That’s what fear does, though. It makes us doubt the things we ought to take for granted.

1 John 4: 18-21 says:
“There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us. If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.” (NASB_1995)

So, I’m working on it, struggling to move a sense of fear back to merely a concern. I'm not even asking for a sense of confidence again. I'll settle for merely concern.
This is my prayer.

2014: Christians Calling For Child Sacrifice

Anyone observing what I’ve been posting or reading on social media might conclude that I think our standard of policing (Ferguson, Staten Island, etc.) is the biggest #IC story of 2014. It is not. I am preparing myself for an Inappropriate Conversations recording, but I also believe that this thread of current events isn't one collective story -- no, it is a bunch of only narrowly related stories. The story of the year in 2014 happened in March. 

World Vision's board decided that their hiring and HR practices should be like almost every major employer in our country. Like Wal-Mart, for example, or Home Depot, they saw no advantage in discriminating against their own employees. Granted, as a "religious" non-profit, they limited their approach to legally married couples. Still, they didn't do anything controversial or even unusual.

Sensing a religious right backlash of some sort, I immediately made a financial donation, sizable, bigger than I would normally do for an entire year toward any other charity I support. If hatred turned "financial" -- for want of a better description -- I wanted to fill the gap. I encouraged other like-minded Christians to do the same thing. 

Clearly, it wasn't enough. World Vision either lacks vision or even convictions, or the backlash they faced was truly catastrophic. Perhaps the financial pressure placed on them by numerous leaders in the religious right would have bankrupted the organization in mere weeks or even days. That was the report: they had to backtrack or children were going to starve to death.

I wrestled with whether I should regret the donation I made. I sought the counsel of wise friends and people who have provided spiritual guidance and support in the past. I have made peace with my actions, but I cannot make peace with so-called Christian leaders who placed the lives of thousands of people on a guillotine of sorts to defend their personal prejudice. 

None of the people who withdrew their pledges, largely at the urging of people like Franklin Graham and John Piper, were impacted in any way -- morally or otherwise -- if someone working in the mail room or accounting department of World Vision made a legal marital commitment (in their state) to anyone of any gender. Nothing in your sexual orientation interferes with your ability to deliver mail or pay bills. I have a news flash for "Bible-believing Christians" too: nothing in your sexual orientation stops you from loving and worshiping God. All of us who truly love and worship God do so knowing that we fall far short of God's glory, trusting in the righteousness of Christ rather than our own.

I’m going to share a link to a blog that was posted at the time, March 24^th, on this topic. I don’t name a “blog of the year” or anything like that. This would be a candidate, though.

http://www.registeredrunaway.com/2014/03/25/when-evangelicals-turn-against-children-to-spite-me/

From that article by Benjamin Moberg: “I’ve been sitting in a swell of sad for a couple hours, because this is what I’m hearing: No, you aren’t even worthy to serve hungry children. You are so deeply unwanted that I will let a child die if it keeps you away from me. From us. From the body of Christ. I will spare no life if it keeps you far away.”

The bottom line is clear. Christians in 2014 were willing – desperately, aggressively, insistent – to kill as many starving children as necessary for as long a time-span as necessary to ensure that they were only serving the needs of the most desperate people in the world with other heterosexuals. No Gays Allowed. Not even in the background, perhaps not even in the closet. This pungent, publicly prominent version of Christianity would rather watch children die than accept the help of “others.” 

What have I done about it? Nothing. Oh, I’ve kept the issue alive in conversations with friends and family. I’m reminding people about it now. I left my hundreds of dollars in play. Noting how wrong it was to play politics with my money in the hands of a charity, I didn’t “go and do likewise” and follow the lead of politically-active Christians (we shouldn’t be following in the first place).

So, one of these two things is true, and I don’t think I will say which one.
I have either:

a)      Refused to give any resources to World Vision, sitting willfully and idly by to let bigots have their way. That’s right, I said bigots. In the past, I have made an impossibly careful distinction between homophobia and bigotry. I don’t like the notion that anyone who doesn’t understand sexuality or gender identification and fears the unknown is a bigot. That seems too broad to me. On the other hand, if you put the lives of desperately needy people at stake to defend those same fears, then you are a bigot.

b)      Decided to resume some level of support for the work that World Vision does, but making that move as quietly and anonymously as possible – so much so that I won’t acknowledge it here, one way or the other, under any circumstances. Do I fear some left-wing backlash? Of course not. The counsel I received from that side of the political spectrum told me to be proud of giving when I did and for the reasons I gave, and they would not judge me for continuing to try and stop the fatal impact of starvation. No, the backlash I fear would be from the religious right. I would understand if I was perceived as an LGBTQ Ally by groups like Focus On The Family and the American Family Association. I wouldn’t want them deciding to sacrifice children on the altar of their self-righteousness because they couldn’t stand to be associated with me any more than Benjamin Moberg. That is not a chance I’d be willing to take by publicly supporting World Vision, despite their inability to lead Christians to follow the words of Jesus and put “the least of these” ahead of their own prejudice.

Either way, please know that this Christian would never let a child die – or threaten to do so – as a means of maintaining second-class citizenship status for other Christians who are just as interested in feeding the hungry, visiting the hospitalized or imprisoned, and providing for those who have been shunned. In March of 2014, the story of the year for Inappropriate Conversations was how alone I felt within the Body Of Christ for holding such a scriptural viewpoint.

Reverend Moon – Coyote Gospels

I won’t be howling at Reverend Moon. The latest from Jakob Rehlinger, the Different Drummer on IC 103: The Thriller Is Gone, sounds like a lost delta blues recording from a parallel universe. Consider this the other side of the crossroads. It is part blasphemy and part apocalyptic visions with a significant overlap.

Reverend Moon doesn’t flirt with blasphemy here. Flirting implies an unfamiliarity, a method of getting to know you. No, most of the tracks on Coyote Gospels are intimate apostasy.

I know. I have ranted and railed at apostasy when I encounter it within the church. Situations like the “Jesus tells us to hate” crowd outside of Chick-fil-A a couple of years ago (this week) come to mind. I won’t howl at Reverend Moon, though, because he is singing from the other side of the tracks. There is a difference between cleaning up my own house and presuming to walk in another man’s shoes, especially when he hasn’t offered me the footwear and I have serious doubts about the fit.

Another reason is the nature of art. Rehlinger became the second Different Drummer with a Halloween focus, following Edgar Allan Poe in the first year of the podcast. The Moonwood CD released at that time, The Strength of The Pack is The Wolf, and The Strength of The Wolf is The Pack, crowded out Alfred Hitchcock and others under consideration. From the start, Inappropriate Conversations has given artists a great deal of room to express radical ideas, noted in IC 22: Art and the Strange Bedfellows.

Describing Coyote Gospels as a blues album is too restrictive. Reverend Moon manages to simultaneously provide the consistent tone I’d expect from someone like Louisiana Red, but there are atmospheric touches that connect to the music of Moonwood and, less so, Babel. The songs sound consistent without sounding alike, and this may reflect the writing itself spanning 20 years and cutting across three decades.

 “Deeper Down” describes the musical palette best.

There ain’t no blues that ain’t been sung

It’s the same twelve notes for the old and the young

For that reason, I’ll be addressing the lyrics more than the music on this review. Ironic warning: the album contains no explicit language, none of the magic words are conjured here, but it still could have carried a warning label back in the day. I intend to look back at the Parental Advisory era in an upcoming Inappropriate Conversations podcast, and Coyote Gospels has come just in time to summon those memories.

Among the memories: in college I wrote a screenplay for a silent film that I was certain would get an R-rating without depicting any nudity, overt sexual situations, drug abuse or violence. I described it as being restricted just for being weird.

Coyote Gospels is bookended by its most apocalyptic tracks. “Old Graves” sets the tone.
“Apocalypso” ultimately distorts that tone with a grumble that reminds me of Tom Waits. "What’s he building there?" Ideas, so let’s look at a few.

“Reaperman”

The seven sins, they ain’t the why

But they’re the how –

The End is Nigh

Think about it. The suggestion is that we won’t be judged for the sins we commit, but through them. I hesitate to use the word blasphemy too loosely, and this verse is among the reasons why. Most of the time anti-clerical commentary – and there is much of that – is a bit like graffiti or a one-liner. Those who raise doubts about religion tend to do so like a heckler. Few are this profound and direct.

“Mary Says”

            There’s no one upstairs pulling the strings

            At least no one who cares, not that I’ve seen

            You may as well sing like no one is listening

            Because no one is listening

If I were Roman Catholic, this song would hit me even harder. Thank God I’m not. There is plenty of punch here for a Protestant to take.

“Satan, Hear My Song”

            We built a new Sodom and put it online

            We’re rivaling Babel one condo at a time

            We’re stealing from our future

            Blind to the theft       

            When the meek inherit

            There won’t be a damn thing left

I know enough about Reverend Moon to confidently doubt any belief in Satan. That isn’t the point, though. The fact that the singer doesn’t believe there is a Satan to hear his song is probably more nihilistic than the words I’ve cited here.

“Drinking With Jesus” gives me the opportunity to prove my point about the concept of explicit language having little to do with word choice.

            My father’s priest took me in

            And my true education did begin      

            New tribulations and brand new sins

            He left them dripping off my chin

I believe we are still in a place where non-Christians are angrier about sex crimes committed by clergy than so-called “defenders of the faith” and that is tragic.

On “Resurrection Day” Reverend Moon shares a conversation with Jesus. It could have been the most upsetting song in the collection for me, personally, if it didn’t remind me of a concept I shared about the burden of bearing sins in a poem called “Tithe.”

Reverend Moon quotes Jesus, “I’d love to wear your guilt but it don’t come in my size.”

Some of the songs in this collection had been previewed online, before Rehlinger had chosen Reverend Moon for the artist name. I recall one Christmas taking the lyrics to the song “God Culture” quite seriously.

            Too young to consent

            Unable to escape

            Don’t call it immaculate conception

            Your God committed rape

One of the reminders I consistently give to Christian Fundamentalists is that we cannot apply the standards of morality 2,000 years ago to our current age. Women speaking in church is one example. Committed LGBTQ relationships is another. I may be able to use the song "God Culture," or at least the idea behind it, as an example. If we applied our current ethical standards back 2,000 years, then there isn’t anything hypothetical about finding statutory rape in the nativity story.

Finally, I’ll give Reverend Moon a final quote from the song “God Don’t Love Us (Like The Devil Does)”

            I’ve heard they say that Jesus saves

            But he waits until we’re in our graves

            I’ve gotta wonder just what it’s worth          

            If we’re not saved from this hell on earth

While visiting York Minster on a United Kingdom trip earlier this year, I saw a collection box for a program called Christian Aid: We believe in life before death.

Among the conflicts over Rob Bell, particularly his book Love Wins, was the Christian obsession with afterlife. When Christians make the purpose of existence all about heaven and “getting in” and others being “left behind” and Jesus being limited in many ways by fundamentalists’ understanding of “no one comes to the Father but by me” … well, it calls to mind whether most Christians believe in life before death, or only after.

Of course, I find several moments of Coyote Gospels uncomfortable. Unlike the Moonwood recordings I mentioned a couple of years ago, the unsettling quality of Reverend Moon comes mainly from the words and not the music. I don’t believe that discomfort is a bad thing. When questions are raised that call comforting answers to mind, then the dissonance is a good thing.

I believe that Jesus does not wait to save until a moment of death. Jesus did not believe that heaven and hell were elsewhere, ethereal, beyond human experience. The central message of numerous parables was that the kingdom of heaven was among us – then and now. The more Christians ignore what Jesus taught, though, the more Reverend Moon is right to point out the hell we are all making on earth.

My first experience of Arachnidiscs was on the publishing side. Rehlinger had written several mini-books, and I bought most of what was still in print. I also contributed to one of those writing projects. I mention mini-books because there is a best way to buy Coyote Gospels by Reverend Moon, depending on how supplies last.

The cassette, divided by sides for a First Sermon and Second Sermon, comes with a digital download and some memorabilia. To me, the most important part is the 20 page 5×8 perfect-bound lyric book.
On a recording where the words are paramount, let’s just say that we tend to think of scriptures in written form, whether we accept the apocalypse they present or not.

Nowhere and Back Again

If there is a slight lull next week in Inappropriate Conversations, it won't be for a lack of content. This week, I'm delighted to say that I got to spend some quality time online with Christina from Greetings From Nowhere!
Paraphrasing Laurie Anderson: "What is this? Some sort of guest host situation?" Indeed.

You can listen here:

GFN 204

GFN 205

Greetings From Nowhere podcast can be found at VisitNowhere.com.

Thanks, Christina!
Sorry I missed you, Nicole! (That seems like a problem with an obvious solution, some day.)

Person Of Interest & Spiritual Development

I suppose I'm still pondering the "stages of spiritual development" outlined by psychiatrist M. Scott Peck from Inappropriate Conversations 139, if only in the back of my mind. While watching one of my favorite current television shows, Person Of Interest, I began wondering if former Different Drummer Jonathan Nolan was familiar with Peck's work. He isn't the sole creative force behind the TV series, but I tend to view the characters as his.

The website Symbolic Living provides a concise quotation of Peck's Wikipedia page here, and it is a useful summary of the stages of spiritual development from that Different Drummer's perspective.

A working understanding of the CBS show would be helpful, but here is my mash-up of these two concepts.

Stage 1 is chaotic, egoistic, and lacking empathy even to a potentially criminal extreme. Samantha Shaw, first introduced in the episode "Relevance," comes immediately to mind. She is quite comfortable describing herself as not caring at all about other people, a symptom of a unique personality disorder.

Stage 2 often manifests itself as fanatical fundamentalism. Its essential characteristics are blind faith, following tradition or a charismatic leader, and obedience. (There are positive examples where descriptions like "devoted" are surely more honorable.) The character Root has been a key part of the show from a voice-only appearance in the first season. She has evolved and perhaps moved between stages, as Peck says all of us do. For a couple of seasons, though, she best represents this stage, with a devotion that intentionally draws comparisons to suicide bombers or zealots like Simon Of The Desert.

Stage 3 is where a great many of us function today, in a more public way than most people in the pre-internet age could imagine. It reflects questioning, doubt, skepticism, and a preference for the proof of the scientific method over the version of "faith" presented so often by stage 2 believers. I'd say much of the appeal of the Person Of Interest show is the skepticism and pragmatism of John Reese. Episodes that focus away from Reese often seem to stand on unsure footing. As viewers, we don't know as much as Root claims to know, and Shaw is only beginning to care as much about consequences as we do. Reese, however, is there with us -- just, more capably.

Stage 4 is the mystical level of understanding. It understands what the skeptics know and don't know, but Peck's "mystics" are much more comfortable embracing the mystery and beauty of those things we don't yet fully comprehend. Actor Michael Emerson has made a recent career out of playing characters like this, and Harold Finch may be the best example on television today. At this stage, the person is not free from the fears of fundamentalists or the doubts of skeptics. The difference is the outward focus, or even an upward focus depending on how you visualize spirituality. Finch has sequestered himself from the world to avoid hurting those he loves, while at the same time devoting himself to saving others. To the occasional frustration of Reese, Finch isn't an enlightened guru sitting atop a mountain. There is much he does not know, but Finch doesn't let the unknown stop him from learning. He isn't in a hurry to close the book on any subject, including plot elements he declines to discuss.

Person Of Interest draws suspense from both the story elements that are slowly revealed or concealed. It thrives off conflict between the different approaches of Root and Finch to the same problems, the same relationship, the same unknowns. An uneven harmony is created and disrupted by the contrast in the action-oriented behaviors of Reese and Shaw, not to mention important law enforcement characters who do much more than merely round out the cast. Until this week, though, I've never watched an episode with the stages of spiritual development in mind.

Everything has changed. I'm wondering if I'll be able to watch the rest of this show, which has been picked up for next year, without contemplating how the "character" in the series that Root calls "god" will reveal herself to those cast not just in these roles but seemingly in strikingly different levels of spirituality.

If a parable is being told here, I wonder if the end will be as confounding as most of the parables Jesus told his disciples.