Posts
My pastor's sermon at church this morning was one of my favorites
that I have heard him deliver. (I talk about my favorite sermon of his
in my post here.)
It was entitled, "It Doesn't Have to be That Way." The pastor's point
was that we don't have to be at war with ourselves, we don't have to be
at war with each other, and we don't have to be at war with God. This
was relevant to me this week, for I was having a few days when I was
remembering my bad social experiences in the past, and I was thinking to
myself: "Man, it is not possible for me to be at peace with most human
beings!" Remember Nate Fisher's desire on Six Feet Under to be at peace with a woman? Well, that's how I feel about the vast bulk of humanity!
As
I think about my pastor's sermon, I don't recall what specifically he
recommended that people should do to be at peace with themselves, each
other, and God. He told a story about a guy who was depressed and went
to church, and going to church reminded this guy that he belonged to God
and that he didn't have to handle his problems alone. I suppose that
this is true in my life, in a sense. Whenever I feel internal desolation,
I pray more, and that helps me. While I still may have a problem being
at peace with myself, with many others, and with God, I'd be worse off
not praying through my problems, than I would be praying through them.
That's just my opinion.
A lot of what my
pastor was focusing on was attitude. I should be at peace with myself
because God loves me. I should be at peace with God because God loves
me. I don't remember what attitude he said we should have to be at
peace with other people. Perhaps I'll get a copy of the CD for this
sermon so that I can listen to it again.
Showing posts with label Six Feet Under. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Six Feet Under. Show all posts
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Finishing The Road Less Traveled
I finished M. Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Growth.
My latest reading covered a lot of interesting ground, such as Peck's belief that God is guiding us to spiritual and moral advancement through our personal and collective unconscious. Peck equates the collective unconscious with God, but he also says that the wisdom of the past has been transmitted to us genetically. So does Peck maintain that God helps and guides us in spite of ourselves, or does he believe that we have to receive God's assistance in order to grow? A little of both, I think. In terms of physical and spiritual health, Peck observes a general resiliency within humanity, and he also notes that we have instincts that enable us to anticipate and avoid danger, sometimes in a psychic sense. Peck also states that society is evolving morally, for a number of things that we would judge as bad (i.e., poor parenting) were not considered to be particularly bad in the past. At the same time, however, Peck holds that we need to overcome our laziness to get better. Peck refers to the story of Adam and Eve, who lazily followed the serpent rather than asking to hear God's rationale for why they shouldn't eat the forbidden fruit. A priest on the television series Six Feet Under made a similar point.
Peck also affirms that our goal in spiritual growth is Godhood. I'm not sure if he believes that this relates to the afterlife, but he does appear to hold that our becoming like God has ramifications for the here and now: As we become disciplined and poised, we have power in a number of situations and challenges. But Peck is clear that we should exercise that power with humility. Peck also envisions people becoming agents of God's love. Peck strikes me as quite mystical. See here, here, and here for my posts on the concept of deification within ancient Christianity and/or philosophy.
Do I buy into what Peck is saying? I don't know. Perhaps there are times when there are coincidences that help us out. Peck refers to a time when he was struggling to write a part of his book, and a lady who didn't even like him that much lent him a book that helped him over that hump. Does the universe help us out, at times? Personally, I have a hard time ruling out luck, especially considering the times in the world when people are not so lucky.
I'd like to close this post by quoting something that Peck says on page 309 about loving and being loved:
"Everyone wants to be loved. But first we must make ourselves lovable. We must prepare ourselves to be loved. We do this by becoming ourselves loving, disciplined human beings. If we seek to be loved----if we expect to be loved----this cannot be accomplished; we will be dependent and grasping, not genuinely loving. But when we nurture ourselves and others without a primary concern of finding reward, then we will have become lovable, and the reward of being loved, which we have not sought, will find us."
It's better to give than to receive. I should remind myself of that on a daily basis, especially when I'm afraid to greet people by name because I fear that they will reject me.
My latest reading covered a lot of interesting ground, such as Peck's belief that God is guiding us to spiritual and moral advancement through our personal and collective unconscious. Peck equates the collective unconscious with God, but he also says that the wisdom of the past has been transmitted to us genetically. So does Peck maintain that God helps and guides us in spite of ourselves, or does he believe that we have to receive God's assistance in order to grow? A little of both, I think. In terms of physical and spiritual health, Peck observes a general resiliency within humanity, and he also notes that we have instincts that enable us to anticipate and avoid danger, sometimes in a psychic sense. Peck also states that society is evolving morally, for a number of things that we would judge as bad (i.e., poor parenting) were not considered to be particularly bad in the past. At the same time, however, Peck holds that we need to overcome our laziness to get better. Peck refers to the story of Adam and Eve, who lazily followed the serpent rather than asking to hear God's rationale for why they shouldn't eat the forbidden fruit. A priest on the television series Six Feet Under made a similar point.
Peck also affirms that our goal in spiritual growth is Godhood. I'm not sure if he believes that this relates to the afterlife, but he does appear to hold that our becoming like God has ramifications for the here and now: As we become disciplined and poised, we have power in a number of situations and challenges. But Peck is clear that we should exercise that power with humility. Peck also envisions people becoming agents of God's love. Peck strikes me as quite mystical. See here, here, and here for my posts on the concept of deification within ancient Christianity and/or philosophy.
Do I buy into what Peck is saying? I don't know. Perhaps there are times when there are coincidences that help us out. Peck refers to a time when he was struggling to write a part of his book, and a lady who didn't even like him that much lent him a book that helped him over that hump. Does the universe help us out, at times? Personally, I have a hard time ruling out luck, especially considering the times in the world when people are not so lucky.
I'd like to close this post by quoting something that Peck says on page 309 about loving and being loved:
"Everyone wants to be loved. But first we must make ourselves lovable. We must prepare ourselves to be loved. We do this by becoming ourselves loving, disciplined human beings. If we seek to be loved----if we expect to be loved----this cannot be accomplished; we will be dependent and grasping, not genuinely loving. But when we nurture ourselves and others without a primary concern of finding reward, then we will have become lovable, and the reward of being loved, which we have not sought, will find us."
It's better to give than to receive. I should remind myself of that on a daily basis, especially when I'm afraid to greet people by name because I fear that they will reject me.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Gabe Dimas and C.S. Lewis
I finished Season 3 of Six Feet Under last week. In one of
the episodes that I watched, Claire Fisher's departed Dad takes her to
heaven, or some realm of the afterlife.
In a park in heaven, Claire sees her ex-boyfriend, Gabriel Dimas, playing frisbee with his little brother. Gabe's little brother shot himself in an earlier episode of the series while Gabe and his friend were using drugs. As for Gabe, we did not know what had happened to him up to now. Gabe was engaging in destructive behaviors, and he even robbed a grocery store for beer. At some point, he disappeared.
As Gabe and Claire talk in heaven, Gabe says that he could not handle life, in which he was selfish. In heaven, however, he feels free to give to others. He is even home-schooling his little brother! What I got from what Gabe was saying was that, in life, Gabe was weighed down by so much inward baggage and burdened by outward pressures, that he really could not give to others. In heaven, however, he was liberated from all that, and thus he felt at peace and was free to give.
That reminded me of something that I read by Rodney----Mere Trinitarianism: C.S. Lewis, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Evangelicalism. Rodney says as he discusses C.S. Lewis' view on human participation in the Triune God's greatness:
"Lewis goes on to expand on this idea of participation in 'The Three-Personal God': 'It is only the Christians who have any idea how human souls can be taken into the life of God, and yet remain themselves–in fact, be very much more themselves than they were before.' In the Bios or natural, we are bundles of self-centered fears, greeds, hopes, self-conceit, and jealousies ('Let’s Pretend') but in Christ, (according to 'Counting The Cost') God 'said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him,–for we can prevent Him, if we choose–He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom, and love as we cannot imagine[.]”
Like Gabe Dimas, C.S. Lewis thought that people in this life were weighed down by inward baggage----self-centered fears, greed, jealousy, etc. Gabe believed that he could only be free from that in the afterlife, where he could truly be himself. Lewis, however, appeared to maintain that we can be on the path to freedom right now, as we participate in the Triune God's greatness and thus become who we truly are.
I agree with Gabe Dimas and C.S. Lewis that I am a victim of inward baggage and outward pressure. I don't think that the solution is to forsake this life in favor of an afterlife, however, because we're in this life for a reason. Perhaps this life prepares us for the afterlife by allowing us to mature in character, or it makes us long for a realm of righteousness and goodness, and that longing makes us better people in the here-and-now. Does embracing evangelical Christianity provide people with a foretaste of heaven----the sort of thing that Gabe Dimas experienced in the afterlife? It can. It does for many people. Others enjoy happiness through other paths, such as twelve-step programs, or other religions. In my case, things are messier. Simply believing in doctrines does not make my life a bed of roses. Giving is something that I struggle to learn and to do, but, hopefully, I'm growing.
In a park in heaven, Claire sees her ex-boyfriend, Gabriel Dimas, playing frisbee with his little brother. Gabe's little brother shot himself in an earlier episode of the series while Gabe and his friend were using drugs. As for Gabe, we did not know what had happened to him up to now. Gabe was engaging in destructive behaviors, and he even robbed a grocery store for beer. At some point, he disappeared.
As Gabe and Claire talk in heaven, Gabe says that he could not handle life, in which he was selfish. In heaven, however, he feels free to give to others. He is even home-schooling his little brother! What I got from what Gabe was saying was that, in life, Gabe was weighed down by so much inward baggage and burdened by outward pressures, that he really could not give to others. In heaven, however, he was liberated from all that, and thus he felt at peace and was free to give.
That reminded me of something that I read by Rodney----Mere Trinitarianism: C.S. Lewis, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Evangelicalism. Rodney says as he discusses C.S. Lewis' view on human participation in the Triune God's greatness:
"Lewis goes on to expand on this idea of participation in 'The Three-Personal God': 'It is only the Christians who have any idea how human souls can be taken into the life of God, and yet remain themselves–in fact, be very much more themselves than they were before.' In the Bios or natural, we are bundles of self-centered fears, greeds, hopes, self-conceit, and jealousies ('Let’s Pretend') but in Christ, (according to 'Counting The Cost') God 'said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him,–for we can prevent Him, if we choose–He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom, and love as we cannot imagine[.]”
Like Gabe Dimas, C.S. Lewis thought that people in this life were weighed down by inward baggage----self-centered fears, greed, jealousy, etc. Gabe believed that he could only be free from that in the afterlife, where he could truly be himself. Lewis, however, appeared to maintain that we can be on the path to freedom right now, as we participate in the Triune God's greatness and thus become who we truly are.
I agree with Gabe Dimas and C.S. Lewis that I am a victim of inward baggage and outward pressure. I don't think that the solution is to forsake this life in favor of an afterlife, however, because we're in this life for a reason. Perhaps this life prepares us for the afterlife by allowing us to mature in character, or it makes us long for a realm of righteousness and goodness, and that longing makes us better people in the here-and-now. Does embracing evangelical Christianity provide people with a foretaste of heaven----the sort of thing that Gabe Dimas experienced in the afterlife? It can. It does for many people. Others enjoy happiness through other paths, such as twelve-step programs, or other religions. In my case, things are messier. Simply believing in doctrines does not make my life a bed of roses. Giving is something that I struggle to learn and to do, but, hopefully, I'm growing.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Spiritual Insights on Six Feet Under
I’ve been watching the first season of Six Feet Under. I like it so far because of the stories, and also because I like Michael C. Hall (who later starred on Dexter), Rachel Griffiths (who later was on Brothers and Sisters), and Freddy Rodriguez (who was in Lady in the Water).
There were interesting points about religion in a few of the episodes that I watched recently. Michael C. Hall plays David Fisher, a homosexual who (at least in this season) is ashamed to admit publicly his homosexuality. David is rather conservative, in the sense that he is responsible, dutiful, and rather uptight. David vacillates between two churches: a rather conservative church that he attends with his mother, and a more gay-friendly church that he attends with his boyfriend. The priest at the conservative church helps to make David a deacon, and my hunch is that this is because he knows that David is gay and hopes that David will try to move the church in a more progressive direction. But, to the priest’s disappointment, David is not that type of person, for he prefers to avoid making waves.
At the liberal church that David attends, the priest was offering an interesting interpretation of the story of the Fall in Genesis 3. According to her, the sin of Adam and Eve was not that they ate the forbidden fruit, but rather that they believed the serpent’s lies without allowing God to present God’s own side—-to refute the serpent’s charge that God was lying to Adam and Eve and was trying to hold them back from what was good. I like this interpretation because it places God in a positive light and treats people as if they have minds of their own and are able to listen to and evaluate different sides. That differs from the usual interpretation that I hear of Genesis 3: that God expected Adam and Eve to obey him mindlessly, no questions asked.
At the conservative church, as I said, David is made a deacon. The church is thinking of bringing in another priest, who is quite progressive. This priest tells David that Jesus was a revolutionary who was assassinated by the powers-that-be, and that the same thing would happen to Jesus today. The priest also said that sitting in church does not exempt people from moral responsibilities, and that people should stand up and protest when a gay or an African-American is killed by bigots. Rather than pursuing this kind of relationship with God, the priest laments, many parishioners prefer to limit their devotion to praying to a man on a cross.
The priest was making some powerful points. I don’t think that Jesus was a revolutionary in a violent sense (and I am not sure if this priest was saying that). But Jesus’ acts of compassion and moral indignation were controversial and brought upon him the wrath of the powers-that-be. His eating with sinners challenged social and perhaps even religious norms. His healing on the Sabbath ran against the piety of certain Pharisees (according to the Gospels). And his cleansing of the Temple concerned the authorities, both among Jews and also Romans. And, in my opinion, compassion today can challenge entrenched special interests—-a number of health insurance companies, a racist society, people who put profits ahead of people, etc.
There were interesting points about religion in a few of the episodes that I watched recently. Michael C. Hall plays David Fisher, a homosexual who (at least in this season) is ashamed to admit publicly his homosexuality. David is rather conservative, in the sense that he is responsible, dutiful, and rather uptight. David vacillates between two churches: a rather conservative church that he attends with his mother, and a more gay-friendly church that he attends with his boyfriend. The priest at the conservative church helps to make David a deacon, and my hunch is that this is because he knows that David is gay and hopes that David will try to move the church in a more progressive direction. But, to the priest’s disappointment, David is not that type of person, for he prefers to avoid making waves.
At the liberal church that David attends, the priest was offering an interesting interpretation of the story of the Fall in Genesis 3. According to her, the sin of Adam and Eve was not that they ate the forbidden fruit, but rather that they believed the serpent’s lies without allowing God to present God’s own side—-to refute the serpent’s charge that God was lying to Adam and Eve and was trying to hold them back from what was good. I like this interpretation because it places God in a positive light and treats people as if they have minds of their own and are able to listen to and evaluate different sides. That differs from the usual interpretation that I hear of Genesis 3: that God expected Adam and Eve to obey him mindlessly, no questions asked.
At the conservative church, as I said, David is made a deacon. The church is thinking of bringing in another priest, who is quite progressive. This priest tells David that Jesus was a revolutionary who was assassinated by the powers-that-be, and that the same thing would happen to Jesus today. The priest also said that sitting in church does not exempt people from moral responsibilities, and that people should stand up and protest when a gay or an African-American is killed by bigots. Rather than pursuing this kind of relationship with God, the priest laments, many parishioners prefer to limit their devotion to praying to a man on a cross.
The priest was making some powerful points. I don’t think that Jesus was a revolutionary in a violent sense (and I am not sure if this priest was saying that). But Jesus’ acts of compassion and moral indignation were controversial and brought upon him the wrath of the powers-that-be. His eating with sinners challenged social and perhaps even religious norms. His healing on the Sabbath ran against the piety of certain Pharisees (according to the Gospels). And his cleansing of the Temple concerned the authorities, both among Jews and also Romans. And, in my opinion, compassion today can challenge entrenched special interests—-a number of health insurance companies, a racist society, people who put profits ahead of people, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)