Faith Unrecognizable
On 27 Nov, 2009 By mpm
I have no regrets about attending seminary, but my one regret in leaving was that I didn't get to take Christian history and theology. So I'm working to make up for that now, in reading theology and Christian history. One of the first books I've picked up is Diane Bulter Bass' "A People's History of Christianity." If there were a progressive Christian "must read" list, this book would be on it. In reading Christian history, and the evolution of Christian theology, I've learned that some tenets of Christianity that I learned from my youth, and thought, in some ways, inherent to the faith, in fact came about relatively late in Christian history.\ One of those basic tenets is the idea that human beings are by nature sinful, and it was Jesus' sacrifice on the cross which provides for salvation for humankind. If one accepts this sacrifice (by becoming a Christian, or being baptised, depending on the particular denomination,) after death, one gets to hang out in bliss with God. If one does not accept, one gets to burn eternally in hell.\ Most progressive Christians (including me) have chosen not to adopt that particular tenet (which many do see as central.) Many are universalists - Jesus died not just for some, but for everyone. But this still suggests a vengeful God who only could be satisfied with blood of some sort.\ There is a really interesting piece of Christian history, around the 10th and 11th centuries, between the theologians Anselm (1033-1109) and Abelard (1079-1142). It was apparently Anselm's who "proposed that Jesus died to satisfy the divine justice of his Father, as a payment of a legal debt required as recompense for sin and to restore God's honor." Abelard countered "'Indeed how cruel and perverse it seems that [God] should require the blood of the innocent as a price of anything, or that it should in any way please Him that an innocent person should be slain - still less that God should hold the death of His Son in such acceptance that by it He should be reconciled with the whole world.' Who, Abelard demended, whould forgive such a God for killing his own Son?" (Bass, Chapter called "Passion".)\ Abelard suggested that Jesus' death was for the sake of love - so much love that he died for his friends. The political and spiritual activist, teacher, rabbi, leader of "the way" was willing to die at the hands of empire, and at the behest of corrupt religious leaders - not for vengance, but for love.\ Anselm's ideas of blood sacrifice obviously won out in it's time, and for the next 900 years or so. But for me, that faith is unrecognizable. And, I'm sure, that for many, my faith in an infinitely benevolent God, a God of love, a God whose son died not as a sacrifice, but as a gift of love, is unrecognizable to them.
How to respond?
On 27 Nov, 2009 By mpm
Two things have come across my desk recently, that I find disturbing. First, something called the "Manhattan Declaration" (Subtitled, A Call of Christian Conscience). It affirms three truths, and I'm sure you already know what two are: "sanctity of human life" and "dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife". The third is, well, strange, to say the least, given the first two: "the rights of conscience and religious liberty." I guess they must not mean the rights of conscience for women, or the rights of religious liberty for people (like me) who think that God dignifies the marriage of two men, or two women. And I doubt that the "sanctity of human life" includes adults on death row.\ The second is a statement apparently being sported on bumper stickers and t-shirts: "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8" The exact verse, depending on one's translation reads: "May his days be few; may another seize his position" (NRSV) or "May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership" (NIV) or "Let his days be few; and let another take his office." (KJV). If that weren't bad enough ... the context of that verse is very disturbing. Go ahead, go read the whole thing. I'll still be here. Basically, they are wishing not only death for Obama, but misery for his children, and even more. The most ironic thing is to look at verse 16, which reads: "For he did not remember to show kindness, but pursued the poor and needy and the broken-hearted to their death" (NRSV, speaking of the same person as in verse 8). Which, of course, is the furthest from the truth about Obama.\ There seems to be an increasing vehemence with which the religious right is speaking their opinions. As someone who appreciated the large number of witty (or not so witty) slogans about the Bush administration, I don't ever remember a popular one suggesting his death, and suffering for his family.\ I don't know how we can respond to this.This helps, but it's only a beginning.\
My Novels
On 03 Sep, 2009 By mpm With 4 Comments
Many of you know that I write science fiction. I've been writing science fiction since the summer of 2006, when I wrote my first novel - it was designed to be the first in a series of three. I subsequently wrote the second (which is mostly complete) and started the third about a year and a half ago. Over the entire time I've been writing, it has been a struggle to figure out what to do with it. On one hand, it would be nice to have the recognition that published authors get. And it also would be nice to have been through that vetting process - people know that what's on the other end is more likely to be good than bad. On the other hand, I'm not looking to make any money off of my writing, I just want people to hear the stories. And as a long time advocate of open content, the idea of moving down the standard publishing route seemed hypocritical - I just couldn't stomach the idea of standard copyright for my work. The idea of telling agents and publishers, at the same time as I was looking to be published as a new, unproven author, that "oh, and by the way, I will demand that all of my work be Creative Commons licensed" seemed a recipe for failure. I know Cory Doctorow did it, but he seems a hard act to follow. Also at the same time, there is a sea change happening in the way that creative work gets distributed - there's disintermediation happening all around - artists sharing and selling their work directly to their audiences, instead of through the standard mediators that used to control distribution. So since I'm pretty much on the technical cutting edge in everything I do, it seemed pretty natural to me to be the same way in this realm as well. And I've also gotten really enamored of the idea of podcasting the novel in episodes. So that is what I am going to do. The episodes will run about every two weeks, starting sometime in late September (once I get a new microphone, and iron out all the kinks.) All episodes will be licensed with a Creative Commons license (I haven't chosen one yet.) I'll also include small amounts of CC-licensed music in the podcast. At some point, if there seems to be interest, I'll put the text up as well in varied formats (probably text, pdf and .mobi,) also CC-licensed. I hope all five of you who listen like it.
What would Jesus do?
On 31 May, 2009 By mpm With 1 Comments
Dr. George Tiller from Wichita Kansas, a physician who performed legal late-term abortions, often when a woman's life or health was at risk, was shot and killed in church this morning. This is the most recent in a very long history of attacks and murders of physicians who perform abortions. I have read varied comments on varied blogs today where people have been suggesting that this was a good thing. And I will be far from surprised if the person who is finally charged and convicted for this crime thought they were doing God's will. What I can never figure out is how it is that people who consider themselves followers of Jesus ever find violence acceptable? I'm reminded of the post that I wrote last fall on Evangelicals and Torture. We progressive Christians are supposedly known for tossing out parts of the Bible we don't like. My question is "what part of "thou shalt not kill" don't you understand?" No wonder the new athiests (and others) think Christianity sucks. And of course, like the gay marriage debate, the Biblical evidence for the idea that life begins at conception is not especially clear (it is symbolic language about God forming us in the womb,) nor are there any proscriptions against abortion in the Bible. And yet, the clearest messages from Jesus were along the lines of "love your enemy as you love yourself," which, in the parlance of one of my favorite bumper stickers, means probably not killing them. As a society and democracy, we have decided that when life begins is a matter for science to determine, and whether to end a pregnancy before then is a matter for a woman to decide for herself. As a fellow progressive faith blogger put it "democracy does not have an opt-out option."
Foodie Heaven and other great things
On 31 May, 2009 By mpm With 2 Comments
I have a friend who has a blog (called Recipes for Trouble), that intertwines life and food in a really cool way. Sometimes, since I love to discover new foods to cook, I think I'll share them here, but I never have. Until today. Ruth and I had a friend over for lunch, so we took the occasion as an opportunity to go to the farmer's market that happens in downtown Oakland (at Jack London Square) on Sundays. I still can't get used to the fact that I can get in-season fruits and vegetables at times like this, when in New England, pretty much all there is are fiddleheads, some greens, asparagus and snap peas. We got all sorts of peppers and herbs. We got two huge bunches of Thai Basil, summer squash, a lot of berries of varied sorts (strawberries, blueberries, raspberries...) We came home, and cooked up some Rice Noodles with Thai Basil Pesto, Summer Squash and Goat Cheese, and a Mixed Berry and Mint Salad (recipes below.) As we cooked, and was oohing and aahing over our great bounty, I was remarking about how California was "Foodie Heaven." We had a really nice time - our friend had spent the year on spiritual sabbatical, spending time at reatreat spaces, monasteries and the like all over the world for a year, so we had a really rich time talking about all that had happened to all of us since we'd last seen each other. Ruth and I had a fun time cooking (we love cooking for people - invite yourself over sometime!) Rice Noodles with Thai Basil Pesto
- Rice Noodles (the kind that come in a plastic package from an Asian Grocery)
- Thai Basil
- Garlic
- Salt
- Coconut Oil (optional)
- Olive Oil (or some other kind of oil)
- Peanuts
Boil some water, and place the rice noodles in the boiling water, and let them cook (a little al dente). While the water is boiling, put cloves of garlic and basil and oil in a blender or food processor, and blend until smooth. Salt to taste. Once the noodles are done, take them out and drain them, and rinse them lightly, returning them to the pot. Add in the pesto, and toss. Move the noodles with pesto into a bowl, and top with chopped peanuts. Summer Squash and Goat Cheese
- Red Onion
- Summer Squash
- Patty Cake Squash
- Long Beans (Asian version of string beans - but you can use regular string beans)
- Goat cheese (soft flakey kind)
- Rosemary
- Olive Oil
- Salt
Sautee red onion in olive oil, add both kinds of squash and saute until close to done. Add long beans, rosemary and salt, and saute until beans are tender. At the very end, add goat cheese, stir quickly, and turn off the flame. Serve immediately. Mixed Berry and Mint Salad
- Strawberries
- Blueberries
- Raspberries
- Blackberries
- Goat Cheese
- Mint
- Sugar
Place a layer of mint leaves at the bottom of a bowl. Add mixed berries until full. In a blender, mix goat cheese, mint leaves, sugar and some water. Blend until smooth. Drizzle fruit.
Be like a three year-old
On 03 May, 2009 By mpm With 1 Comments
I don't have kids, but I do know how young kids ask questions. They are innocent, and free of assumptions, and keep asking "why?" In the end, the poor adults either get tired of the questions, or realize that there are assumptions they've been making for all this time that might actually be worth questioning. Human processes mold around software. We see this all the time. A CRM gives you these 5 canned reports, and you get used to making do with what's there. A legacy client database requires a certain order of data entry, and your intake forms have been produced to copy that order. Your email software has particular limitations, and you find behavioral workarounds. What's also true in the realm of customized software, is that software is molded around people. You put in your RFP that a package spit out data in X,Y and Z ways because your ED is used to data in that form (maybe because a package they had at their previous organization had those canned reports.) You have a requirement that data be entered into the system in one particular way, probably because that's the way you've always done it. Sometimes, you feel the need to replicate a process that the person 3 administrative assistants ago put in place that was molded around their particular limitations, just because that's what you know. When you are undergoing the process of creating or implementing a new system of any sort, whether it be a CMS for a website, a CRM, some internal system, it is a really good exercise to be like a 3 year-old, and keep asking "why?" Why do we need this feature? Why will this report be important? Why should the software work this way? Once you peel the layers down to the bottom, you'll either have "we don't know" or "because we believe it will help us meet our mission in this specific way." Then you know what you should take, and what you can leave behind.
Evolution, Science, and God
On 18 Apr, 2009 By mpm With 2 Comments
I've been a fan of Darwin's ever since I read On the Origin of Species when I was a kid. I've even read parts of Steven J Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. I think there aren't really a whole lot more interesting scientific theories around (well, OK, I've become a recent fan of non-locality.) A while back, a couple of articles piqued my interest. The first was a story about a "scientific" study, which seems to suggest that:
... our minds are conflicted, making it so we have trouble reconciling science and God because we unconsciously see these concepts as fundamentally opposed, at least when both are used to explain the beginning of life and the universe.
I spent a good bit of time as a scientist teaching about issues related to how scientists think about a topic can influence how they ask questions, and how they analyze data. If there was ever a classic case of how the assumptions of scientists affected how they did their research, and what conclusions they came to, this is it. The scientists read students two different statements about the origin of the universe. One said that "the theories were strong and supported by the data," and the other said the theories "raised more questions than they answered." They were then required to do a word categorization task, while the words "science" and "God" were flashed intermittently (and too fast for the subjects to be consciously aware of.) And this is what they found:
... subjects who read the statement in support of the scientific theories responded more quickly to positive words appearing just after the word "science" than those who had read statements critical of the scientific theories. Similarly, those who read the statement suggesting that the scientific theories were weak were slower than the other group (who read the theory-supportive statement) to identify negative words that appeared after they were primed with the word "God."
And the scientist says the following:
Preston says her research shows that a dual belief system, for instance the idea that evolution explains biology but God set the process in motion, does not exist in our brains. "We can only believe in one explanation at a time,"
Huh? Who comes up with this idiocy? Hard wired? Why couldn't this be, for instance, a fairly straightforward demonstration of a set of cultural assumptions? And, of course, starting out with using only the words "God" and "science" and pairing them with strong vs. critical representations of scientific theories of origin is setting it all up to be oppositional and dualistic.
The second article was a report about a Vatican conference on Darwin, which had decided to add Intelligent Design to their agenda. And the article goes on to ask whether ID belongs at a Vatican conference on Darwin, and asks, in the headline, is it "culture or science?" Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism in different clothes. There is nothing scientific about it. Both articles do the standard journalistic thing of setting science and religion against each other. The second article at least remembers to state that the official position of the Vatican is that "science and faith are compatible."
Of course, the major culprits in this are not the journalists (they do play a role.) It's the Young Earth creationists who insist on saying the universe is less than 10,000 years old, and all evolutionary science is either fraudulent or the work of satan, and the "new atheists," like Richard Dawkins, who insist that the lack of evidence of God proves that God doesn't exist.
Back to Stephen J. Gould for a moment. He came up with something that makes a lot of sense to me. It's called "Non Overlapping Magisteria." It's the idea, basically, that you don't use the tools of one domain to look at the other. From Wikipedia:
In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion."^^He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"^^ and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."^^ In his view, "Science and religion do not glower at each other...[but] interdigitate in patterns of complex fingering, and at every fractal scale of self-similarity."
I like this one. As someone who has spent most of my life with both feet deeply in both magisteria, I love that concept of interdigitation, and of no need for conflict. And sometime I'll write a blog entry about Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit priest who was a paleontologist who tried to integrate the two, with interesting result.
Counting the Omer: Christian Orthodoxy vs. Orthopraxy
On 12 Apr, 2009 By mpm With 7 Comments
I came upon a stray tweet from someone I follow, which lead me on a search that led to an interesting blog entry asking "Why don't Christians count the Omer?" Counting the Omer, if you don't know, is a Jewish tradition of counting the 50 days between Passover (the liberation from slavery) and the holiday, Shavu'ot, which commemorates the giving of the Torah to the people of Israel. If you don't know (I didn't,) Shavu'ot and Pentecost are on the same day. I find the parallels really fascinating. Passover - a celebration of liberation from slavery, and Shavu'ot, a celebration of God's giving of the Torah. Holy Week and Easter, the commemoration of Jesus' death and resurrection, and Pentecost, the commemoration of the coming of the Holy Spirit. Of course, it all makes a lot of sense. Jesus, and all of his earliest followers, were Jews, and lived and practiced that tradition. In my long knowledge of Jewish tradition (having grown up in Great Neck, and having had many Jewish friends over the years) and my early seminary days of learning about the Hebrew Bible, and studying Kabbalah, I have always been struck by what is (besides the obvious) the major difference between Christianity and Judaism - orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy. "The word orthodox, from Greek orthodoxos "having the right opinion," from orthos ("right, true, straight") + doxa ("opinion, praise", related to dokein, "thinking"),^^ is typically used to mean adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion." (From Wikipedia) "Orthopraxy is a term derived from Greek ([ὀρθοπραξις]{lang="grc" lang="grc"}) meaning "correct action/activity", and is a religion that places emphasis on conduct, both ethical and liturgical, as opposed to faith or grace etc.^^This contrasts with orthodoxy, emphasizing a correct belief, and ritualism, the use of rituals." (From Wikipedia) So why don't we, as Christians, Count the Omer? Of course, this is a huge theological question - why have we, in large part, completely substituted practice with belief? In some corners (not so small) of Christianity, it doesn't matter if you preach sinfulness of gays and lesbians while having gay sex (and repenting later,) beat your wife, focus on getting rich, or kill other human beings, as long as you believe what is considered "right" you're, in that way of thinking, going to heaven. And no manner of right action or practice, whether it be nonviolence, love, compassion or ritual or contemplation, matters, if you don't have the right beliefs. It seems really hard for me to imagine that the one, a Jew, who said things like "love your neighbor as yourself," and lived the life of radical compassion and love that He did, would think that made a whole lot of sense. Progressive Christians have begun the process of moving ourselves away from orthodoxy, but I do think sometimes we suffer some of the same symptoms. As long as people think like us, they get to be counted as part of us. Otherwise, they don't. I think Christians need a lot more orthopraxy and a lot less orthodoxy of all kinds. What's most important to me is how I behave, how I live, and how I live out, every day, my relationship with the One I call God. So from now until Shavu'ot/Pentecost, I'm Counting the Omer, in my own way.
Slow blogging
On 08 Apr, 2009 By mpm
As is obvious, I haven't blogged since Inaguration day, more than 3 months ago. Mostly, it's because I've been crazy busy. I moved, again, within Oakland, from Fruitvale to Millsmont. I found a new business partner, and we are busily building a business. I found a new church home, and I am beginning to become involved in varied activities in my East Bay and Bay Area community. So, in some ways, I have been pretty deeply engaged with life. All good. I do have lots to say, these days, but I seem to either expend a lot of writing/opining attention to either my professional blog, or twitter. Neither of which helps me blog on non-tech topics here. But I think that might be changing. I want to blog about Oakland, about the new-ish splintering of the progressive religious community, and my continuing engagement with Christianity, particularly in the context of my new church.
Exciting changes afoot...
On 01 Apr, 2009 By mpm With 1 Comments
I have some exciting news. For the last few months, I have been working on a new collaboration called OpenIssue, which is a growing, diverse, self-reflective and constantly-learning team. We are focused on delivering quality web technology solutions to nonprofit organizations and social enterprises. As you know, I have built a long-time expertise in open source software and web applications, particularly Content Management Systems (CMS) and online database systems, including CRM. Thomas Groden, my new business partner, has expertise in Software-as-a-Service Constituent Relationship Management Systems (CRM), as well as much more broad expertise in technology infrastructure. All technology implementors have to choose their tools (unless they run a very large shop) and we have decided to focus on implementation of both Salesforce.com and CiviCRM as CRMs, and Drupal as a CMS. We are keenly interested in building on our expertise to integrate these open platforms in really rich ways, to allow organizations to create great online applications. I'm excited to be a part of a team - I've been a soloist for a while, and it's nice to build collaborations, and work together with people with shared ideals on larger projects than I'd be able to take on alone. And I'm really excited by the set of technologies we're working on, and the kinds of applications we'll be building with these technologies. And you can follow us on twitter.
Spirituality
I spent 3 semesters (from Fall 2005 through Fall 2006) attending seminary. I graduated with a Certificate in Theological studies. Although I left that behind, and decided for a variety of reasons, not to continue seminary, I learned a lot in that process, and those lessons are manifesting themselves in many ways in my life right now. What I have learned is that, broadly speaking, spirituality is the most important thing in my life, and, in fact, the fuel that keeps me running.
For me, this has basically three components: my own journey to live and be in touch with my highest, best self, which could be called the "God in me," my spritual practices, and the sort of more intellectual approach to the existential questions of life. There is nothing more important to me than this.
Of course, almost everything is enfolded in these: my relationships with people in my life, and in the world, the way I live, the way I work, what and how I write, the way I approach life. My theology is hard to define, although if I were forced to choose one word, it would be "panentheist." I have moved from being a Christian, in my early life, to being a secular humanist, to a neo-pagan, a Buddhist, a Unitarian Universalist, and then a Christian again. Christianity certainly is the religion that has formative authority for me - it is the religion of my youth, my family, and, to a large extent, my culture. My beliefs haven't changed much over all of those years - it's mostly been a search for the proper container for it.
My Inauguration Post
On 20 Jan, 2009 By mpm
I spent the morning at a friend's house with a small group of folks watching the Inauguration. Obama's speech was, as usual, a call to the best of who we are, and the best of what this country means. It was moving. In going out and about today, people were smiling, wearing their Obama shirts, and feeling elated. Twitter has been abuzz with activity. There is so much to say about what happened today. So many have said so much. Here's a little bit of what I think this means for me. Ever since November 7, 1972, when George McGovern lost to Richard Nixon, in a year where I was 13, and had just begun to understand what I believed in, and what was important to me, I have felt in opposition to my government, fighting against its actions, and ashamed at being an American. Ever since then, all of my political perspective and effort has been as an outsider to government, and in opposition to what did. Yes, of course, I believed in what America stood for, but I felt that not only did we often fall short, but we actively undermined those ideals time and time again. The election of Barack Obama does not erase that history, or change everything all at once. You can't turn a huge ocean liner on a dime. It will take time, and effort for the U.S. government, and the country at large, to truly reflect the ideals that Obama has expressed. Interestingly enough, Rick Warren, the pastor who caused such an outcry because he was chosen to give the invocation at the inauguration, said something in his prayer that I truly hope he himself listens to:
And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.
Now, I feel proud to be an American, and feel like I am willing to be engaged with the government in ways that I never felt I would be willing to in the past. And, I feel like now, it's time for me to listen to people I don't agree with. Listen to their hopes, and their dreams, and their goals. And in turn, hope that they will listen to mine, and that we can have civil discourse and dialogue, and come to a place where we all can, in Obama's words:
reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
