Resurrection?

I’m not a religious person, but I have a reverence and respect for the more pure forms of spiritual truth which I think the world’s religions are trying to grasp and make more tangible. When I hear phrases and anecdotes which are often repeated in order to anchor-in religious doctrine, like “Jesus died for your sins.”, or “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”, or “He who is free of sin shall cast the first stone.” I try to register what these really mean and how they can realistically be taken up in our lives now. With some, this is fairly easy to do, but with others, it’s a bit more of a challenge. For instance, I’ve always had a hard time with the “Jesus died for your sins” statement, because this so often seemed to be presented forcibly… as if the speaker were trying to bend people to conform to the religious obligation that we should repay Jesus for his martyrdom by towing the line in the way that this religion dictates. Well, somehow I don’t think that’s what Jesus would have wanted… to have the truth of his martyrdom used to leverage others to conform, out of guilt, to another’s will. So the use of this statement had me stumped for years, until I came to understand better the actions of one person I had the great privilege to know fairly well.

It’s been my belief that we’re all here, in life, to work out our personal issues in some way… to right our karmic wrongs, and to evolve ourselves, and life on Earth, toward something more aware, free, healthy, and enlightened. And that once someone has taken this up effectively, to such a degree that they no longer need to focus just on their own personal work, then they can actually do quite well in lifting up the darkness in the world around them, transforming that into the needed and so desired healthy aliveness those of us invested in this process seek. Some extreme examples of people who have been able to accomplish this are, Jesus Christ (of course), Buddha, and the Dalai Lama. So once I learned, through this one man’s example, that a person having accomplished a high degree of spiritual awareness or enlightenment who knows they will be dying, can consciously, and very effectively, take up a lot of the darkness around them (our sins) and actually rid the world of this upon their death… that light bulb came on over the “He died for our sins” statement.

And so, once I saw that pretty-much anyone can take part in this process… whether you’re stumbling along in your own work of consciously addressing your own pain and darkness like I try to, or you’re actually at a place where you can truly, very substantially improve the world around you (whether others know you’re doing this or not)… something else started to occur to me about possibly the resurrection, but more the second coming of Christ. I began to think that the second coming of Christ could actually refer to the willingness within each of us to take up this process in ourselves to such a point of global saturation that the presence and intention of Christ’s work actually does live again, it’s just en mass.

Anyway… just a thought.

Relationship Waltz

One, two, three.. one, two, three.. you, me, us.. you, me, us...

We, in America, tend to long for being swept up in the wondrous mystery of attraction… the falling in love with, or search for that key soul mate. Personally, I don’t have a single complaint or objection about being lead by the heart… although it is nice to have all other parts on board as well when making important decisions. But I also want to honor all of the infinite ways and reasons for people to come together as a couple. Everyone’s needs, personal histories, and intentions vary so much, that what people seek and need in a relationship is going to vary greatly as well.

In our culture, where we do have the freedom to enter relationships under pretty-much whatever pretence we want to, “love” has become the gold standard of what a good marriage is built on. I wouldn’t argue with this… there’s certainly a rightness to it. After-all, quintessential love can weather all hardships. But what of the many times people ride into union on the wings of a fervently beating heart and security seeking commitment, only to find that things don’t quite add up like they’d hoped. If great disillusionment, pain, and resentment start to pile into the picture, the love aspect certainly does come in handy when working through what this is all about. Still, many of us have come to a place where the life-long commitment comes to a close in a way that elicits the title “failed relationship”. There’s something about this that I think could really use the salve of compassionate understanding.

It’s true that divorce doesn’t hold the same stigma it once did, so this thread of pain and shame has loosened-up quite a bit. But the pain and resentment of dashed expectations, as well as the implication of bad judgment, are maybe even more present, now that our unions are often based more on very personal intentions.

My impression is, that these so-called failed relationships may have been more successful than people tend to give them credit for. If you think back to what it was that brought the relationship into being… what was it that you really wanted or needed? And what was it that came about? If you learned something about yourself, or you partner, that you didn’t know, then this is not a bad thing. If you married a version of your mother or father, chances are you just needed to work on these particular dynamics some more. If you came to terms with this, and freed yourself in the end, then great! Were there aspects of abuse which needed to be faced that you decided not to be part of any more… there’s saving grace here. Do you feel like you just made a big mistake, or that what once was simply is no more? Then you’ve learned some important things, and it’s so good to free each other up to move on. No need to further entrench what wasn’t working with judgment and resentment.

In fact, I tend to think that the true success of a relationship comes down to how well a person is able to navigate the hard times, rather than how brightly we shine, or how long we remain, in the relationship. Certainly it’s a great and increasingly uncommon thing to be married for 50 or 60 years. This is definitely quite the accomplishment. But when looking at the relationship over-all… if it were a painting, that both of you created together, what does that picture look like? Were the dark times terribly dark and painful? Was the foundation and ground-work weak? Was there an effort to treat the darkness with respect?… or was there a tendency to white-wash the profound depths of pain? Is there cohesion, or a lovely but dramatic dance of opposites? Has the degree of pain turned much of what was beautiful to muddy defeat?… or were you able to starkly but compassionately see the pain for what it is and acknowledge it’s poignant truth without deadening or defacing the real beauty of the whole picture.

Each relationship, whether it’s a brief conversation had with the checkout person at the grocery store, or one that’s spanned an entire life, has the potential to be a great work of art… or not. It’s up to us.

Personal Empowerment vs. Power Over Others

"POWER"… I have this theory that there's a big twist in, or misunderstanding about, what this is: being personally empowered (which you can't really be unless you truly know who you are) is a state which would have *no* desire to squash, or sap, or overshadow anyone else... whereas having power in the sense that you hold this over others, and are propped up by the threat of what you could do to those you've put below you, is really a position of the misguided, fractured person who seeks to lift them self up by being threatening and cutting others down - this is illness, not true empowerment.

So this is a bit of a follow-up to my previous post where “equality” between men and women was looked into. Some people brought up how, in any relationship, it’s very unlikely to find a real balance of power, and that one or the other usually holds the power, even if this vacillates back and forth. This is my answer to that perception:

Approaching other people, or animals, as equals doesn't mean jockeying for a balance of power, as if looking for that 50/50 edge... it means honestly presenting who you are, given whatever that is at the time, understanding that each person is a work in progress, and not needing to judge yourself or the other person as being more or less. Each is just being who they are, to the best of their ability, and allowing the other to do the same. So seeing that it's more a matter of putting down the power struggle, rather than an effort to cope with a relative balance or struggle of forces pitted against each other... being able to meet another as an equal is relatively simple, even if it might take a while to get the hang of it. This means you're personally empowered enough to not buy into the power struggle unless you want to. In this way, a person is free... the power struggle no longer has power over them. If you know who you are as a person, and you're secure in this, then no amount of baiting and chiding, or degradation and rejection can make you more or less than you already know yourself to be. To give into this, is actually to give up your own power. But if a person doesn't know them self all that well (and most of us don't, no blame in this), then the dance of interactions in life is there to help sort this out. And so we're back to playing out and working on the human condition.

Yes, in many ways these power struggles are very difficult, complicated or convoluted, and there's overwhelming pain to be addressed. But given the will to take up the challenge of this, and discover tools to help the process, and the openness to understand what it's all for... there really is some truth to the saying: "it's all good".

Men Are From Mars, Women Are From The Planet That Bosses Mars Around

As one friend said to another: "Men are from Mars, women are from the planet that bosses Mars around..." This is funny... not just in a tongue-in-cheek way, but if you consider how many eons women have been dictated to and oppressed by men.

It does seem to be true that it takes some muscle to overcome out-dated norms and systemic oppression. And when it comes to the longstanding lack of equality at best, and socially accepted chronic abuse at worst, between men and women, we still have a long way to go. Current examples can be found in the continuing practice of female genital mutilation, and this story aired on NPR:
Gang Rape Pervasive Across Cambodia where Rachel Snyder reports…
“The tiny Southeast Asian country of Cambodia has seen explosive economic growth in the past five years. Skyscrapers will soon dominate the country's skyline and predictions of oil wealth offer hope that the country is finally beginning to outgrow its grisly past.

But a chilling form of recreation — gang rape — reminds everyone that for Cambodia, the past may yet still loom.”

A story well worth listening to. This is my comment on that, which includes what I think is an important first step in addressing this still quite present and aching gender gap:

“I imagine this is a really difficult story for most Americans to take in. It screams of major cultural differences. It may be that modern pornography has fueled this in a way that helps bring the problem to light, but statements like: "...they found that “bauk” (the name they’ve given to this luring of women into a place where the rape can happen) was a socially accepted form of recreation for young middle-class Khmer men.", "...the young men who commit the rapes think it's funny.", and making excuses for these assaults by saying, "There are also few recreational opportunities for young people." show that this is a much older and more deep cultural issue than the article is willing to state outright. The famous adage, "Men are gold and women are cloth. The former is easily cleaned; the latter easily stained." reveals what's likely to be a long held belief and distinction made between men and women. No doubt the genocide in 1975-1979 compounded matters here, but the fact that the Government seems to blow this off like it's nothing to get all riled-up about speaks to just how much those in control want to keep women in this subservient and denigrated role.

Although I think a strict crack-down on this is absolutely essential, educating people about the fact that this is horrific behavior, which should not be socially acceptable in any form (it's not okay to pull this on sex workers any more than 'normal' girls), is really the key to change. Simply shaming and punishing people will likely push this practice underground rather than honestly addressing the problem by being respectful of this culture with understanding that this is age-old stuff, in order to actually change this overriding cultural view towards all women.”

It’s no wonder that women, in their effort to establish respect and equality, might tend to take up the ways of man and reverse the trend by seeking to dominate as they’ve been dominated. So, in this way, I don’t blame these friends for grumping about the fact that they don’t like to be dominated either. But as long as there’s a mind-set that it’s either one or the other… whether it’s the man or the woman, only one at a time can dominate, then we’re just in a perpetual stand-off.

I tend to think it’s a subconscious perspective for most, but I do see this tendency, in men in particular, to “succumb” to being ruled, whether it be by Patriarchy or Matriarchy. Whereas I see the most natural approach of woman to be that of seeking to meet the other as an equal, without the need to override or dictate to the other. This is just a stereotype, of course, and it might be better to be putting this in the context of “estrogen” and “testosterone” rather than women and men, because truly, all of us do have a mix of both. But by shedding this hormonal light on the subject, it might offer a clue as to why, throughout history, men have a hard time giving up these so well established hierarchical norms. How do you have law, and order, and prestige without establishing dominance? Well… our Constitution is a nice step in that direction, and some of the more peaceful nations without huge military focus, like Sweden, is another. But relating openly, and deliberately, honestly as equals, is essential to bridging the gender gap. Unfortunately, there are many who are particularly invested in dominating, that don’t want to see this bridge built. I’ll have to get going on that post which explores “power over” vs. “being truly empowered”.

Validation

If you click on the title "Validation", this is a link to a 15 minute film called Validation, which my husband, Paul, ran across the other day… he wanted my opinion on it. The subject is pared down to the simplest denominator, and so in that way, it’s not at all true-to-life… but it’s not meant to be. It’s a wonderful stroll through the application of a concept that could have very real and profound significance in our world, if simply allowed to be an option.

The bottom line is, what do you bring to the situation when meeting another person face-to-face? It’s unrealistic to come from the lead characters natural perspective most of the time, or even some of the time for a lot of us. But what if we were to at least approach people, on a regular basis, with deliberately looking for the best in then, and noting their uniqueness, as an option. I personally think this could go a long way in turning the tide on the tendency to approach life from a protective or defensive stance.

Maybe this is more of a first world concept, and doesn’t hold as much water in areas and social structures where people pretty-much live “in the trenches”… but it would be good to start wherever possible.

The Word of God and Homosexuality

painting by Lisa Brunell

text by John J. McGinnis

They say that wisdom come’s with age. With that in mind, my 64 years on this earth has led me to question traditional religious attitudes and traditional religious definitions. In particular, today I want to talk about the religious morality surrounding homosexuality that places so much pressure on Holy Scripture.

Why is this prejudice so deep and so widely assumed to be self-evident that major religious denominations simply quote the Bible as justification to continue their oppression and rejection of gay and lesbian people? Take the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Here traditional religious churches cite this as a biblical account, which of course is justification of God’s condemnation of this behavior. If one was read this story more carefully, one might realize that it is a story involving hospitality laws, gang rape and violent malevolence toward women.

Claims of biblical literalism are not a call of people to the values of justice, but in reality a way to justify existing prejudice by keeping oneself secure inside a way of life that cannot be challenged by any new insight or fact. Those who adhere to the biblical literalism deny that homosexual orientation is not a matter of choice, but a matter of ontology; that is, it is of the being, not the doing. This phenomenon has been present in human life since the dawn of human history. How can we, the human population of the 21st century, really believe that the authors of the Bible had knowledge on this subject superior to those of our species now occupying terra firma?

There are those who claim that the Bible is very clear about homosexuality and take pains to quote selected passages to buttress their beliefs. Left out of their justifications are passages that condemn witches and mediums that were used until the eighteenth century to justify the murders of countless women, and that condemned homosexuality and justified the burning at the stake of mant persons thought to be living a responsible gay or lesbian life.

How can anyone who has read this book be so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible in every literal word was the divinely inspired, inherent word of god? Have they not simply read the text?

If all these things were part of a Bible that had to be believed as the literal word of God, I for one, cannot give myself in worship to such a deity. These words have been used throughout history to justify the divine right of kings, the continuation of slavery, the drowning of the Egyptians at the Red Sea, political oppression and mute the criticism of various injustices.

It is time to end this relentless oppression of others by claiming the Bible as God’s Word and thus relegating the majority of the non-believing human family that walks on this great planet as somehow subhuman.

The Dilemma Of Appropriate Boundaries

This is a portrait of my older son, Gabe, when he was 4 yrs. old. We created this together - a collaborative effort. Gabe, especially as a young’n, was very naturally full of his own bigness. And having a big heart to match made this outgoing enthusiasm, and happy engagement with life and people, a real pleasure more than anything. But no matter how beautiful his vibrant being is, this still needs to be appropriately contained at times… and then there’s that pesky personal space reality getting in the way when it comes to friends and “strangers“. So he and I decided to paint him in the context of these boundary issues.

In the painting, Gabe is striding away from the big red square of a boundary behind him… free with easy confidence. I asked Gabe what it’s like for him to be reined-in and contained, when he really doesn’t want to have to break his stride. He explained in two ways… one in words which said, that it’s like a dragon inside him wanting to cry out in fiery protest, and the other he drew at the bottom of the painting:

Looks like a pale, incapacitated, flat on his back, little person contained within the boundary to me.

I bring this up because it seems like such a key thing that adults and children have to contend with. And I tend to think it’s a major component of both a concerted effort to anchor pain into the human condition as well as potentially being an important bottom-line to how we can lift us up out of the insistence on this pain of broken will and strait-jacketing being a needed and integral part of childrearing.

There’s much to be said and explored concerning parenting efforts and the respectful embrace of appropriate boundaries. I’m hoping that people will chime right in with their thoughts here. But for now, I’ll offer these links to the great work some people

are doing to address this issue:

This is a link to a story NPR aired about an activist's efforts in Harlem - very important work here, and so worth a listen: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94977387

I was looking for a link to this new major study I heard about through BBC world news recently, which the English have done on understanding what’s behind children being so unhappy these days. It’s bound to be controversial, and did not bode well for parents, but I wasn’t able to find it! If anyone can post a link to that here, please do. I did run across this link though:

News - Health - Violent imagery 'harms children' . Last updated: 18 Feb 2005
The team of researchers reviewed six major studies on the effects of media violence on children.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4275131.stm