Edge of Somewhere: Into the Fray

Is God Scarce?

“The quest for inner knowledge is rarely a popular one. It is too far afield of common interests and arouses the suspicion of those who fear and hate anything beyond their own horizons.” —Richard Smoley from Inner Christianity

What do you consider valuable? Is it something limited and precious or unlimited and boundless? Is it a thing that can be counted and sequestered away, hoarded and kept under lock, or not a ‘thing’ at all? What is the value of your spirit? What price would you put on God? Can we somehow lose either or are our essential possessions inseparable from us?

I recently had dinner with a Rabbi friend; we discussed the emerging spirituality¹ of our time over beer and pizza, the ultimate Kosher foods. We exist in a very linear time based society; yet, it’s usually moot to connect a ‘time’ to ‘spirituality’. Spirituality isn’t necessarily something that is directly bound to or dependent on time. However, in this case, time is paramount…and may simultaneously still have no bearing. It’s all part of the paradox of our spiritual understandings as we can’t necessarily parse spirituality in a logical manner. I can sit here and dissect the history of spiritual thought and analyse my own; but, in doing so, the life of it is easily lost. However, our personal and societal understanding of spiritual growth and emergence is set in time.

We spoke about various waves of spiritual understanding throughout history—the windows of enlightenment and the drastic measures taken to close them by power-hungry people. The Desert Fathers and the Gnostics were too mystical and directly connected in their understanding of God; they were suppressed by the power of hierarchal thought. The opening of the Reformation gave way to the rationalisation of the Renaissance and the need to codify and explain spirituality.

People (in this and every age) want simplicity; they want a clarified and scripted version of spiritual reality. It removes the need for effort and time. We are in the age of instant everything; there is no surprise that people expect instant faith and spirit. As a side note, one of the criticisms of The Emergent Church and ‘modern’ faith in general is that it does not provide enough structure. Critics say, ‘it’s just a mis-mash of froofy faith with no real foundations.’ I would counter that faith is not at all about structure; religion, yes, but faith is about finding one’s own path to the Divine presence in everyday life. One needs only enough structure to open a space to walk that path. This is part of the reason I feel increasingly drawn to a Quaker consideration of faith.

How much time do we have to reach a common state of spiritual enlightenment before our spirits are irrevocably harmed? I believe we are in a middle state holding something with terrific power; perhaps something far more potent than any weapon we can devise. We have our hands on the red buttons of spirituality and lean upon them with random ignorance. I don’t know that ‘actual’ tangible damage is at hand; but there are strong hints toward this possibility. I think the parallels between weapons of mass destruction and spirituality are valid; both harness potent energies that can be used for some constructive purpose (give me some leeway with nuclear power here) or channelled into the most destructive forms imaginable. I sense right now that energy is building and only hope that it’s harnessed by the opening of our spiritual understanding.

A few weeks ago, I overheard a conversation about the war in Afghanistan (though, of course, it wasn’t really about that; the particular circumstances are only a mask for much deeper issues). The statement this man made was so shocking to me I didn’t know how to respond and missed the moment to acknowledge that I and probably many others think this is distasteful to say the least. He said (in reference to Afghanistan):

I think we should just nuke the place; make it all into a desert. All those people want is war and they’ll keep fighting till the last kid throwing a rock is dead. We are going to keep sending our boys over there…and they are just going to keep getting killed for no good reason. There is nothing there worth anything anyway.

This was said by someone who proports to be a believing Christian and holds a Bible study at his house (maybe he’s been focusing too much on those Old Testament passages where The Children of Israel are given licence to wipe out whole tribes and peoples). Later that evening I thought of what to say: that, obviously, in any war there are people who want nothing of it and are caught in the middle. That the enthusiasm of war isn’t always played out in the quiet rooms of home; parades and propaganda are for the street and that’s what we see on television. That war is not simply a conflict of ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ but a continuum of situations that may lead to conflict. We seem to forget that every time we are in disagreement with someone. Also, more to the point, we must find a way to resolve our differences without resorting to violence. Yet we seem to become more polarised and ‘game oriented’ in war (in that someone must ‘win’ and someone must ‘loose’; if we try to stay in Afghanistan till we ‘win’ we probably will have to level the place and wipe it all ‘clean’). I should have said to him, ‘I personally do not agree with what you have said; are you going to kill me now? Does the very fact that I think differently than you give you cause strike me down?’

But this is the place we are in; most of our conflict at every level is over ideas and ideals (as, essentially, it’s always been). It’s just that now we have an opportunity to massively magnify this conflict in both the physical and spiritual realms. We are at a point of emergency; the emergence of a potent force of spirituality and we are both energised and frightened with the possibilities. My concern is that there is an open route here to aim this spiritual energy in a direction that is superbly harmful.

Much of this comes down to a concept of spiritual scarcity; we’re making decisions based on a materialistic view of the spirit. Much of what this man said reflects an understanding of a material god. Every Christmas there is a ‘necessary toy’ that every child must have; however, there are only a limited number of them, so anxious parents queue outside the store in hopes of purchasing one. We’ve given over to the same view of God; God all packaged up in paper and plastic on the shelf. When the doors open, we think we must rush in and pluck off a box of God before they are all gone. We don’t have an expansive and abundant view of God; we hide our concept of God away with jealousy because there is not enough to go around to anyone else and we are willing to use violence to protect our little paper boxes. (Note that ‘we’ here is not just ‘us’. I’m meaning that this is the trend of Fundamentalism and staid religious thought across the board).

We now find ourselves in a place where God is running out and we have the physical and spiritual weapons to ‘protect’ this concept of a scarce God. I suppose my question is how can we (how can I) foster the idea of a shared spirit of abundance before we hit that button that leaves little opportunity to do so afterward?

Of course, I have to consider my own comprehension of an abundant God; I’ve traversed a wide span of understanding here. I think, at one time, I believed God was super-abundant but limited in scope; that there was more than enough ‘God in store’ but that only certain people had access. Now I’m leaning more towards an unlimited abundance—that God is not someone who is contained at all. This is my emerging concept (not that I’m the first one to think it; but the idea is working its way past my logical brain into my spirit and there are sometimes barriers there). My hope is that I can have clarity with my beliefs of God and our interrelations enough that, when I’m in situations such as the one with the ‘nuke the bastards’ man mentioned above, my response is one of peace and wisdom. It’s far too simple to respond with a counter-argument or feed hostility with hostility. I believe what needs to emerge with us all is a spirit of peace when all seems polarised and contrary. If not we will repeat these cycles seen throughout history; but, this time, with amplified results. I pray we can magnify hope and harmony instead.

¹ Note that I’m not necessarily referring to The Emergent Church which is a somewhat distinct though associated concept.

Into-the-Fray • 22 July 2010 Comment

Agency

Some further thought on my previous entry…

I’m not suggesting the creation of a journalist elite class; my thought is that ‘Journalist Citizens’ would be a hybrid between journalists as we understand them now and ombudsmen (think UN special observers). They would be (ideally) distinct from national or editorial demands that might overtly or inadvertently influence the story. This would probably necessitate an independent news agency in Iceland that would act as both a sending agency and repository for the information gathered (it’s just taking the IMMI concept a few steps further than proposed).

This is, of course, idealistic; a special passport is not necessarily going to gain access to a radical madrassa or protect a journalist from harm. However, I think the overall concept has merit both in the present and future. There is a need for neutral observers in our highly polarised and market driven society (and again, I’m speaking from an American perspective noting that there are yet excellent media here and elsewhere). But to look beyond the present, there will be a need for recognised neutral observation fifty or a hundred years in the future. The analogy that comes to mind are the seed banks built to house pure strains of the world’s plant stock. Yes, there is abundant access to these plants now; but the time may come where we need to reference an unaltered seed set aside. We need a ‘seed bank of journalism’ somewhere that is dedicated to the most neutral observation of the present so we can reference and contrast at some point in the future.

Also, I’m not sure this isn’t happening now; obviously responsible journalists and publications rigourously research and then archive their stories; opening another news agency in remote Iceland won’t suddenly plant a beacon of truth superseding previous attempts at journalistic excellence. What it might do is establish a new set of independent benchmarks beyond editorial boundaries set by national and corporate constraints. I don’t want to get overtly cynical about these constraints because there are excellent journalists who work freely under them; however they are there and recognised both within and without. I think the only way to make a distinct separation is to step completely outside the structures into a new and independent agency.

Still mulling on this; thanks to the people who have emailed with comments.

Journalist Citizens

Since my return from India I’ve given much thought to the role photographers and journalists play in world events—or, perhaps that’s not the scale I’m considering—what is our role and responsibility to the individuals we document? This is not a novel question; it’s standard in the curriculum of J-schools everywhere and is (or should be) a primary consideration for any journalist of integrity. However, I’m trying to codify it for myself and make clear what I’m attempting when working with vulnerable people.

I’ve had a profitable discussion with David Wells over the past weeks; David is a former teacher of mine and experienced photojournalist. I suggested we might compose a code of conduct—a sort of Hippocratic Oath for photographers (again, not an original idea but one that might be revisited as the nature of journalism changes). I think it important that, as we travel into communities where we have free reign to work (often without thorough question of our motives), we clearly state our purpose and intent. We may not always fulfil that ideal but neither can a physician always save his or her patient. Journalism and medicine involve a careful balance of skill and serendipity; both carry the opportunity for healing as well as harm.

I celebrate the opportunities we have now for citizen journalism; the tools at hand take us far beyond traditional ‘gatekeeper controlled’ news. When someone with a pocket digital camera and a laptop can bring out hidden truths of a repressive government we’ve crossed a significant threshold. However, I wonder if we should not retain something of the old model—whether we are diffusing too much the role that a person defined as a journalist has to play in society. Everyone should be involved in the exchange of information and engage in the progress of their community, government, and so on; we have the ability to speak directly in a public arena without (generally) sanction or review by our peers. I just hope that, in the mêlée, the voices of Journalist Citizens are not forgotten. There is still room and need for people who are set apart for the specific task of digging deep and bringing out a story held to vigourous scrutiny. We seem to be loosing the ability to discern between citizens who express what they experience and journalists who write about the experiences of others; I speak from an American perspective watching and reading our news here. We readily accept the ‘journalism’ of a random weblogger (again, not to denigrate the medium; there are wonderful and thorough writers on the web) and simultaneously receive the rants of television anchors who speak without the backing of research or fact checking. Whether the medium is new and fluid or ‘old and respected’, truth suffers on both accounts. (Once again, this is an ongoing discussion all over the web and among journalists.)

To my point; I wonder if there is a place for a group of people set apart as far as possible from editorial coercion and political influence as possible. One of the issues photographers and journalists have in the field is their county of citizenship. There is always a political element if one is ‘an American photographer’ or an ‘Israeli journalist’; what if a neutral state offered a special conditional citizenship to journalists (in that, instead of swearing only allegiance to that state, the journalists would swear to uphold a strongly reasoned commitment to truth and transparency)?

Susan Garde Pettie (who will, I believe, be First Minister of Scotland one day) forwarded me a link concerning the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative. IMMI is an attempt to build a haven for journalism by writing best practices for free speech into Icelandic law. Iceland would become a physical repository for free speech via the internet to put information beyond the reach of repressive governments and corrupt corporations (who might otherwise shut down the servers of bloggers and newspapers in their own countries).

Birgitta Jónsdóttir is the Icelandic MP behind this initiative; I e-mailed her yesterday and suggested that Iceland develop a journalism degree program that incorporates the best practices of investigative integrity. After completing the program, the graduates would apply for citizenship (in the same spirit that the British and other countries offer a two year work visa to graduates; it draws students into the country and builds the overall skill pool). The whole process would be open and the ‘Icelandic Journalist’ passport would become a recognised mark worldwide. (It would need to be an actual citizenship as well; I don’t know if people would necessarily renounce citizenship of their home countries; but it would need to be legitimately recognised as full citizenship so people could be linked to the international conventions on citizen protection akin to what they are attempting with the press haven.) Birgitta responded this morning with some positive remarks, so we shall see where that goes. (By the way, Icelandic MP’s e-mail contacts are published on the web and they use their first names in the addresses; access, transparency, and a bit of humanity.)

Addendum: there are, no doubt, conventions that limit the scope of what states can confer upon citizens—but what if the Journalist Citizen had the same level of recognition as an official or diplomatic passport holder? The bearer could apply for ‘journalistic immunity’ in the same sense that diplomats may have immunity to prosecution.

Into-the-Fray • Journal 17 May 2010 Comment

Planning assumptions

This morning, I read an update on the situation in Haiti with the group who were arrested for trafficking. First, I think we should be careful with the term ‘missionary’ here. I would note a difference between a ‘missionary’ who is someone vetted, trained, sent and supported by a body to whom he or she is accountable and a religious group travelling abroad. From past experience with mission organisations and training short-term teams for cross-cultural contact, I know there is are a broad range of skills and expectations in these groups (both the folk travelling and those who are sending).

Of course I don’t know the specific situation with this group, what the backstory is or what kind of training they had beforehand. But I do know how easy it is to carry one’s assumptions about ‘what probably goes on there and what we can do.’ I do know that, no matter how disorganised the (orphanage, shelter, clinic, church, food pantry, etc.) seems to be, that it’s unwise to come with the assumption that one can impose one’s own organisation on them. We often carry an earnest combination of ‘I want to help in whatever way possible’ and ‘let’s get things done’. We tend to drop in and make a superficial survey of the situation and then offer what seem to be reasonable suggestions or take some direct action without fully considering or consulting with the local partner. I’m wondering if this group made a series of these choices that led to their arrest; it’s also easy to assume that there is no defined mechanism in a given country for accomplishing whatever it is the group wants to focus on (otherwise why would a third party need to step in and do the work).

However, and this is a big however, there is a legitimate role that outside groups can play as a third party with fresh insights on what can be accomplished. Beyond the typical financial aid that can be funnelled, there is networking and brainstorming that come from international partnerships (and this is something that goes both ways; there are sometimes things that the local partner has never considered that seem obvious to the visitor and assumptions that a visitor might make beforehand that the local partner can quickly dispel and completely change the focus of a proposed project). The primary thing (and this goes with any kind of relationship) is open communication. There are huge two-way disasters in the making when either the visitors or the local partners have erroneous assumptions about a given project.

It then becomes dangerous (or causes an international incident) when the visitors don’t have a thorough understanding of local cultural norms or regulations. We are in Mumbai this week enjoying the interplay of ideas in a new place where (hopefully) we are both listeners and catalysts for new thoughts. But I’m just realising anew, especially in situations that are especially sensitive like prostitution or trafficking, that things could quickly go south is one is careless in either that listening or speak too quickly ideas that don’t appropriately address the issues at hand.

Into-the-Fray • 18 February 2010 Comment

Success in failed underpants

The last week’s news sounds like the plot of Mel Brook’s The Producers; in the musical/movie the main characters discover that, by producing a musical that will certainly become a flop, they will paradoxically bring in more money. I wonder if there is a terrorist group channelling the ideas of Mel Brooks (and not sure if that would be hilarious or horrifying).

Had the gentleman of the exploding shorts succeeded in his attempt, we would probably never have known what brought the plane down nor possibly where the man was from, etc. (though these groups are usually quick to shout out what they’ve ‘accomplished’). However, what if the set goal was to fail outright? What if they never intended to destroy the plane?

If a plane is brought down it represents a certain financial loss and obviously a loss of life; though these groups seem intent to bring about the most loss of life possible, I would imagine their goals are more nuanced than that. We are essentially talking about a conflict of worldview; it’s more practical to disrupt the norms of living than to kill large numbers of people (the former requires only a bit of leverage in the right place; the latter usually involves a great deal of effort and risk of exposure).

A few years ago, a man attempted to hide a bomb in his shoe and now, all around the world, travellers must remove footwear for inspection. This man succeeded far more in failure; the disruption he’s caused is global rather than just one flight. Now because of the Underbomber, we are now told to arrive four hours early for flights rather than the accustomed two. How much economic and social disruption do these extra two hours represent? How much stress for people who are already stressed (and how much more surly will the already overworked TSA screeners become)?

I think we risk becoming completely subject to the failures of ideologues; but I suppose that is nothing new.

Into-the-Fray • 5 January 2010 Comment [1]

Halloween Viewing

Whilst waiting for Trick-or-Treaters tonight, I sat watching a DVD collection of The (brilliant) Brothers Quay. The web version of the video does not compare to the remastered films on disc. At the end of In Absentia I—yelped.

I’ll also note the work of Lauren Simonutti while I’m at it. I think that she and the Brothers Quay are drawing from somewhere deep in sister realms.

Into-the-Fray • 31 October 2009 Comment

This Must Be It

Middle-aged hippie Scandinavians in loin-cloths and a drum-kit off road vehicle! How much more can one ask for?

Röyksopp ‘This Must Be It’ from Röyksopp on Vimeo.

Into-the-Fray • 30 September 2009 Comment

Predestination

The shooting in Pittsburgh last week…a man walked into a gym and killed several women; he had planned this for some time, was apparently openly disturbed, published details of it online and was questioned by police a week before under suspicion of having a grenade on public transport. Yet, somehow, ‘nobody noticed’ that something was amiss with him.

The murderer noted that, at church, “This guy [the pastor] teaches (and convinced me) you can commit mass murder, then still go to heaven.” A deacon of this church (from which the murderer was removed for harassing a woman) stated, “God will hold him accountable. God has his justice.” The pastor, “Knapp, who left town Saturday to care for his critically ill father in Florida, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Friday that, ‘the message of the word I preach never reflected such a thing.’” But then the deacon immediately states, “We believe in permanent security—once saved, always saved,” Rickard [the deacon] said. “He will be judged, but he will be in heaven. … He’ll be in heaven, but he won’t have any rewards because he did evil.” (Quotes from AP.)

So which is it? You preached a message of ultimate predestination and election; that one can do nothing that would turn God away from your salvation. Yet you say that he’s going to ‘be judged.’ What, is he going to have to sit in the penalty box for a thousand years? You gave the man a message that he would find acceptance and peace in the life beyond whist fully missing all markers of his unhappiness in this life and attempting to address them here.

The gun dealer where the murderer purchased his weapons certainly does not take responsibility for anything, “Thompson [the dealer] said attacks like Tuesday’s underscore the need for people to protect themselves because police can’t respond in time to crises, he said.”

So…to be clear, the woman in the gym are to blame for this because they were unarmed. They were foolish enough to go out in public without adequate protection from disturbed men who can easily purchase high-powered weapons used in battle and designed specifically for killing people. That has to be the most pathetic logic I’ve heard in at least the last three weeks. Yet people spout it off with a straight face. Why are we checking for weapons in airports? It would seem logical that what is really necessary is to arm everyone on the plane to make things even.

Also, this man was craving attention—and now has it. His name is all over the news around the world. For however many years people did not pay attention to him; he was not important enough to note or give help to and now ‘everyone is talking about him.’ How wise is that? We are giving ammunition to others like him who feel they have no other alternative. What does this have to say about our society that we are so unaware of people with mental illness that they have to completely break down and kill for us to notice (and then we are ‘shocked and saddened’)? It is wholly destructive from all angles that we pay no heed to the warnings (and are ill equipped to deal with them regardless, I would imagine there was nothing the police could do when they encountered him a week before without ‘proof’) and give over an arsenal of tools (literally) to the socially maladjusted for bad ends.

This is going to pass right under the radar; big news for this week till the next tragedy on Wednesday. We will go right back to our lives…and right now there is a lonely person searching for an assault rifle online who thinks this will be his option out.

Into-the-Fray • 10 August 2009 Comment

Oh Bother

Because of a bureaucratic glitch, I’m going to have to leave the UK at the end of this month. One is required to have £800 in the bank at all times for the three months prior to making an application for a visa. That first month of working, when I was transitioning from “student” to “full-time worker, taxpayer, and general contributor to society”, I dipped slightly below that. I realised this three months ago (after if was already too late) and called the Home Office; they said the rule was absolute but, of course, someone sits down and reviews my specific situation (e.g. that I have a full-time permanent job and a regular income). However, I called the international student advisor at my school earlier this week to get the necessary documentation from him for my application—and he said not to even bother. Apparently the government is finding any excuse to deny visas (he just had 120 denied because there was a date presented incorrectly on the graduation letter from Strathclyde). He said that, a year ago, in my situation, they would not have even blinked. “Oh, this fellow already has a job…here is the visa”. Now they are absolutely hard-line, black and white.

We are looking into what my options are; my (terrifically supportive) company is keen on keeping me. The most sensible thing is going to be to end my contract here and send me to another one of the offices abroad (France seems the likely contender at the moment, we are checking on the procedure for a French visa [which, though the French have their own reputation for red tape, seems much more at ease than the British system. The Home Office has all these guidelines and forms regarding visas; the French Consulate General website basically says, “call us up for an appointment and we’ll talk about your needs”—perhaps with a glass of wine and some cheese]). The bizarre thing is that the government is shooting itself in the foot with stuff like this; my company is not going to hire someone else in my place, they will just send me to another country…and my tax and social revenue will go there with me. I want to be here! I have a good job, plus I do NGO work on the side and want to bring in folk from the organisations I work with do training and programs here. I’m not leaching off the government or just floundering about. Grrrrrr (to use an exact expression).

It’s a sudden upheaval; just as I am getting settled in, I must leave because of a relatively minor technicality. I will try to come back (as I have till next September to apply for a post-graduate study visa). However, once the visa I have expires (this month), I will have to apply from abroad; applicants from a third country must have £2800 in the bank at all times for the three months prior to application. So wherever I go, it will be for at least three months plus the processing time.

This is all a huge bother and I feel like I’m not dealing with people; just up before a big machine. It is an education though; as an American, it’s easy to fall into an slightly rosy understanding of what one’s rights are to travel and live abroad since my passport opens so many doors. However, my country is famous (now at least) for not reciprocating that openness (e.g. the citizens of many of the places I have been can not travel to the US as readily as I can to their countries). I understand the reasons for all these things on paper; but, when one is dealing with a system that defines people’s lives by an unwavering observation of a set of rules, it’s difficult to maintain an un-biased view.

Into-the-Fray • Journal 11 January 2009 Comment

What happens

I’m back in Glasgow for a few days to pack up my things and prepare for the move to Dumfries and Galloway where I will start work at The Green House, the main offices of Natural Power (See more on The Green House itself at this link.) My title there will be marketing assistant though my role will focus a good deal on internal communications (the company is rapidly expanding and we need to keep track of what everyone is doing in the several offices worldwide). I’ll also produce design and layout work (something I’ve been wanting to do more of) as well as put those cinema and video production skills back into play.

We mostly consult on the design and construction of on and offshore windfarms (the company is well respected and has a 100% success rate for planning acceptance; this is from a combination of careful sighting and a good ethos for working with communities where farms are proposed). They do everything from small sites of a couple turbines to very large offshore installations (such as a 1100 MW site in Ireland that will provide 10% of the country’s electricity).

This will be a big change for me after ten years sporadic freelance work; however, If I’m to take a “proper job”, I’m glad it’s at a place such as this. I think energy is the topic of the moment (how it’s produced, used and abused). I’m looking forward into getting into the thick of it with a group of people who are at the forefront of renewable energy (that’s not an attempt at marketing spin, they really do good stuff). The friend who originally told me about Natural Power said this is one of the best working environments she has encountered (she was working as a headhunter for the renewables sector). These are the “bright green” people who are changing the face of “corporate society”.

Much much more to follow.

Journal • Into-the-Fray 3 October 2008 Comment

« Further reading

Edge of Somewhere

Home

Categories

Search

Read

Recent Comments

Links

Discussions