D a n i e l ' s … s p a c e …

November 13, 2011

location?

Filed under: Uncategorized — danielson81 @ 1:05 pm

This is an uncommon post for me. I’ve used this blog to process bites of new information that I picked up over the last years. When I first started blogging I posted quite regularly. I felt like I could stay on top of the processing-process. I felt I could digest the bites thrown at me and conceptualize most of it within my interpretative framework. But then I stopped posting coz I realized that there are too many open ends to my framework. Blogging like I used to became impossible. However, the last few days I felt the need to pull the strands together and to at least try to locate where I’m at in the middle of all the currents within my chest. Putting into words is necessarily limiting in this regard, but can nonetheless be helpful in this locating exercise. Therapeutic blogging, alright.

When I first started “Daniel’s Space” I was on a hot Christian pursuit. I was single-minded, had only one goal: to find out what it means to be a Christian, a follower of Jesus, and then be one! When I write that I can still feel the passion of those days. The same heart still beats in me somewhere. But other things have been added. I can no longer say I’m single-minded. For the intellectual pursuit of studying theology to be done with integrity, I felt like I needed to be open to go wherever the evidence led: Free inquiry, following where the questions lead without pre-conceived answers. That’s good and I’m still all for that. But when you wait with forming answers until you have done all the inquiring, you just never have answers! Coz the inquiring never stops.

Due to a psychological need – the need for a conceptional framework in life – we need answers. We can’t live in chaos. And realizing that I never got to the bottom of any of the inquiries I’ve pursued, I draw the conclusion that all my answers are tentative. They are the best answers I’ve come up with so far but they may change as new information is uncovered- and sometimes they are there due to sheer pragmatism.

What I like about the Christian faith is that it seems to be able to host both: The intellectual pursuit for answers and the deep longings of the heart that are never quite matched by intellect. And I am so thankful for the second.

For some that openness is quite logical, it’s got to be like that. For others that openness is relativism that cannot go hand in hand with the absolutes of the Christian faith. I can certainly feel that tension. It’s probably best to be carried into prayer, the place where both can co-exist, where you feel like you meet with the absolute but have to necessarily remain open in formulation of it. Openness is not easy and neither are absolutes.

And all this has quite practical outworkings. If your answers are mostly tentative, so are your actions. You act out of pragmatism, but you don’t do it with the same devotion, the same passion, the same energy.

So where does this leave me? Well, certainly in what I perceive to be a very interesting but also at times difficult place. Positively, it might be called a place of creative tension. I find that in such places much depends on having the right people to talk to, to explore with.

Rachel once said to me that when we were young the world was wide open, an adventure lying before us. Things could go in any direction. When she said that, there was a hint that now things are different. We have made our choice. We have committed to something.  I wonder to what extent we can be both, committed and open.

May 3, 2011

6-year old writes a letter to God, the Archbishop answers

Filed under: Theology — danielson81 @ 1:06 am

There’s a charming article in today’s Times by Alex Renton, a non-believer who sends his six-year-old daughter Lulu to a Scottish church primary school. Her teachers asked her to write the following letter: “To God, How did you get invented?” The Rentons were taken aback: “We had no idea that a state primary affiliated with a church would do quite so much God,” says her father. He could have told Lulu that, in his opinion, there was no God; or he could have pretended that he was a believer. He chose to do neither, instead emailing her letter to the Scottish Episcopal Church (no reply), the Presbyterians (ditto) and the Scottish Catholics (a nice but theologically complex answer). For good measure, he also sent it to “the head of theology of the Anglican Communion, based at Lambeth Palace” – and this was the response:

The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury: Rowan Williams

Dear Lulu,

Your dad has sent on your letter and asked if I have any answers. It’s a difficult one! But I think God might reply a bit like this –

‘Dear Lulu – Nobody invented me – but lots of people discovered me and were quite surprised. They discovered me when they looked round at the world and thought it was really beautiful or really mysterious and wondered where it came from. They discovered me when they were very very quiet on their own and felt a sort of peace and love they hadn’t expected.

Then they invented ideas about me – some of them sensible and some of them not very sensible. From time to time I sent them some hints – specially in the life of Jesus – to help them get closer to what I’m really like.

But there was nothing and nobody around before me to invent me. Rather like somebody who writes a story in a book, I started making up the story of the world and eventually invented human beings like you who could ask me awkward questions!’

And then he’d send you lots of love and sign off.

I know he doesn’t usually write letters, so I have to do the best I can on his behalf.

Lots of love from me too.

+Archbishop Rowan

December 8, 2010

In this world!

Filed under: Theology — danielson81 @ 10:50 pm

Months, no, years have gone by since I started asking the question ‘What does it mean to be a Christian (i.e. a disciple/follower of Jesus)?’

I have to confess that it has been pushed to the sidelines more frequently than I would like to admit. I have been taking detours. And not only have I been taking detours and u-turns all over the place, I have also theorized the question (which I knew was a danger, going into academical theology).

Asking this question is probably the most exciting question a human being can ask in this life if, and only if, we are ready to put into practice whatever answers we find. Without a desire to carry out what we discover, we are merely making noise, but no difference. This is not a research project (though it might start there for some), it is a call to action. It is so important not to miss this aspect of Christianity!

There is this expression in The Book, describing a certain kind of people: ‘those who seek him with all their heart’. Acquiring that disposition would be a good place to start. (The verses before and after this expression in Psalm 119:2 throw light on just how practically-minded these people are!)

So, here we are, in this world, all of us. This is the only arena you and I are ever gonna get to act in, the only context for seeking God and for carrying out our findings. At times this insight can seem so self-evident that we miss it. Our relationship with God can become a place where we hide from the world, rather than a one where we are reminded again and again of how much he loves it, that he created it and that he has a wholesome message of restoration for it that has implications in all areas of life. Τhe exciting part of what it means to be a Christian is that it can potentially completely transform our lives and values. It can lead us into a new way of life and into deep, passionate and loving engagement with people and the pressing issues in the world around us. Working out what it means to be a Christian in your and my exact environment and situation can be such a transformative and challenging experience!

One of the cool things about the incarnation – this wild idea of a human being, Jesus, being God – is that it makes God’s interest in this world so IMMENSLY CLEAR! Christmas is all about incarnation, about the fullness of God dwelling in a little baby! Can you imagine?! To me this message often seems at once quite outlandish as well as the most wonderful thing I’ve ever heard. And when I look at the life Jesus went on to live I can only pray ´Oh Lord, teach me to love as you loved. So actively, so purposefully. Please teach me.´

November 22, 2010

Must-hear L’Abri lecture

Filed under: Uncategorized — danielson81 @ 8:21 pm

Hey everybody,

As some of you might know, I spent the summer in Spain this year. I helped out at a place that is loosely connected to a number of ‘study-houses’ called L’Abri (French for ‘the shelter’).

click here to go on the L'Abri England website

The first L’Abri was started by the great theologian and philosopher Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith in the Swiss Alps around 1960 (or something like that). Beautiful! They now have L’Abri houses in different countries including England. I checked that one out in July.

One thing they really like doing at L’Abri is giving lectures about all sorts of topics related to Christianity as well as discuss them around the lunch table with all the students that live there for anything between a few days and several months. They also put you to work in the kitchen, the garden or give you some other manual labour each day you’re with them. Monastic!

Now HERE IS WHAT’S GREAT!!! They have a website where you can download lots of their lectures, and I can only RECOMMEND them (though I can’t vouch for all of them): http://www.labri-ideas-library.org/

Today I listened to a really, really good one. It’s called ‘The Problem of Introspection‘ by Andrew Fellows (his lectures are generally really good!). Here is how they describe the lecture on the website:

Many people today describe that they are ‘living inside their own head’. This describes a state of disconnection from reality outside of myself – from other people and the natural world. This lecture looks at the roots of such a problem and possible answers to it.

This is a must-hear lecture if you’re a bit of a philosophy geek and are wondering about reality. LISTEN TO IT! Here’s the link: http://www.labri-ideas-library.org/lecture-list.asp?s=1

Blessings, dan

October 17, 2010

Psychology of religion or religion of psychology?

Filed under: Books — danielson81 @ 6:02 pm
There is an interesting passage in a book I’m currently reading. The book is called Jung and the Christian Way by Christopher Bryant.

'Jung and the Christian Way' by Christopher Bryant

It’s a short and easy-to-read account of how the ideas of the Swiss psychologist Carl Jung have helped Bryant come to a deeper understanding and experience of the relationship with God. I like this kind of stuff.

Chapter 3: God’s providence and the self

The doctrine of divine providence… is an essential part of the Christian idea of God; for either God must be in everything or he is in nothing. This I accepted before I became interested in Jung. It was part of what I meant by God. But being a man of the twentieth century I was also concerned to have some awareness of God, some experience of God to support my faith; and it was there that Jung helped. Though God, as I believe, is present in everything that happens he is not experienced equally strongly in everything. Jung helped me identify the action of God in part of my experience and so strengthened my faith in his presence everywhere. In particular Jung’s teaching about the self provided the link between my theoretical belief in God’s providence and my recognition of it in my day-to-day living.

Jung derived the term ‘self’ from Indian thought but gave it a new meaning of his own. By the self he referred to the total personality, both the conscious, reflecting, planning element in the personality, which he termed the ego, and the unconscious, in which he included both the personal and the collective unconscious, both the forgotten memories of past experience and the inherited archetypal tendencies which we share with the rest of the human race. The self is a dynamic concept which Jung incented to describe an immensely powerful psychic reality which was apprehended in two different but closely related ways. This reality was experienced first as a pressure upon the conscious individual of a whole of which he was a small but important part. It was also experienced as a centre of magnetic attraction within the personality. Jung uses the term ‘self’ to include both these felt realities, the total personality and the personality centre.

He was led to formulate the theory partly by reflecting on an eastern symbol, the mandala. This symbol, usually in the form of a circle or sqyare, often intricately patterned and having a centre, was designed as a focus for meditation. The mandala symbol occurred frequently in Jung’s own dreams and in those of his patients. He regarded it as a symbol of the self, of the total personality, and so of wholeness. Further in dreams it often carried a strong sense of the numinous; it was both awe-inspiring and fascinating and carried an immense authority. Jung appears to find it hard to distinguish the experience of the self and that of God.

The influence of the self, of the largely unknown whole of which the conscious person is but a part, is all-pervasive, though seldom recognized for what it is. Sometimes it acts upon us like the swing of a pendulum, pulling us first one way and then another, from an urge to action to a need to be passive, to be acted upon; from the need to go out to others to the equally pressing need to retire into ourselves. Sometimes, under the influence of majestic scenery or haunting music, the magic of great art or the atmosphere of a solemn religious rite, it is felt like the breaking in of a new world. Sometimes under the stress of perplexity or the weight of some heavy responsibility or sorrow it is felt like an influx of wisdom and power guiding, fortifying and holding us secure. Sometimes, as in the case of Socrates, it is felt as an authoritative voice, warning us against some action that we have been contemplating. Sometimes when we have acted contrary to what we know at a deep level to be right it is felt as a judge reproving us.

It was Jung’s idea of the self, the whole personality, acting as a constant influence on my conscious aims and intentions in a manner which I was powerless to prevent, that brought home to me the inescapable reality of God’s rule over my life. So long as I thought of God’s providence as an abstract truth, part of theistic belief, it made no powerful impact on me. But it was quite another matter if God’s guiding hand was within my own being, within the fluctuations of mood and the ups and downs of health. As an individual endowed with free will I was free to go my own way regardless of what God’s will might be , but I could in no way prevent the repercussions within myself which were the direct and immediate consequence of my disregarding God. I came to understand that to resist God was to run counter to the law of my own being; God’s judgment worked through a kind of in-built psychic mechanism; it was self-acting and imposed from within me. My punishment in the shape of welcome feelings of guilt, anxiety or depression was self-inflicted. To say that God can be experienced within the working of the human psyche does not, of course, imply he is not present and perceptible outside it. To quote Farrer again:

The action of God must be taken to be universal. But when we claim this we cannot be expected to claim that God’s active presence comes home to us with equal clarity at every point in the universe. There is more theology to be dug out of a saint than out of a sandpit.

In a strikingly realistic way Jung has brought to light the old truth that God who is present everywhere is most accessible to us within our own souls.

The Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung (1875 – 1961), founder of analytical psychology.

Those who profess no religious faith do not, most of them, actively disbelieve in God; they merely fail to see the relevance of faith to the tasks and problems of living. They experience the influence of the self and its disconcerting effects in their lives without in any way connecting it with God. If they can be shown that this experience is closely related to the God whom believers worship, the question of faith and religious practice would suddenly become important to them. Some believers on the other hand are likely to be surprised and even put out to be told that the God, whom they approach at a discreet distance through the liturgy of the Church, was a powerful and disturbing presence in their everyday      life. Yet others may feel that the endeavour of psychology to look into and try to understand the experience of God is an attempt to tear away the veil from a relationship which ought to be kept secret. There is of course much in the soul’s relationship to God which will always be mysterious, for we have no means of measuring the divine. But there is a human element in this relationship; which it is right to attempt to understand. A living faith is always in search of fuller understanding; it is a lamp which sheds light on what without it would be dark and obscure.

The pressure of the self upon our conscious aims and intentions is most readily felt when it appears to be working against us, just as a swimmer become aware of the strength of a current when he is swimming against it. So it may well be that an individual’s first experience of God is of his judgement. God’s judgement is however always merciful and is in fact persuading him to change the attitude which is causing inner division and frustration. It is his refusal to follow the guidance of the self that causes his inner frustration. The unwillingness to change, the resistance to the self’s pressure is a frequent cause of neurosis.

It is often thought that an intellectual understanding of the psychological causes of a neurosis will of itself effect a cure. But it will not do this unless the insight leads to a change of attitude. Jung describes the case of a highly intelligent young man who came to him for help. He had worked out a detailed analysis of his neurosis after a serious study of medical literature.

He brought me his findings in the form of a precise and well-written monograph fit for publication, and asked me to read the manuscript and tell him why he was not cured. He should have been according to the verdict of science as he understood it. After reading his manuscript I was forced to grant that, if it were only a question of insight into the causal connections of a neurosis, he should in all truth have been cured. Since he was not, I supposed that this must be due to the fact that his attitude to life was somehow fundamentally wrong – though I had to admit that his symptoms did not betray it. In reading his account of his life I had noticed that he often spent his winters at St Moritz of Nice. I therefore asked him who paid for these holidays, and it thereupon came out that a poor school teacher who loved him had cruelly deprived herself in order to indulge the young man in these visits to pleasure-resorts. His want of conscience was the cause of his neurosis, and it is not hard to see why scientific understanding failed to help him. His fundamental error lay in his moral attitude. He found my way of looking at it shockingly unscientific, for morals have nothing to do with science. He supposed that by invoking scientific thought he could spirit away the immorality which he himself could not stomach. He would not even admit that the conflict existed because his mistress gave him the money of her own free will.

To this account we may add the comment that the young man’s lack of concern for the woman who loved him did violence to elements in himself which in most people would have caused a painful sense of guilt. But his scientific notions kept all sense of wrong-doing repressed. Something deeper in him than his conscious personality brings pressure upon him to persuade him to repent. The neurotic symptoms were a substitute for the sense of guilt which might have led him to change his attitude and behaviour.

August 15, 2010

Spain

Filed under: Travel — danielson81 @ 8:58 pm

July 4, 2010

The truth about the porn industry

Filed under: Uncategorized — danielson81 @ 2:01 pm

Gail Dines, the author of an explosive new book about the sex industry, on why pornography has never been a greater threat to our relationships. (link to the Guarding article)

Anti-pornography campaigner Gail Dines Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian

The last time I saw Gail Dines speak, at a conference in Boston, she moved the audience to tears with her description of the problems caused by pornography, and provoked laughter with her sharp observations about pornographers themselves. Activists in the audience were newly inspired, and men at the event – many of whom had never viewed pornography as a problem before – queued up afterwards to pledge their support. The scene highlighted Dines’s explosive charisma and the fact that, since the death of Andrea Dworkin, she has risen to that most difficult and interesting of public roles: the world’s leading anti-pornography campaigner.

Dines is also a highly regarded academic and her new book, Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, has just come out in the US, and is available online here. She wrote it primarily to educate people about what pornography today is really like, she says, and to banish any notion of it as benign titillation. “We are now bringing up a generation of boys on cruel, violent porn,” she says, “and given what we know about how images affect people, this is going to have a profound influence on their sexuality, behaviour and attitudes towards women.”

The book documents the recent history of porn, including the technological shifts that have made it accessible on mobile phones, videogames and laptops. According to Dines’s research the prevalence of porn means that men are becoming desensitised to it, and are therefore seeking out ever harsher, more violent and degrading images. Even the porn industry is shocked by how much violence the fans want, she says; at the industry conferences that Dines attends, porn makers have increasingly been discussing the trend for more extreme practices.

And the audience is getting younger. Market research conducted by internet providers found that the average age a boy first sees porn today is 11; a study from the University of Alberta found that one third of 13-year-old boys admitted viewing porn; and a survey published by Psychologies magazine in the UK last month found that a third of 14- to 16-year-olds had first seen sexual images online when they were 10 or younger – 81% of those polled looked at porn online at home, while 63% could easilyaccess it on their mobile phones. “I have found that the earlier men use porn,” says Dines, “the more likely they are to have trouble developing close, intimate relationships with real women. Some of these men prefer porn to sex with an actual human being. They are bewildered, even angry, when real women don’t want or enjoy porn sex.”

Porn culture doesn’t only affect men. It also changes “the way women and girls think about their bodies, their sexuality and their relationships,” says Dines. “Every group that has fought for liberation understands that media images are part and parcel of the systematic dehumanisation of an oppressed group . . . The more porn images filter into mainstream culture, the more girls and women are stripped of full human status and reduced to sex objects. This has a terrible effect on girls’ sexual identity because it robs them of their own sexual desire.”

Images have now become so extreme that acts that were almost non-existent a decade ago have become commonplace. From studying thousands of porn films and images Dines found that the most popular acts depicted in
internet porn include vaginal, oral and anal penetration by three or more men at the same time; double anal; double vaginal; a female gagging from having a penis thrust into her throat; and ejaculation in a woman’s face, eyes and mouth.

“To think that so many men hate women to the degree that they can get aroused by such vile images is quite profound,” says Dines. “Pornography is the perfect propaganda piece for patriarchy. In nothing else is their hatred of us quite as
clear.”

Born in Manchester, Dines moved to Israel in 1980, aged 22, and soon became involved in the women’s movement. An event organised by the feminist consciousness-raising group Women against Pornography in Haifa – in which pornography was shown – changed her life forever. “I was astounded that men could either make such a thing
or want to look at it,” she says. From then on, she knew she had to campaign about the issue.

There were two images from Hustler magazine that she found especially shocking: a cartoon of a construction worker drilling a jackhammer into a woman’s vagina, and one depicting a woman being fed through a meat grinder. “I was newly married and told my husband that night how appalled I was, which he fully understood,” she says. “If he had said I was a prude I don’t think I could have stayed with him.”

The couple moved to the US in 1986, and Dines has taught at Wheelock College, Boston ever since, where she is professor of sociology and women’s studies and chair of the American studies department. She is something of a lone voice in academia. Aside from what she says are “a handful” of colleagues across the US, most contemporary scholars are positive about pornography, and Dines thinks this is due to both a fear of being considered in alliance with the religious right and the view that pornography represents and champions sexual liberation.

“Many on the liberal left adopt a view that says pornographers are not businessmen but are simply there to unleash our sexuality from state-imposed constraints,” she says. This view was reflected in the film The People vs Larry Flynt,
where the billionaire pornographer of the film’s title – the head of the Hustler empire – was portrayed as a man simply fighting for freedom of speech. Dines disputes these ideas. “Trust me,” she says, “I have interviewed hundreds of pornographers and the only thing that gets them excited is profit.”

As a result of her research, Dines believes that pornography is driving men to commit particular acts of violence
towards women. “I am not saying that a man reads porn and goes out to rape,” she says, “but what I do know is that porn gives permission to its consumers to treat women as they are treated in porn.” In a recent study, 80% of men said that the one sex act they would most like to perform is to ejaculate on a woman’s face; in 2007, a comment stream on
the website Jezebel.com included a number of women who said that, on a first date, they had, to their surprise, experienced their sexual partner ejaculating on their faces without asking.

Sexual assault centres in US colleges have said that more women are reporting anal rape, which Dines attributes
directly to the normalisation of such practices in pornography. “The more porn sexualises violence against women, the more it normalises and legitimises sexually abusive behaviour. Men learn about sex from porn, and in porn nothing is too painful or degrading for women.” Dines also says that what she calls “childified porn” has significantly increased
in popularity in recent years, with almost 14m internet searches for “teen sex” in 2006, an increase of more than 60% since 2004. There are legal sites that feature hardcore images of extremely young-looking women being penetrated by older men, with disclaimers stating all the models are 18 and over. Dines is clear that regular exposure to such material has an effect of breaking down the taboo about having sex with children.

She recently interviewed a number of men in prison who had committed rape against children. All were habitual users of child pornography. “What they said to me was they got bored with ‘regular’ porn and wanted something fresh. They were horrified at the idea of sex with a prepubescent child initially but within six months they had all raped a child.”

What can we expect next from the industry? “Nobody knows, including pornographers,” she says, “but they are all
looking for something more extreme, more shocking.” She recently interviewed a well-known pornographer, while his latest film played in the background. It contained a scene of a woman being anally penetrated while kneeling in a coffin.

In Dines’s view, the best way to address the rise of internet pornography is to raise public awareness about its actual content, and name it as a public health issue by bringing together educators, health professionals, community activists, parents and anti-violence experts to create materials that educate the public. “Just as we had anti-smoking campaigns, we need an anti-porn campaign that alerts people to the individual and cultural harms it creates.”

“Myths about those of us who hate pornography also need to be dispelled in order to gain more support from progressives,” she says. “The assumption that if you are a woman who hates pornography you are against sex shows how successful the industry is at collapsing porn into sex.” Would the critics of the employment practices and products
at McDonald’s be accused of being anti-eating, she asks pointedly.

The backlash against Dines and her work is well-documented. Various pro-porn activists post accusations about her on websites, suggesting she is motivated by money, hates sex, and victimises women to support her supposed anti-male ideology. Salon.com reported recently that the sex writer, Violet Blue, had launched a pro-porn campaign to counteract an anti-porn conference that Dines and colleagues held last month. Dines is regularly criticised by
pornographers in the trade magazines and on porn websites and she tells me that her college receives letters after any public event at which she is speaking, attacking her views.

Does she ever feel depressed by all this? “It gets me down sometimes, of course. But I try to surround myself with good things – my students, colleagues, and my family.” She says the blueprint for her aims is the eradication of slavery in the US, which was achieved despite the fact that every single institution was geared to uphold and perpetuate it. “What is at
stake is the nature of the world that we live in,” says Dines. “We have to wrestle it back.”

May 13, 2010

Anathema

Filed under: Uncategorized — danielson81 @ 11:29 pm
I’m really unsettled. There is something wrong with my faith. I write lots of flippin essays and reflections on ‘Christian formation’ but I can’t even act like a Christian in some of the most simple ways.
Today I was waiting for the Tube at Paddington Station. I was just about to put my ear phones in to listen to some music when a woman, about my age, ran up and stopped right next to me. I saw her in the corner of my eye. I immediately felt that something was wrong. I put the ear phones and my mp3 player in my pocket and took a few steps backwards. Then I turned to her. She was sobbing. Her whole face was covered in tears. Something terrible must have happened to her, and it must have been fresh. You could tell her crying was a reaction to something that had just happened. But you know what? Here’s the terrible thing. I didn’t do anything! I was standing right next to her and I couldn’t even flipping bring myself to ask her if I could help her in any way. I just stood there like the dumbest person on earth. And so did everyone else who was standing there! People looked at her and then they turned away again. Nobody did anything.
Eventually another woman who was standing close said to her in an obviously caring voice: “I’m sorry, but can I help you in any way?” She replied: “I just need a hug!” And then they hugged and after a little bit the sobbing stopped and she got better.
I felt a mixed feeling of shame and relief. Finally someone was helping this lady. But I was ashamed because it wasn’t me. Flip. I call myself a Christian! Oh Christ, forgive me.
We can believe all the right things. But you know what… we can be hypocrites doing that! If I ever think that Christianity is just about believing the right things, let me be anathema. Christ forgive me.

April 15, 2010

Indian Monsoon

Filed under: Music — danielson81 @ 8:52 pm
                  

March 30, 2010

Das groesste Experiment der Menschheitsgeschichte

Filed under: Uncategorized — danielson81 @ 10:40 am
Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.