Waving or Drowning?

Red Alert: Calling All Trekkies

OK Trekkies, I need some help. I'm working up an analogy for some writing I'm doing, and I need some guidance.

It seems to me that in one of the Star Trek series, or in one of the movies, there was reference to a historical incident, a catalyzing calamity if you will, that moved humanity (and other species I assume) to come together, to seek peace, etc. Not sure if this was the birth of the Federation, but it was a significant benchmark. A major disaster, a planet blowing up... something big.

Does anyone have a clue what I'm talking about, and can you point me somewhere?

A Calm Descent

Reposted from Tumblr because it's to good not to:

Why would a man, secure and happy with his life, descend calmly and confidently from the tower of his success? It may arrive as darkness, uncertainty, an opening, or great enthusiasm, but now and then a new horizon is offered to a man’s soul. It’s always an invitation, an opportunity for free choice. Accepting the invitation will feel like falling and losing, and the outcome or direction won’t be totally clear, if discernible at all.

This strange path will not lead you away from God, or from what matters. I promise you. The journey itself is the growing edge and the destination. It will lead you to love and to God, even though it will feel risky and probably not “religious” at all. You won’t have a lot of takers or supporters, and you may have well-intentioned critics, like Job’s friends. But finally God and grace can steal away your good order, your proper self-image, and all that wholesome religion to offer you the Real Thing.

Richard Rohr, On the Threshold of Transformation

Obsessive Musical Distraction of the Day: You Are A Tourist

As I said when I put this up on Facebook yesterday: An amazing single-take video, a great song, and very, very powerful lyrics.

 

 

Link

Stream of Consciousness Thoughts On Love

We are not called to save the world, we are called--commanded, actually--to love our neighbour. This fact should be incredibly liberating.

The irony is this is precisely how Jesus plans to save the world - through our not saving the world but simply loving our neighbour. It's brilliant. You would almost think he knew what he was talking about.

And as Richard Rohr has pointed out, you can't command someone to feel a certain way, but you can command them to act a certain way. This fact leads Richard to conclude that love is not an emotion, but a decision.

This ties in directly with our own thinking on a "fake it 'til you make it" theology. In an earlier iteration of my faith, and without appropriate theological guidance, I would figuratively start my day with a quick self-assessment to determine if, in fact, I had miraculously grown to love my neighbour overnight. No? Oh well, maybe tomorrow. After all, God isn't finished with me yet. 

Now the routine is very, very different, and I highly recommend it.

It's simple, really. When you arise tomorrow, pretend you love your neighbour, and behave as if it were true. In other words, fake it. And on the next day, do it again. And again. Before you know it, you'll discover that your neighbour is no longer as big a jerk as he used to be.

Pretend to love your neighbour, or as Richard would put it, decide to love him. 

Either way, according to Jesus the practice doesn't appear to be optional.

Beyonce - Run the World (LIES)

I'm posting this here, on Tumblr, on Facebook... anywhere  I can.

Link (h/t to Roger Ebert)

 

Second Best Things

Cross-posted from my Tumblr page:

Heinrich Zimmer said, “The best things cannot be talked about, and the second best things are almost always misunderstood.” The second best things—such as metaphor, symbol, image, story, myth—are those that point to the first best things. All images of God are metaphors, approximations at best, fingers pointing to the moon. Unfortunately we spend for more time fighting about the fingers than looking at the moon.

Everybody wants the one holy, catholic, apostolic finger pointing to the right moon. So we fight over who has the true finger. Does your finger save, or does mine? Neither of them do. Only God saves us, not our descriptions of God

Richard Rohr, On the Threshold of Transformation

Private Heaven

Cross-posted from my Tumblr page:

Most of us men approach the gospel message not as it is, but as we are. For instance, comfortable men with some degree of power tend to see all religion in terms of personal healing and spiritual inspiration. They perhaps feel that something is wrong, that something is missing despite their comfort here, so they come to the gospel with that agenda, never imagining there might be a bigger agenda in God’s plan. It is sincere on their part, but also self-serving.

The historical pattern is that they turn the great gospel, almost in its entirety, into a doctrine of inner consolation and personal salvation. There are no political or social implications whatsoever, unless something threatens the status quo. Most everybody and everything else gets left out of such an equation. This is a very private heaven, indeed.

Richard Rohr, On the Threshold of Transformation

Take the "It's the End of the World As We Know It" Pledge. Quickly.

Earlier this morning I posted the video for R.E.M.'s killer song, It's the End of the World, and declared it, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as The Song of the Day.

 

 

Our friend Idelette picked up on it, but with a deeper twist:

 

 

She's on to something. Today is our opportunity to declare the world as we know it over. Complacency, sloth, boredom, envy, greed, addiction, small-mindedness... pick your poison and declare it over.

Today. It's over.

Take the pledge now [in your head... there's no link!] and let us know you did

Culturally Creative Signage

Via Things and Stuff. Brought to you by these people.

Capitalism, Charity, and Why it Will Never Work: Part 1

I wrote the notes for what will eventually become Part 2 in this series on flights from Mombasa to Nairobi and then on down to Johannesburg last week. Then this week I came across this great RSA video on a talk by philosopher and critical theorist Slavoj Zizek (via AZspot), and decided this would make a great introduction or prequel to the discussion.

 

YouTube link

Note Zizek's premise: He talks about the opposable interests of capitalism and philanthropy. Zizek uses George Soros as an example of someone who takes the money in the morning (via his business interests) and gives half of it back in the afternoon (via his philanthropic interests.) This flipping back and forth between two conflicting systems he identifies as the old school model, and while we could have a great discussion about its efficacy and relevance, Zizek presses on to say things have changed.

In today's capitalism the tendency is to bring these two dimensions together, and this he calls cultural capitalism at its purest.

Using Starbucks as the prototypical example (I'm sitting in Starbucks as I write this) he identifies the numbing perversion (my words, not his) of engaging in a thoroughly consumeristic act in order to purchase your redemption from the sin of consumerism. In fact he says the cost of this redemption is now priced into the consumer transaction itself.

In my mind this strategy is horrifyingly brilliant. It also puts words to what bothered me intuitively about the Product(RED) campaign 5 years ago, and why Robert and I responded with our own (RED)emption effort. 

Capitalism, which is an inherently self-interested, profit-motivated system, has learned to capitalize (no pun intended) on the emerging human tendency to empathy (a thoroughly other-interested emotion), thus derailing that trait before it can really take effect. As I've already said, this is frightening to say the least. Capitalism--even a softer, gentler version--will not solve the problems capitalism has created. And philanthropy/charity, in its desire to do more good in a world that desparately needs it, is falling right into this trap.

The bad news is this tendency, and another emerging reality I'll write more about in the next few days, will be the death of the philanthropic model. The good news--or should I say 'Good News'--is that this model was never meant to be the solution to the world's problems anyway.

Anyone want to jump in on this one before I go any further? 

(For those looking for extra credit, here is the link to one of the original videos from which the above Zizek clip was extracted. As one who has sometimes struggled to read Zizek these videos are a relief and very enlightening.)