In the light of all things beautiful.

I am reading The Bread of Angels by Stephanie Saldana. Just picked it up at the library because the story line interested me. I don't feel like giving a book review, but I do feel like quoting a few lines from her book.

Here she is studying the Quran in Syria, reading it in it's native language, tutored by a prominent Muslim woman. This is what Stephanie is magnificently learning.


"Most Muslims believe that the Quran is eternal, that it always existed but was only revealed over time. Just as they believe that are lives are maktoob, written, but it takes a lifetime to understand them. This does not mean that we have no say in our lives-for the famous Islamic saying insists that prayer can change a destiny, that we small humans can enter into an exchange with God. Yet it means that in prayer, as in destiny, we are wading through divine material greater than ourselves."

This is what Saldana says about reading stories.

"...early monks believed that there is no such thing as a story-we each meet the text, and who we are and the text together create a unique event. We change for it and it changes for us, the act of reading becoming an essential way of transforming ourselves. We can only bring to the text what is inside of ourselves-even if the story is a story of death, if we contain life, we will find life."

Saldana grew up Catholic, but she found herself completely unable to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. She was keeping herself at a monastery for one month in Syria, practicing meditation, prayer, silence in hopes to get at the heart of some of her struggles. She befriends a novice monk there named Frederic. She tells him after many days of these spiritual exercises that she did not believe in the resurrection. His response, " 'You don't believe in the resurrection'...his voice soft and barely audible. He does not say it cruelly. He sounds sad...'It's simple, Stephanie,' he says looking in my eyes. 'You don't love your life.' He leaves the church silently and closes the door."

What an incredible way to pair that!! Belief in the resurrection and loving your life. Infinitely profound.
I am particularly in love with this idea that in prayer and throughout our lives we are "wading through divine material greater than ourselves." Oh, my gosh, can I get an AMEN!!?

Clearing the air.

I reread my "Truly Two Cents" blog entry. A few things in there could have been read in a way that I did not mean. I doctored it up, clarifyied myself a little better. I hope. If I did offend, reread it now. I think it sounds more like what I mean to say. Cue John Mayer's, "Say what you need to say. Say what you need to say." Musical notes are flying.

Truly two cents.

I was watching the news the other day. It was footage in downtown Raleigh. Conservatives were having some gathering protesting gay marriages. It was the typical answer of "the Bible says...". It was the insert [God] here rhetoric. Then the camera pans on over to the opposing group, to which they answer, "It's really such a shame to tell people who they can and cannot love." Here's what I have to say to both sides. Both of you need a new rebuttal.

Opposers who say "God and Bible":

People who do not care about the bible or God are not going to hear one word of what you are saying. That is not the standard they measure their lives by, and they will particularly not wish to have a law measured by that either. The rebuttal is listless, it holds no merit. It means nothing to them. Why let it change their beliefs now? It won't.

Me to the Opposers:

And then there are those who do care about the bible and God, I being one of them, find myself tuning you out for to a lot of reasons, but two being your lack of creativity and relativity. Be thoughtful enough to know your audience. You can't catch butterflies with swords. You wind up swinging aimlessly. How do you expect to be heard when you have no clue as to the language of your opposing side if do not take the time to learn it? Don't just say stuff. Say stuff that matters...not just to you, but to all of us.


Defenders by using "Love":

And then for those on the "Letting Love Define What Should and Should Not Do" side. Love is not there to define laws. Love, sadly enough, has been abused, so much so, that any one can use it. The married man says to his wife about his adulterous affair, "I'm sorry, Honey, I couldn't help who I fell in love with." The polygamous Mormon who comforts himself with his third wife, with his first two standing lovingly on his side. The teacher who falls in "love" with her 14 year old student.
Using the word love will not work in our judicial system. She is not the language that will do it. We have called things "love" for far to long, and we have been mistaken. Love is still courageous and enduring and a mover of many a mountain, but her arms are weakened by our interpretations. Bottom line=just because you love someone does not merit a law for or against something.



So how is marriage defined? And what is it really desired by legally allowing gay marriages? We need to come to a shared belief. It needs to be broader than "the bible says". It needs to be what the bible in total is about. We need something that we all pivot around. That, I think, is gonna have to wait for another entry or a brilliant lightning strike;-).