Y'all, help me out with a decision. l just looked at the part of the Blogger set up about AdSense. At a time when I'm trying to build up several income streams, wouldn't it make sense to let Google publish a few ads down the right side of my blog, or at the very end? Wouldn't cost anybody anything, unless a reader were to click on an ad and actually buy something--and that's not up to me. Problem is, I don't know whether I trust Google to pick out appropriate ads. The process gets complicated, and I'm trying to "Simplify, simplify."
So would this be a cool move on my part? Would I be like the servants who invested the multiple talents and made a return, and conversely if I don't do AdSense, am I like the servant who buried his talent out of fear? Would it be considerate to offer my readers needed goods and services, or would it be insensitive of me to offer a lot of frippery? Is AdSense coin of the realm or mark of the beast?
Please leave a comment. I can't know what you like or don't like if you don't tell me. My name is Nancy, not Clair as in Clair Voyant.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Messiah and "the Messiah.”
What does it mean to be God’s anointed? We don’t do much anointing these days, and we take pretty much for granted the idea that the Messiah (or in Hebrew, Meshiach) came two thousand years ago, and it was Jesus. He promised to come again, to send “another Comforter, who may abide with you forever.” We Christian Scientists, perhaps a tad complacently, take Mary Baker Eddy’s words merely as the great rhetorical cadenza they are in context: “This Comforter I understand to be Divine Science.” (Science and Health 55:28) Nevertheless, the closest we may encounter the idea of the “Messiah” is in Handel’s oratorio Messiah . I make the typographical distinction because (a) titles of books and other large works are put in italics or underlines, not quotation marks, and Messiah, sans “the,” is Handel’s title; and (b) I’m using “the Messiah” in quotation marks, no italics, to represent the concept(s) of the one chosen and anointed by God to bring salvation to mankind and to restore lost Paradise, filtering these ideas of mainstream Judeo-Christian orthodoxies through the teachings of Christian Science. At this point Satan is not the devil but is simply one of God’s angels. He hasn’t rebelled yet, even though there are signs of it shown by his throwing his weight around in the bet with God.
We know that “Comforter” is the Paraclete, the Advocate who argues our case in the court of Spirit. It is Job’s enlightened sense of divine help when he realizes that “I know that thou canst do everything,” the arguments of the three “miserable comforters” have vanished, and Satan will have gone back to walking to and fro and perhaps cooking up revenge in his pique at God for passing him over in favor of Man as His beloved son.
But the important central question remains: who and what is “the Messiah”? We know that the word is Hebrew, and that it came into the Greek as ho Khristos, the anointed one. Anointing is not something we can relate to without a lot of footnotes, and frankly there are many commentaries that do this a lot better than I can. So I just leave it at that: if anointing of kings by divine right is remote and repugnant to us latter-day democrats and republicans, and if the anointing of bishops is too high church for our sensibilities, we can still relate to Mary Baker Eddy’s sense of Oil as per S&H 592:25: “Consecration; charity; gentleness; prayer; heavenly inspiration.”
For this Advent season I had planned to do five Wednesdays on the concept of "the Messiah", the Anointed One, using these five aspects of “OIL” one at a time. But it doesn’t work out: there are four, not five, Wednesdays in December before Christmas, and the sentence, with its implied verb, is punctuated with semicolons, not periods nor commas. This suggests that each of the five flows into all the others, without hard and fast distinctions among them. So, rather than focusing on the anointing, I’ll focus on "the Messiah"–and Messiah. On December 1, however, I will give considerable attention to protection, and will include Psalm 91 and perhaps the protection of the baby Jesus from Herod’s wrath.
Our lessons for the past six weeks, and for the rest of the quarter, have all used at least one text from Messiah, and we’ve had several of the beloved arias as solos: “He shall feed his flock,” “Thou wilt not leave his soul in hell,” “How beautiful are the feet,” “Comfort ye.” Numerous other of the texts have appeared, the latest being “Why do the nations so furiously rage?” And there are more to come. These texts constitute the very core of Christian belief; they are eternal in their implication, and even when they refer to events in time (such as the birth of Jesus) the events perhaps happen over and over again with each telling. That is why we celebrate them.
Anyhow, because Messiah is so ubiquitous, I’ve compiled a chart of all the texts that Handel’s librettist Jennens used, and I’d like you to study them during the next few weeks. I’ll put this on my blog, and will have copies available for the non-techies among us. I’m trying to get it put into PDF or e-book format for downloading.
I’ll be using these texts, and others, in the Wednesday readings, and it would be a powerful concentration of thought and prayer to uplift the thought of this $eason.
IMPORTANT! To this end, I suggest that we go as a group to this Messiah Sing-Along:
Our soloist, Beth Bradford, will be singing the mezzo-soprano arias.
For those who may not be familiar with the idea of a sing-along, or “sing your own” Messiah, the idea is that the audience is the Chorus and will sing the choruses such as “And the glory of the Lord,” “For unto us a child is born,” “Lift up your heads, O ye gates”, and of course “Hallelujah!”. Bring your own copies, but usually there are some available for those who don’t have. (It happens that it’s the only musical score I possess at the moment!) And if you don’t want to sing, you can just listen.
There is another sing-along on December 18 in the evening at Central Lutheran, but I thought it might be easier from many of us to go to the one in the afternoon, so I’m proposing that we organize an outing to Vancouver that afternoon. So round up your friends and neighbors, and we’ll “shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!”
We know that “Comforter” is the Paraclete, the Advocate who argues our case in the court of Spirit. It is Job’s enlightened sense of divine help when he realizes that “I know that thou canst do everything,” the arguments of the three “miserable comforters” have vanished, and Satan will have gone back to walking to and fro and perhaps cooking up revenge in his pique at God for passing him over in favor of Man as His beloved son.
But the important central question remains: who and what is “the Messiah”? We know that the word is Hebrew, and that it came into the Greek as ho Khristos, the anointed one. Anointing is not something we can relate to without a lot of footnotes, and frankly there are many commentaries that do this a lot better than I can. So I just leave it at that: if anointing of kings by divine right is remote and repugnant to us latter-day democrats and republicans, and if the anointing of bishops is too high church for our sensibilities, we can still relate to Mary Baker Eddy’s sense of Oil as per S&H 592:25: “Consecration; charity; gentleness; prayer; heavenly inspiration.”
For this Advent season I had planned to do five Wednesdays on the concept of "the Messiah", the Anointed One, using these five aspects of “OIL” one at a time. But it doesn’t work out: there are four, not five, Wednesdays in December before Christmas, and the sentence, with its implied verb, is punctuated with semicolons, not periods nor commas. This suggests that each of the five flows into all the others, without hard and fast distinctions among them. So, rather than focusing on the anointing, I’ll focus on "the Messiah"–and Messiah. On December 1, however, I will give considerable attention to protection, and will include Psalm 91 and perhaps the protection of the baby Jesus from Herod’s wrath.
Our lessons for the past six weeks, and for the rest of the quarter, have all used at least one text from Messiah, and we’ve had several of the beloved arias as solos: “He shall feed his flock,” “Thou wilt not leave his soul in hell,” “How beautiful are the feet,” “Comfort ye.” Numerous other of the texts have appeared, the latest being “Why do the nations so furiously rage?” And there are more to come. These texts constitute the very core of Christian belief; they are eternal in their implication, and even when they refer to events in time (such as the birth of Jesus) the events perhaps happen over and over again with each telling. That is why we celebrate them.
Anyhow, because Messiah is so ubiquitous, I’ve compiled a chart of all the texts that Handel’s librettist Jennens used, and I’d like you to study them during the next few weeks. I’ll put this on my blog, and will have copies available for the non-techies among us. I’m trying to get it put into PDF or e-book format for downloading.
I’ll be using these texts, and others, in the Wednesday readings, and it would be a powerful concentration of thought and prayer to uplift the thought of this $eason.
IMPORTANT! To this end, I suggest that we go as a group to this Messiah Sing-Along:
Saturday, December 11
2:00 p.m.
Sing Your Own "Messiah" -- Clark College Chorale
First United Methodist Church, 401 E. 33rd Street, Vancouver, Wash.
2:00 p.m.
Sing Your Own "Messiah" -- Clark College Chorale
First United Methodist Church, 401 E. 33rd Street, Vancouver, Wash.
Our soloist, Beth Bradford, will be singing the mezzo-soprano arias.
For those who may not be familiar with the idea of a sing-along, or “sing your own” Messiah, the idea is that the audience is the Chorus and will sing the choruses such as “And the glory of the Lord,” “For unto us a child is born,” “Lift up your heads, O ye gates”, and of course “Hallelujah!”. Bring your own copies, but usually there are some available for those who don’t have. (It happens that it’s the only musical score I possess at the moment!) And if you don’t want to sing, you can just listen.
There is another sing-along on December 18 in the evening at Central Lutheran, but I thought it might be easier from many of us to go to the one in the afternoon, so I’m proposing that we organize an outing to Vancouver that afternoon. So round up your friends and neighbors, and we’ll “shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!”
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Icelandic and Anglo-Saxon
Genesis 1:26-31
26 Ond cwæð, "Uton wyrcan man to anlicnysse ond to ure gelicnysse, ond he sy ofer ða fixas ond ofer ða fugelas ond ofer ða deor ond ofer ealle gesceafta ond ofer ealle creopende, ðe styriað on eorðan."
27 God gesceop ða man
to his anlicnysse,
to Godes anlicnysse
he gesceop hine;
werhades ond wifhades
he gesceop hi.
28 Ond God hi bletsode ond cwæð, "Weaxað ond beoð gemenifylde ond gefyllað ða eorðan ond gewyldað hi, ond habbað on eowrum gewealde ðære sæ fixas ond ðære lyfte fugelas ond ealle nytenu, ðe styriað ofer eorðan." 29 God cwæð ða, "Efne ic forgyfe eow eall gærs ond wyrta sæd berende ofer eorðan ond ealle treowa, ða ðe habbað sæd on him sylfum heora agenes cynnes, ðæt hi beon eow to mete, 30 ond eallum nytenum ond eallum fugelcynne ond eallum ðam ðe styriað on eorðan, on ðam ðe is libbende lif, ðæt hi habbon him to gereordigenne." Hit wæs ða swa gedon.
31 Ond God geseah ealle ða ðingc ðe he geworhte ond hi wæron swyðe gode. Wæs ða geworden æfen ond merien se sixta dæg.
The above is from the Bible in Anglo-Saxon. I could not find the Guðbrandur þorlaksson translation on the internet, though Bible Gateways does have a contemporary Icelandic translation online. But Anglo-Saxon (or Old English, as we say in the English biz) is so close to it that anyone who can read the one can read the other.
The alphabet: English at one time had four more letters, ash, yogh, eth and thorn. “Eth” or “ð” is the voiced “th” as in “then” “Thorn, “or “þ” is the unvoiced “th” as in “thin.” Let’s look at verse 27 above.
Gesceop. If you know German, you’ll recognize the “ge” as a sign of a past tense. In England circa 800 CE the “eo” diphthong would have been pronounced “eh-oh” which eventually morphed into “a” as in “shape.” The sound we represent with “sh” used to be written “sc”
Ða. You get to see a capital eth here, so you might deduce that this is the precursor of “the.”
"Man" should be self-evident, a common Germanic word. Anglo-Saxon has many words for “man,” most of them referring to humans of the male gender, and the subset of warriors.
Hine. I won’t bore you with accounts of how this morphed in “him” but it did.
Anlicnysse. Figure: “an” becomes “own,” “lic” is not far from “like” (not lice) and “nysse” isn’t far off from “-ness.” As a suffix, it still means "a kind or quality of," though as a noun a “ness” is a landform, a spit or point going out into the ocean.
Werhades. “Wer” is one of those words for “man” I was talking about. It’s the equivalent of the Latin vir or “guy” as opposed to homo or “human.”* Many languages make a similar distinction, such as Mann and Mensch, anhr and anthrwpos Greek transliterated. (“h” for the long “e” or “eta,” “w” for the long “o” or omega)
Wifhades. “Wif” lacks an “e” of its present spelling, though it is interesting that woman is seen in this language and culture in terms of her role. I’m not sure about “hades” because I don’t have an A-S textbook handy, but “had” is related to either “head” or “hood,” and therefore seems to allude to a social status more than a biological one.
Hi. See “hine” above. This is the plural, and it’s an accusative, therefore “them.” Similarly, “God” is nominative and “Godes” is genitive.
I won’t go through the whole passage, but will drop a few hints. Would you associate “cwæð” with “quoth”? That “ae” run together is the letter “ash” and usually has the sound of “a” as in “had.” (Couldn't find a yogh, but it looks sort of like the numeral 3 and we have a vestige of it in words like "enough" and "though." Nothing soft and Latinate about those A-S cats, except they loved Vergil and St. Augustine! “Creopende” is a present participle that should give you a laugh.
I’ll be interested to hear how you make out with this. Meanwhile, just for comparison I’ll try to find a Wycliffe text for this passage, but most available Wycliffes are New Testament only.
Acknowledgment:
http://wordhord.org/nasb:
The Bible Book Genesis is here represented in the translation by Ælfric. It has been transcribed and converted to HTML from the following edition:
The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, Ælfric’s Treatise on the Old and New Testament and his Preface to Genesis. Edited by S.J. Crawford. London: Early English Text Society/Humphrey Milford, OUP, 1922
*There has been some confusion about the noun “homo” meaning “man” and “homo– as a prefix meaning same. In the word “homosexual” it means “same” and can apply to either gender.
26 Ond cwæð, "Uton wyrcan man to anlicnysse ond to ure gelicnysse, ond he sy ofer ða fixas ond ofer ða fugelas ond ofer ða deor ond ofer ealle gesceafta ond ofer ealle creopende, ðe styriað on eorðan."
27 God gesceop ða man
to his anlicnysse,
to Godes anlicnysse
he gesceop hine;
werhades ond wifhades
he gesceop hi.
28 Ond God hi bletsode ond cwæð, "Weaxað ond beoð gemenifylde ond gefyllað ða eorðan ond gewyldað hi, ond habbað on eowrum gewealde ðære sæ fixas ond ðære lyfte fugelas ond ealle nytenu, ðe styriað ofer eorðan." 29 God cwæð ða, "Efne ic forgyfe eow eall gærs ond wyrta sæd berende ofer eorðan ond ealle treowa, ða ðe habbað sæd on him sylfum heora agenes cynnes, ðæt hi beon eow to mete, 30 ond eallum nytenum ond eallum fugelcynne ond eallum ðam ðe styriað on eorðan, on ðam ðe is libbende lif, ðæt hi habbon him to gereordigenne." Hit wæs ða swa gedon.
31 Ond God geseah ealle ða ðingc ðe he geworhte ond hi wæron swyðe gode. Wæs ða geworden æfen ond merien se sixta dæg.
The above is from the Bible in Anglo-Saxon. I could not find the Guðbrandur þorlaksson translation on the internet, though Bible Gateways does have a contemporary Icelandic translation online. But Anglo-Saxon (or Old English, as we say in the English biz) is so close to it that anyone who can read the one can read the other.
The alphabet: English at one time had four more letters, ash, yogh, eth and thorn. “Eth” or “ð” is the voiced “th” as in “then” “Thorn, “or “þ” is the unvoiced “th” as in “thin.” Let’s look at verse 27 above.
Gesceop. If you know German, you’ll recognize the “ge” as a sign of a past tense. In England circa 800 CE the “eo” diphthong would have been pronounced “eh-oh” which eventually morphed into “a” as in “shape.” The sound we represent with “sh” used to be written “sc”
Ða. You get to see a capital eth here, so you might deduce that this is the precursor of “the.”
"Man" should be self-evident, a common Germanic word. Anglo-Saxon has many words for “man,” most of them referring to humans of the male gender, and the subset of warriors.
Hine. I won’t bore you with accounts of how this morphed in “him” but it did.
Anlicnysse. Figure: “an” becomes “own,” “lic” is not far from “like” (not lice) and “nysse” isn’t far off from “-ness.” As a suffix, it still means "a kind or quality of," though as a noun a “ness” is a landform, a spit or point going out into the ocean.
Werhades. “Wer” is one of those words for “man” I was talking about. It’s the equivalent of the Latin vir or “guy” as opposed to homo or “human.”* Many languages make a similar distinction, such as Mann and Mensch, anhr and anthrwpos Greek transliterated. (“h” for the long “e” or “eta,” “w” for the long “o” or omega)
Wifhades. “Wif” lacks an “e” of its present spelling, though it is interesting that woman is seen in this language and culture in terms of her role. I’m not sure about “hades” because I don’t have an A-S textbook handy, but “had” is related to either “head” or “hood,” and therefore seems to allude to a social status more than a biological one.
Hi. See “hine” above. This is the plural, and it’s an accusative, therefore “them.” Similarly, “God” is nominative and “Godes” is genitive.
I won’t go through the whole passage, but will drop a few hints. Would you associate “cwæð” with “quoth”? That “ae” run together is the letter “ash” and usually has the sound of “a” as in “had.” (Couldn't find a yogh, but it looks sort of like the numeral 3 and we have a vestige of it in words like "enough" and "though." Nothing soft and Latinate about those A-S cats, except they loved Vergil and St. Augustine! “Creopende” is a present participle that should give you a laugh.
I’ll be interested to hear how you make out with this. Meanwhile, just for comparison I’ll try to find a Wycliffe text for this passage, but most available Wycliffes are New Testament only.
Acknowledgment:
http://wordhord.org/nasb:
The Bible Book Genesis is here represented in the translation by Ælfric. It has been transcribed and converted to HTML from the following edition:
The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, Ælfric’s Treatise on the Old and New Testament and his Preface to Genesis. Edited by S.J. Crawford. London: Early English Text Society/Humphrey Milford, OUP, 1922
*There has been some confusion about the noun “homo” meaning “man” and “homo– as a prefix meaning same. In the word “homosexual” it means “same” and can apply to either gender.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Forthcoming essays
I did not post at all about my series of Wednesday readings during Lent, when I looked at seven things very profitably given up, though I did send an email to the members of my church. Unlike other series I've done, it wasn't planned from the start but rather was determined by immediate concerns and inspirations. It worked out well, and even generated an eighth, read on April 14, called in Mary Baker Eddy's words "Give up imperfect models." It dealt with the Second Commandment, and looked back to the previous week, which in honor of National Poetry Month dealt with the arts and creation, and forward to the 21st, which was on idolatry. Its title was "Idolatry: Slavery and Error." Any one of these titles has many possible topics.
However, rather than develop any of these further, I am going to devote the next few Wednesdays, possibly through all of June, to addressing the urgent problem facing my own branch church and the Church of Christ, Scientist as a whole: survival. Will this require change? Probably. Reorganization? Possibly. Renewal? Inevitably. I invite the members of my own branch to communicate to me anything they think should be included--but even better, attend the Wednesday services (no excuses) and contribute your testimonies.
However, rather than develop any of these further, I am going to devote the next few Wednesdays, possibly through all of June, to addressing the urgent problem facing my own branch church and the Church of Christ, Scientist as a whole: survival. Will this require change? Probably. Reorganization? Possibly. Renewal? Inevitably. I invite the members of my own branch to communicate to me anything they think should be included--but even better, attend the Wednesday services (no excuses) and contribute your testimonies.
Monday, April 26, 2010
New Kickstart
I've always found the starting of a motorcycle repugnant, when a violent kick or two followed by a loud belch from the somnolent engine which seems to be protesting being awakened into performance. That isn't exactly what this restarting is like. Actually I enjoy doing this blog, but I have to fess up.
I've been visiting another blog, The Broken Net. It is written by another Christian Scientist who reads books (I've sometimes felt I'm the only one) and writes--or wrote--facile "thoughts, observations and aperçus on the daily living of Christian Science. Good stuff. For months the only comments written on it were fawning and adulatory and had no substance at all. I thought the blogger, "Christian" after Christian of Pilgrim's Progress, was probably laughing up his or her sleeve, and was hoping for some more substantive discussion. So when I posted comments I tried to take a point forward and say something that was worth saying, complimenting Christian on his/her good writing. Then the last couple of weeks the blog got shrill and vituperative in a logomachy over the alleged turpitude of two members of the CS Board of Directors. The stories are never spelled out, no real documentation has been given except for a link or two and a hardly-official CS publication of dubious authoritativeness. Anyway, there were protests by Christian about people using his/her blog as their own bully pulpit, and a suggestion was made that such folks set up their own blogs. Now I'm not one of those people; my entries have been around 100 words max. But that, on top of a nagging conscience, prompts me to start this up again. I hope the belch of the kickstart won't be too repugnant.
I've been visiting another blog, The Broken Net. It is written by another Christian Scientist who reads books (I've sometimes felt I'm the only one) and writes--or wrote--facile "thoughts, observations and aperçus on the daily living of Christian Science. Good stuff. For months the only comments written on it were fawning and adulatory and had no substance at all. I thought the blogger, "Christian" after Christian of Pilgrim's Progress, was probably laughing up his or her sleeve, and was hoping for some more substantive discussion. So when I posted comments I tried to take a point forward and say something that was worth saying, complimenting Christian on his/her good writing. Then the last couple of weeks the blog got shrill and vituperative in a logomachy over the alleged turpitude of two members of the CS Board of Directors. The stories are never spelled out, no real documentation has been given except for a link or two and a hardly-official CS publication of dubious authoritativeness. Anyway, there were protests by Christian about people using his/her blog as their own bully pulpit, and a suggestion was made that such folks set up their own blogs. Now I'm not one of those people; my entries have been around 100 words max. But that, on top of a nagging conscience, prompts me to start this up again. I hope the belch of the kickstart won't be too repugnant.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Lenten Lessons
Lenten Lessons
Christian Scientists don’t celebrate Lent. It focuses on the materialistic “things” that people give up in memory of Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness. I remember as a teenager the girls gave up such things as milkshakes and went to church every Sunday. Probably gave five minutes ‘thought to Jesus’ sacrifice, and perhaps 45 seconds to what God is. These were the ’50;s, that post war decade when everyone was glad to be done with the war and able to have gasoline and meat once again. No point in thinking much, we had to get on with our lives and back into production. Time for the girls to put on their white gloves again, guys to get crew cuts, for moms and dads to become Ward and June Cleaver instead of war heroes and Rosie the Riveter We found refuge in the conventional, the ordinary, and our happy countenances were never clouded by the unwelcome intrusion of a new idea. Unless some authority told us it was OK! Then came the 60’s, and we didn’t know how to handle protests, hippies, flag-burning. Some joined, most decried, and a few were on the fence. We were a little old for Vietnam, and fed as we had been while children on patriotism and censorship, we couldn’t understand draft-dodging, pot smoking, promiscuity. The ‘70’s emphasis shifted to the environment, bu we had been used to dealing with pollution by closing the windows and couldn’t understand why we shouldn’t continue taking the bounty of smokestack industry for granted. And there was much more: civil rights, the Red scare and McCarthy, the Bomb. In short, my complacent generation didn’t really feel we had anything to give up, and so Lent was irrelevant or at least not quite real.
Thus we don’t celebrate Lent, or anything else for that matter, in a ritualistic way. Yet it is in the public consciousness—an ever-diminishing portion of it, but significant nonetheless. So I suggest that we join the rest of Christendom and think about this. MBE does say: “A great sacrifice of material things must precede this advanced spiritual understanding.”
(16:1-2), “This understanding” is the kind of prayer described on pa. 15 and before. “Such prayer heals sickness, and must destroy sin and death.” (16:5-6) So Lenten sacrifice is not so much forgoing hot fudge sundaes as it is letting false, and deleterious beliefs fall away.
I’d like to go further into this idea during the next six weeks. It is not clear to me what each of the readings will be: I can’t give them titles yet, nor have explicit themes leapt out. For Wednesday 17 February, however, my title is “Lie not against the truth”: giving up anger and lying. It will be based on James 3.
I welcome your feedback onbased on your observations f specific false beliefs you individually and we as a congregation might burn on the altar of spiritual sense. Please let me know, either by replying to this email or commenting on my blog, which is now receiving a kickstart again.
Text of email sent Wednesday afternoon, February 17.
Christian Scientists don’t celebrate Lent. It focuses on the materialistic “things” that people give up in memory of Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness. I remember as a teenager the girls gave up such things as milkshakes and went to church every Sunday. Probably gave five minutes ‘thought to Jesus’ sacrifice, and perhaps 45 seconds to what God is. These were the ’50;s, that post war decade when everyone was glad to be done with the war and able to have gasoline and meat once again. No point in thinking much, we had to get on with our lives and back into production. Time for the girls to put on their white gloves again, guys to get crew cuts, for moms and dads to become Ward and June Cleaver instead of war heroes and Rosie the Riveter We found refuge in the conventional, the ordinary, and our happy countenances were never clouded by the unwelcome intrusion of a new idea. Unless some authority told us it was OK! Then came the 60’s, and we didn’t know how to handle protests, hippies, flag-burning. Some joined, most decried, and a few were on the fence. We were a little old for Vietnam, and fed as we had been while children on patriotism and censorship, we couldn’t understand draft-dodging, pot smoking, promiscuity. The ‘70’s emphasis shifted to the environment, bu we had been used to dealing with pollution by closing the windows and couldn’t understand why we shouldn’t continue taking the bounty of smokestack industry for granted. And there was much more: civil rights, the Red scare and McCarthy, the Bomb. In short, my complacent generation didn’t really feel we had anything to give up, and so Lent was irrelevant or at least not quite real.
Thus we don’t celebrate Lent, or anything else for that matter, in a ritualistic way. Yet it is in the public consciousness—an ever-diminishing portion of it, but significant nonetheless. So I suggest that we join the rest of Christendom and think about this. MBE does say: “A great sacrifice of material things must precede this advanced spiritual understanding.”
(16:1-2), “This understanding” is the kind of prayer described on pa. 15 and before. “Such prayer heals sickness, and must destroy sin and death.” (16:5-6) So Lenten sacrifice is not so much forgoing hot fudge sundaes as it is letting false, and deleterious beliefs fall away.
I’d like to go further into this idea during the next six weeks. It is not clear to me what each of the readings will be: I can’t give them titles yet, nor have explicit themes leapt out. For Wednesday 17 February, however, my title is “Lie not against the truth”: giving up anger and lying. It will be based on James 3.
I welcome your feedback onbased on your observations f specific false beliefs you individually and we as a congregation might burn on the altar of spiritual sense. Please let me know, either by replying to this email or commenting on my blog, which is now receiving a kickstart again.
Text of email sent Wednesday afternoon, February 17.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Illustrations for PL
This is the best since Blake and Doré.
The painter has caught the essential allegory of Book I. For the majority of the world who do not share my enthusiasm for Milton's epics, Paradise Lost is a retelling of the first three chapters of Genesis, filling out the details and sweeping under it all of what Alexander Pope invited his readers to "expatiate fre" about.
Note the huge, naturalistic--almost photographic--eye that represents The Word. It is present in every panel of the scroll, but for all its realism its details are quite Egyptian in form and reminiscent of the All-Seeing Eye that dominates the Masonic-derived image on the one-dollar bill from the top of the pyramid. But there are plenty of counterfeits of The Word also, the eyes that occupy the whole heads of many of the creatures. It made me ask 'What is the opposite of the Word, the Truth? Obviously, the lie that is the truth of Satan the rebel, the destroyer who destroys for the sake of destroying.' As a story, Milton's verse is so compelling that you want to know the ending, even if you already know what it is. But is it a necessary outcome?
I was first struck by the similarity, even identity, of detail in the tees, the vines, the branches in the first details we see, and no surprise, it morphs into the scales of the serpent.
The council of Pandemonium contains angels who look much like contemporary demons, and it's no joke just what Satan and his rebel angels may have morphed into. That is the value and the delight of allegory: to hold up the mirror to nature by identifying qualities that are so complete in the personification in essences and personae not of our direct experience as to give us back an image of our own collective and individual mind.
As I sat here watching the YouTube video, I had to read the printed text aloud, with great fervor, and it shivered me like a great peal of organ music that vibrates through your seat. This has extraordinary power. Are you up for it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCLUAAfPzUw&feature=channel
The painter has caught the essential allegory of Book I. For the majority of the world who do not share my enthusiasm for Milton's epics, Paradise Lost is a retelling of the first three chapters of Genesis, filling out the details and sweeping under it all of what Alexander Pope invited his readers to "expatiate fre" about.
Note the huge, naturalistic--almost photographic--eye that represents The Word. It is present in every panel of the scroll, but for all its realism its details are quite Egyptian in form and reminiscent of the All-Seeing Eye that dominates the Masonic-derived image on the one-dollar bill from the top of the pyramid. But there are plenty of counterfeits of The Word also, the eyes that occupy the whole heads of many of the creatures. It made me ask 'What is the opposite of the Word, the Truth? Obviously, the lie that is the truth of Satan the rebel, the destroyer who destroys for the sake of destroying.' As a story, Milton's verse is so compelling that you want to know the ending, even if you already know what it is. But is it a necessary outcome?
I was first struck by the similarity, even identity, of detail in the tees, the vines, the branches in the first details we see, and no surprise, it morphs into the scales of the serpent.
The council of Pandemonium contains angels who look much like contemporary demons, and it's no joke just what Satan and his rebel angels may have morphed into. That is the value and the delight of allegory: to hold up the mirror to nature by identifying qualities that are so complete in the personification in essences and personae not of our direct experience as to give us back an image of our own collective and individual mind.
As I sat here watching the YouTube video, I had to read the printed text aloud, with great fervor, and it shivered me like a great peal of organ music that vibrates through your seat. This has extraordinary power. Are you up for it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCLUAAfPzUw&feature=channel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)