I recently read a great article from the BBC on why video calls are so exhausting for so many people. It lists a number of physical and psychological mechanisms in which video conferencing seems to go against our nature, our needs, and the fundamental way we are wired. The truth seems to be that trying to pursue Community and connection via virtual electronic surrogates is bound to fail at a basic level, and have high costs on people physically, emotionally, and spiritually. This is true no matter what lens you look at humans through:
Despite radically different starting points, both the secular and religious person are duty bound, by the very fundamentals of their worldview, to oppose the absolute claims of the Market Economy to rule the affairs of humanity. Furthermore, they are even more duty bound to harness the powers of the economy to bring abundant life to humans. For money is created to serve humans, and not humans to serve money. The wealth of a nation is the health of its people, and the health of an economy is the health and well-being of the people served by that economy. There is no other metric that is meaningful or worthwhile. Is the economy increasing the life and health and wellbeing of those who live within it? Then it is a good economy that needs to be strengthened. Is the economy decreasing the life and health and wellbeing of those who live within it? Then it is a bad economy that needs to be reformed.
A couple of years back I read Yuval Harari’s book Sapiens. Great read. On one hand, I am completely on board with his evolutionary metaphysic. I think part of our Divine nature is to evolve more fully into the potential God has placed within us by making us "in God's image". This is actually a fairly common reformed Jewish and secular Jewish viewpoint (cf. Erich Fromm's 1966 book "You Shall Be as Gods: A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament"). I've also written and preached this idea. I even embrace much of what Harari says about Transhumanism as the immediate goal of human self-evolution. And there are Christian theologians such as Keith Ward and Ted Peters who have a fairly robust acceptance of Transhumanism as well. After all, I figure my great grandchildren will all be cyborgs, and it doesn’t actually worry me that much.
But what bothered me was in chapter 12...
This is one of my favorite meditations on the power of the Resurrection and the meaning of Easter, from 17 centuries ago.
How both Theistic and Nontheistic language fails to describe Ultimate Reality
In the constant back and forth between Theists and Nontheists, one of the frequent criticisms hurled from both sides regards the problem of language. Both sides claim that that other side slides into nonsensical or tautological language that fails to say anything about Reality. At some point, each side gets to ideas that are so foundational, so axiological, to their interpretive framework, that all they can say is "it is what it is".
What is interesting to me is that this point of linguistic "no return" is precisely at the same point and regarding the same issues. This break in meaningful, non-tautological language happens precisely at the ultimate origin, the ultimate value, and the ultimate destiny of all things. At these three points both the Theist and the Nontheist are effectively reduced to silence. This is when our words fail: When we lack the ability and even the concepts necessary to describe the ultimate nature of the Reality we find ourselves in.
Why do we look for a Divine Realm
Of depth and richness
Beyond the elaborately embroidered world
We live and move and exist within?
Why do we long for a heaven
Outside of earth?
Are we making the Pandemic more toxic by what we post online? 
As we enter into the second month of the United States’ response to the global Coronavirus Pandemic, I have frequently encountered three dysfunctional kinds of problematic Pandemic posts on social media: Productivity, Positivity, and Protest. The “productivity” response tells us to go above and beyond with creative responses, to make things as normal as possible, and mimic pre-pandemic life virtually. The response to any and every problem is “DO MORE STUFF!” The “positivity” response tells us to look on the bright side of this crisis to find all the hidden blessings, and if we pray hard and believe sincerely, things will turn out just fine. The response to any and every problem is “BE HAPPY!” The “protest” response looks for someone to blame for how bad things have gotten, and if only “they” did it differently we wouldn’t be in this mess. The response to any and every problem is “COMPLAIN LOUDER!” All of these are a form of denial that pushes away reality so we don’t have to deal with it.
If we want to have a global interconnected society that can survive shocks like pandemics, we are learning that all people everywhere need basic access to nourishment, healthcare, and communications. Without it, every institution, from schools to businesses to entire economies, grinds to a halt.
An abnormal Sunday approaches
When Church pews normally filled
Lie dormant and desolate
As the faithful search for ways
To fill the void
In their schedule
And in their hearts
During this time of pandemic, social distancing, and quarantine, my sacred reading today was from the First letter of John (read it all here). One text in particular deals with Divine Justice, and can really reframe how with think of Justice in an age of global contagion:
"If we confess our sins, [Christ] is faithful and just, and will forgive us our sins, and purify us from all injustice." (1 John 1.9)
The following is the text of an email I sent out to the faculty, staff, and families of my school community. I post this as a resource to other pastors or chaplains who may want to send a similar email and resources. Feel free to cut-and-paste and adapt as needed.
All across the world right now
People are feeling what you feel
Love one another
With anxiety for the future
And worry for their loved ones
Love one another
With boredom and cabin fever
Which grows deeper as time grows longer
Love one another
With dismay at empty shelves
Empty streets and empty shops
Love one another
With prayers for the wellbeing of their families
And supplications for those who are sick
Love one another
With unexpected childcare and meals to fix
And cries of “Why can’t we go out?!?”
Love one another
With a flinch at every cough
And hesitation when a chill is felt
Love one another
With trepidation at unpaid bills
And terror at missing paychecks
Love one another
With waiting waiting waiting
And worrying worrying worrying
Love one another
With this Litany we address the Lord of Life
Who reminds us again and again
Love one another
Persons are persons
And should be treated like persons
With compassion and kindness
With mercy and grace
With dignity and respect
The same way we would want others
To treat us
This is a very simple concept
But exceedingly hard to internalize
In our heads
In our hearts
And embarrassingly hard to actualize
In our deeds
In our words
Recently a friend asked me: "Who decided that the Bible is as-is? Whose voices were included? Whose voices were omitted? Why these texts?" This is a great question, and gives me an excuse to write briefly about the process of "canonizing" the texts that would make up the Bible. This starts by defining terms. First of all, the Bible. The Bible comes from the Greek word "Biblia" meaning "Library of Texts". We think of the Bible as a single book, but in reality it is a library of at least 66 separate texts (but probably 80 or more!). These texts were written over a thousand years, from as early as 1000 BCE to as late as 100 CE, by dozens of different authors from wildly different walks of life, across different languages, different cultures, and different religious backgrounds.
So the question being asked is: Why did these books "make it in" to the Bible, while other texts did not?
We get tied up in knots about whether healthcare is a human right or an earned privilege. We argue about whether food is a human right or an earned privilege. We debate whether education is a human right or an earned privilege. For those of us who believe in God, as revealed in Jesus of Nazareth, there is a way out of this conundrum.
As a school chaplain I am blessed to live and work with people from all faith backgrounds, and those who claim no religious faith at all. With this in mind, I strive to make our spirituality program at my school "authentically Christian and genuinely inclusive". Thus, I try to shape our chapel program so that it has something to say to everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike. From our prayers to our Scripture readings to our mediations to our sermons, it is my hope that every member of our school community can find something that speaks to their life, and challenges them to grow spiritually and ethically.
As a result, I frequently try to "translate" Christian texts and concepts into language that speaks more directly to "Religious Others". This is NOT as a substitute for Christian texts and prayers, but as an explanation or interpretation of them. In particular, I like to imagine what Jesus' teachings might sound like if he were talking to postmodern secular people who do not adhere to any formal religion, and who may not have space for "God" or transcendence in their worldview.
LORD of Love
Source of All Worlds
Known by many Names
Flow through us
Now and evermore
Think through our minds
Feel through our hearts
Speak through our mouths
Act through our bodies
That our deeds may bring Life
That our words may share Love
That our plans may have Purpose
Rooted in you alone.
Jesus replied: “Isn't it written in your Law, I have said, you are gods?” Scripture calls those to whom God's word came “gods”, and scripture can't be abolished. So how can you say that the one whom the Father has made holy and sent into the world insults God because he said, “I am God's Son”? (John 10.34-36)
The central paradox of the Incarnation is that Christ is both the unique embodiment of God in human form, and also a prototype of what ALL humans can be when they realize their true nature. But if Christ is unique, how can he also be a Pattern for all other humans? By definition, unique seems to be the opposite of universal.
Among the many things John’s Gospel teaches is a concise formula to discern Good from Evil. John records Jesus as saying:
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. (John 10:10 NRSV)
In Greek it reads: ὁ κλέπτης οὐκ ἔρχεται εἰ μὴ ἵνα κλέψῃ καὶ θύσῃ καὶ ἀπολέσῃ· ἐγὼ ἦλθον ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχωσιν καὶ περισσὸν ἔχωσιν.
And so I would paraphrase it: The thief only comes for theft, murder, and destruction. I have come that they may not only survive, but thrive.
In the first sentence, Jesus lays out what is evil, anti-life, anti-Christ, and anti-God. In the second sentence, Jesus lays out what is good, enhances life, embodies Christ, and glorifies God.
The Presentation of our Lord
In the Temple on
02022020
Seems significant somehow
Seeing that Baby Jesus
Secured blessing from
ANNA
At the Temple when
The Palindromic Prophet saw him.
(Luke 2.36-38)
This is a bunch of incoherent babble to make us think hard about our incredible love affair with the God of the universe, our astounding infidelities against God, and God's incredible grace to heal and restore us through Christ. Everything on this site is copyright © 1996-2023 by Nathan L. Bostian so if you use it, please cite me. You can contact me at natebostian [at] gmail [dot] com
