Lessons from a broken guitar

Before my actual post I wanted to formally introduce myself. My name is Eric Castillo. I've lived in Albuquerque my whole life but will soon change that when I move to Enid, Oklahoma at the beginning of next year. I'd describe myself as a Christian. I've played an active role in my church for the last 8 years. Thanks to the Nuanced Faith team for their invitation to contribute! Now without further ado... 

I love how spiritual music is.

Music, in so many genres and styles, from single instruments to large ensembles, can amplify emotions and sentiments - especially those we wish to apply to God. And I suppose that's one way to describe worship - expressing emotions to God.

Since Thanksgiving day my acoustic guitar has been out of commission. Thankfully, it should be a simple fix as soon as I get the replacement part at the guitar store. But in the meantime it's been killing me. I've become accustomed to just reaching for it whenever I please. My fingers miss playing. I just want to grab it and strum a chord and it drives me nuts that I can't. It's become one of my go-to means of expression (right next to writing). It's been reliable. It's usually in tune (or at least close enough). And, despite rough handling and abuse, it still sings for me.

Now I'm appreciating those things so much more than before. A reliable means of expression? That's something to cherish.

But it doesn't have to be a guitar. It doesn't even have to be a musical instrument. Worshiping God has never been limited to those things. There are plenty of ways to, in my own words, amplify your sentiments toward God.

Think of feeding the poor. Not only is it straight up scriptural (Isaiah 58:7, Matthew 25:35), it's an act of worship. The act of feeding the poor takes the emotions in your heart of love and compassion and amplifies them toward God. The emotions are already there and your actions let them be seen and heard and felt by others - most importantly God.

I like to use a guitar. But I should be just as quick to pick up a ladle and serve others. If I can play and sing how I feel to God, I should be able to express my love through my every action.

And I should be thankful to God if a broken guitar can teach me that.

-- 

originally posted at http://ericcastillo.blogspot.com

No other place provides what church offers...

When I was a freshman in college, I attended the Presbyterian Church near campus. The service was culturally comfortable for me, and the members were friendly. I even joined the choir.

The main attraction was neither liturgical nor theological: My college had on-campus services with a very good Congregational chaplain who happened to be a professor I liked and respected. The real attraction of that particular Presbyterian Church was that most of the congregants were not college students. They were farmers, many of them, or high school teachers, or other kinds of "normal" citizens of that small Midwestern town that was also a college town.

The Christianity Today website ran a piece today about how to choose a church. In "Denominational Diagnostics: What I look for in a healthy church," Philip Yancey doesn't concentrate on denominational structure, liturgical rules or theology. But the thing that attracted me to that old-fashioned church back in 1975 is high on his list.

"Diversity complicates rather than simplifies life," Yancey writes. "Perhaps for this reason we tend to surround ourselves with people of similar age, economic class, and opinion. Church offers a place where infants and grandparents, unemployed and executives, immigrants and blue bloods can come together. Just yesterday I sat sandwiched between an elderly man hooked up to a puffing oxygen tank and a breastfeeding baby who grunted loudly and contentedly throughout the sermon. Where else can we go to find that mixture?

When I walk into a new church, the more its members resemble each other—and resemble me—the more uncomfortable I feel."

Much of the column is narrow and superficial -- he dismisses the Jehovah's Witnesses as a "fringe" group -- but Yancey is definitely on to something.

By the way, the reader comments on this column were more amusing than illuminating. At one point Yancey mentions "Oddly, a Church of Christ that forbids musical instruments because they are not mentioned in the New Testament sees no contradiction in projecting hymns on PowerPoint slides."

This offhand criticism prompted one Randy Daw to retort: "...[I]t is not hard to see the difference between something you offer to God in worship (like prayer or singing), and something that helps you to offer that worship(like songbooks, powerpoint, or other media)..."

Well, yeah, Randy. It is very hard to see how praising Him with psaltery and harp (or their modern equivalents) is a more objectionable assist to worship than a PowerPoint projection. Don't get me wrong. I respect the longstanding a capella tradition of the Church of Christ and I'm a fan of the power of their singing. But like some of the beloved traditions of my own adopted Catholic Church, the reasoning behind their rules is anything but clear to the rest of us.

If you mean well, is it all right?

When does faithfulness to one's own religious traditions and deeply held beliefs cross the line into disrespect for other faiths?

This is a recurring issue when dealing with religions which, like Christianity, teach that theirs is the only path to salvation. (What we mean by salvation is a whole separate topic.) Is it compassion for the souls of one's non-Christian forbears that motivates some groups to practice posthumous baptisms, or just blatant arrogance and disrespect for other beliefs?

Here's the problem: If you really believe in the exclusivist view, then what I call respect looks inconsiderate to say the least. How could we withhold ultimate joy from our own grandparents and ancestors, let alone strangers?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints -- the Mormons -- have been performing posthumous "proxy" baptisms for years. They argue that they are merely sharing a blessing with those for whom it is too late to participate knowingly. It will come as no surprise that this practice is offensive to many non-Mormons.

A couple of days ago the Israeli newspaper Haaretz had this headline: "U.S. Jewish group to Mormons: Stop baptizing Holocaust victims."

From the article:

Posthumous baptism by proxy allows faithful Mormons to have their ancestors baptized into the 178-year-old church, which they believe reunites families in the afterlife.

Using genealogy records, the church also baptizes people who have died from all over the world and from different religions. Mormons stand in as proxies for the person being baptized and immerse themselves in a baptismal pool.

Only the Jews have an agreement with the church limiting who can be baptized, though the agreement covers only Holocaust victims, not all Jewish people. Jews are particularly offended by baptisms of Holocaust victims because they were murdered specifically because of their religion.

[Honorary chairman of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors Ernest] Michel suggested that posthumous baptisms of Holocaust victims play into the hands of Holocaust deniers.

"They tell me, that my parents' Jewishness has not been altered but 100 years from now, how will they be able to guarantee that my mother and father of blessed memory who lived as Jews and were slaughtered by Hitler for no other reason than they were Jews, will someday not be identified as Mormon victims of the Holocaust?" Michel said Monday.

Steps, Threads, and Eras: Not necessarily in that order.

In looking back or in looking forward, how do we view the way our life is going?

Steps: One way is to think of it is as the steps we took along the way and the steps we plan to take in the future. Every now and again, my church congregation asks someone to hold a discussion about their own faith journey. Some people approach this by outlining a progression of specific steps along the way. I was born here. My parents were . . . . We moved from here to there. I went to these schools. I became a . . . in my work life. I was a member of this or that church. I married my husband/wife and had children. I hope to retire when I'm sixty. Apparently lots of people think of their lives in this way.

Eras: Another way is a more big picture-ish way of reviewing one's life that takes a certain period of time and looks at the events that happened within it. For example, I can take the era of time when I lived in Venezuela, or the era when I lived in a racially mixed community in Cleveland, or the era when I was married, but before I had children. Each of these and the other eras in my life's progression had distinct characteristics that made them unique from one another.

Threads: Personally, the "threads" way works best for me, and I tend to review my past and future along those lines. This is a way of thinking that follows one part of your life ignoring the rest even though, obviously all parts intertwine like the strands of a rope winding around each other. For example, I can follow my relationships with my children, each or together, from birth through adulthood. I can look at the history of my health and what the future might hold.

My faith journey is a trip on its own from the dark Lutheranism of my childhood, through the exploration of the more conservative faith of my Baptst classmates in nursing school, through mainstream Presbyterian theology, and later the blown-away theology of being in a cult in Venezuela and Chicago, and finally as a free-thinker on my own quest to understand what God wants of me. Through studies of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaica, psychological studies, how the brain works, and much more, I find common threads among them all, and can reject those things that seem to me to be off-kilter, areas of thought where each of these seem to go into trial-and-error mode as they search for their own truths.

So, in a way as an older person, I'm coming full circle: back to Christianity as one way to feel grounded even if in a limited way. Back to Jesus, looking at the truths he represents as filtered through writers who wrote many years after his life and death.

The truths that our Creator chooses to reveal to us come in many ways, not just one. These truths must be seen in the context of the historical time in which they are revealed and the characteristics of the people to whom they are revealed. Without this, much misinterpretation occurs.

When I was a Lutheran, regularly attending evening vesper services after a full day of working in the hospital as a student nurse in Minneapolis, the pastor of the nearby church gave a sermon that changed my life forever. "Pray without ceasing," he said. This burned itself on my memory, seared my soul, caused me to wonder what unceasing prayer would look like. Now, fifty-plus years later, I know. It becomes what the Muslims call "God-conscious," being aware of the spirit at all times, knowing that a life of service and compassion is the only life that is worthy of living. This God-consciousness helps me to set goals, helps me to sort through the myriad choices set before me, to lessen mis-steps in relationships, and gives me the courage to move forward on what I know I am called to do.

Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

How much would it take?

Sara Yoheved Rigler is one of my favorite columnists on Aish haTorah, or anywhere for that matter. She is good at bringing ethical abstractions into our own real world. Aish just reran a piece of hers from September, 2007, called "Selling Your Soul: Do We Each Have Our Price?" Here is one of the examples she gives:

"...If someone offered you several thousand dollars to never speak to your brother or sister again, you might answer with indignation, "My relationship with my sister/brother is not for sale!" Yet how many adult siblings engage in furious fights, and even lifelong feuds, over the terms of their parents' will?

"A startling statistic claims that over half of all divorces are caused by squabbles over finances. At first it seems preposterous that a thinking adult would choose the pain and loneliness of divorce, as well as the psychological scars it inflicts on children, over any amount of money. However, the financial rift is usually so buried in layers of other issues that one rarely sees the reality for what it is.

"My friend Marcia once told me this story: Marcia's husband Barry had lent $5,000 to an old college friend of his, Neil. Marcia had never liked Neil, and, since their finances were never flush, she was horrified that Barry had lent him such a sum. Barry hadn't consulted her, however, so she could only hope that Neil would pay the money back.

"About a year later, Marcia, a fellow writer, got an advance on her next book. She was thrilled to be able to deposit $5,000 into the family vacation fund. That very night, Barry broached what was clearly a painful subject for him. Their car and house insurance was due and he had hoped to pay it with the repayment of the money he had loaned to Neil, but Neil, after several reminders, had finally confessed that he didn't have any way to pay back the money. They would have to use Marcia's $5,000 for the insurance.

"Marcia went ballistic. She had never approved of the loan, and now that Barry's low-life friend had reneged on the repayment, she would have to sacrifice the family vacation?! "If you so much as touch my $5,000, I'll never speak to you again!" she cried as she stalked off.

"She took a walk around the block, fuming over her husband's gullibility in trusting that low-life. By her third time around the block, though, it suddenly occurred to her: If someone had approached her and said, "I'll pay you $5,000 to turn your home into a battleground," she would have scoffed at the offer. But here she was, sacrificing her marital harmony for $5,000.

""Yes, my husband's a lousy judge of character," Marcia thought to herself. "And he was wrong to lend money without consulting me. But if $5,000 would drop out of the sky right now, I'd be big enough to forgive all his faults."

"As the maxim goes: Whenever someone says, "It's not the money, it's the principle," know for sure that it's the money..."

We all know better than to worship Mammon. Or do we? Part of the problem, I think, is that we mix our feelings about money and material comfort with our resentment toward people who seem to get ahead by disregarding the ethical standards and rules that we hold dear.

Torah has its own way of expressing this, as Rigler indicates. As for me, I can recognize Pride, Envy and Greed when they accost me. Pride, because we don't like having the other person make a fool of us; Envy for the ease that the non-ethical person seems to experience in life; and Greed in the idea that more money would solve all our problems.

We wouldn't be human if we didn't sometimes experience these feelings. Medieval stories pictured the human soul as a constant battleground, or psychomachia, between the forces of virtue and vice. Neither was expected to be able to completely vanquish the other. But I wouldn't want to live in a world where we didn't at least try.

Election night thoughts from Eric Castillo

Tonight I celebrate. I joined with other democrats tonight, energized and excited by this electric election. We celebrated every win and toasted to the success of the democratic party.

Tomorrow we work. Change is not automatic. No new legislation has passed overnight, no new bills have been drafted. Our problems remain: a shaky economy; domestic and social issues to be resolved; simultaneous wars; and a country recovering from intense and prolonged emotions from an unusually lengthy election season. It's time to get to work.

So let's take a breath and take a break from the name calling and negativity. I'm surprised at the level of post-election anger - almost as surprised at the levels it reached during the election. It's hard to stomach sometimes.

With all that said, let me get to bed and get a good long rest. Tomorrow is a brand new start.

Comments are welcome here, and on Eric's blog.

another Sunday, another sacred space

I've going to start sharing pictures again. These are from Rosemary.

When we're looking for sacred spaces, we can't forget places like this.

The beach rocks have a way of making you feel happy and hopeful. It's partly the pure jubilation and impressive artwork, and partly the lake. So you'd have to say that this is a combination of nature and human ingenuity. In fact, the only thing missing is any organized sectarian religion.




It seems that in this spot everybody is welcome, except maybe crabby people.

Recently I was listening in to a conversation about the meaning of the word "sacred." The subject quickly turned to the definition of "mystical," which to me is no synonym for sacred, but a whole different conversation. I'll tell you right up front that I do not get mystical, at least in the religious sense.

But sacred? That's right up my alley. More on that next week.

Living by our own standards

Hello group! Thank you Dorothy, for inviting me.

Well, I'm Lauren, an intern at the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado. I encounter more restrictions on religious expression than rejoice in its expression. However, as a recovering religion major, it is perhaps redundant to say that the religious tendency is far too intriguing, powerful, and revealing of individual and social natures to simply disregard or label as "unreasonable." Before I get to carried away, here's an article I found.

With a twinkle in my eye as evidence of my lingering euphoria over this election I was ready to investigate how the "other side" was reacting to Obama's victory. As a liberal, when I google conservative news, I am more often than not looking for some completely outrageous, extreme voice at which to gawk. However, in an article entitled "Relgious Right R.I.P.," instead of reading about some radical religious leader proclaiming Obama as proof of Judgement Day, I found a well-articulated reevalutation of the attempt to pursue religoius agendas through politics.

"Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?"

The article continues by suggesting that Evangelicals might find more statisfaction in pursuing more of Jesus approach, such as local social programs like feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked. He calls for a reevaluation of religious conservatism based on results. The religious right political agenda for the last 30 years has proved ineffectual, so it's time for a change. Maybe helping people will better express the ultimate goals of this religious perspective.

I find his logic incredibily uplifiting. My personal love for the idea of American government is its limitedness, such that Christ-like characters have the capacity to organize without a Ponchas Pilot violenting stopping them. Jesus would be the first to say that helping individuals entails very little credit or glamour. However, my own ambitions for the world include only as much government restriction on personal choice as necessary for the good of everyone. Many have claimed that this includes dictating for people certain moral issues they should live by, like gay marriage and abortion. However, I am of the persuassion that the government has proven itself a very poor entity, too prone to corruption and excessivness, to be in charge of such personal issues. Personal freedom, on the other hand, has proven to be able to co-exist with a functional soceity, and in many cases enchances that society. So perhaps it is worth trying this avenue to express our opinions on the best ways of living, but ultimately allowing our neighbors to decide for themselves. Persuading, rather than dictating.

The article can be found in its entirety here: http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/11/06/religious_right_rip

I Like This Approach.

Vote for Those Who Cannot

Tomorrow, we make our choice: we can choose to continue to be the America that was, crippled and reviled. Or we can choose to make our country as it should be, and remind the world why it once loved America.

We can choose to wrap intolerance and hatred in a thin fabric of doctrinaire religion and call it faith. We can choose to embrace the self-fulfilling contradictions of elevating single issues above all others. We can choose a path to a theocracy that combines flag and cross and leaves little room for much else. We can choose to exclude others who do not believe as we do, and deny them the rights that we treasure for ourselves.

Or, we can choose to awaken from our eight year nightmare and begin the process of rebuilding. Rebuilding will take hope and inspiration, and require us to embrace change. In short, we can choose to have faith. We can choose to have faith in a kind and just God, and faith in our kinder natures and our ability to do the right thing.

We choose, not just for ourselves, but for generations yet to come. Our choice will shape our country for our children and our children's children.

We also choose for those who live in the present, upon whose lives we have brought war and strife. We choose for them because they cannot, even when their fortunes are inexorably linked to ours.

So tomorrow, we choose for more than just ourselves. The differences between our choices are stark and razor-sharp. Little ambiguity remains when we view our choices through the eyes of those for whom we are choosing.

So, exercise your right to vote. Vote for those who cannot. And vote for the choice that will truly bring us closer to who we should be and farther from who we have been.

You can vote however you like!

From the website for the Ron Clark Academy in Atlanta, Georgia. The students are in the fifth through eighth grades (roughly 10-14 years old.)

Ron Clark Academy students were recently featured on CNN.com performing their own version of T.I.’s song “Whatever You Like.” Students during their Global Studies class have been learning every political issue associated with the upcoming Presidential Election, and as a result have created the song “You Can Vote However You Like.”

This time, Ron Clark Academy students were captured on tape while performing the song in front of a distinguished audience of city leaders and political activists at Woodruff Park in downtown Atlanta. Students were invited to participate in the United Nations Foundation’s citywide tour promoting their Nothing But Nets – a program to stop the spread of malaria in Africa.

Inspired by the song, CNN who was there covering the event, placed the video on CNN.com. CNN’s founder Ted Turner is also the founder of the United Nations Foundation.