Metafiction & Repetition

In my World Lit class, we're reading postmodern literature; one of its characteristics is the presence of metafictional devices. This means that the texts themselves talk about storytelling, or aspects of the writing process. In Samuel Beckett's absurd play, the Endgame, the main character, Hamm, struggles to compose the story of his life. He seems to doubt that his life has been meaningful and that he has acted benevolently to others. He aims to ascribe meaning to his life through storytelling. If only he can articulate his experiences, then they will have mattered.

Likewise, in reading the chapter entitled "Genesis" in Killing the Buddha, the author (A.L. Kennedy) talks about the human desire to make a record of the beginning, or origin, of important events. This of course includes the creation story and subsequent tales contained in the book of Genesis. By composing such a narrative, the Jewish people added legitimacy to their tradition and beliefs. The author does point out the dark, sinful nature of humankind within Genesis, wondering what this says about the fundamental tendencies of people as well as why God would create such a destructive race.

Kennedy started the chapter by talking about his childhood growing up in church and how it conflicted with his parents' actual convictions about religion. He said his mother was just going through the motions with little faith, seemingly bored and disheartened by her experiences. I think it is easy to become disheartened with the state of churches today. So often they are run as businesses, furthering political agendas and disregarding the people. *Sigh* However, on the boredom front, I'm not so sure. I grew up in a Baptist Church, where the hymns, the sermons, and the announcements varied each week. When I began attending an Episcopal campus ministry, I thought, "Oh no. The words will become meaningless once memorized, and then I'll just be going through the motions and not really worshiping." However, I've found this to be quite the opposite of what I expected. Knowing the words and the prescribed plan of action for the service allows your mind to dwell more on the presence of God than on the words and motions of the service. Likewise, I was just reading an article about the Eastern Orthodox Church. The author (Frederica Mathewes-Green) encourages visitors to not be deterred by the repetitive nature of the liturgy. Instead,

"Relatively little changes from Sunday to Sunday; the same prayers and hymns appear in the same places, and before long you know it by heart. Then you fall into the presence of God in a way you never can when flipping from prayer book to bulletin to hymnal."

So, really repetition isn't a bad thing; it's possibly even a means to deeper experience, as long as your mind is focused on encountering God.

Holy Saturday

I've been trying to articulate my feelings about Holy Week in general. Last year, I spent Lent preparing for a pilgrimage to Scotland, which took place during my spring break which was also Holy Week. After such an experience, I found it hard to forge a Lenten practice this year and even harder to understand what I was feeling about the current Easter season.

Holy Saturday (which technically ended at sundown) is indicative of the dark feelings I have about this season. When I was younger, Easter was all fun and happiness — dying eggs, awaiting the Easter bunny, and celebrating a risen Savior. As I grew older, I recognized the truly sad nature of Good Friday, the event necessarily preceding the Festival Day. I find it hard to forget the feelings of sadness, guilt, and mourning associated with Jesus's sacrificial death to celebrate his resurrection just two days later. I almost feel like the period of grief should be longer: to really dwell on and fully understand this sacrifice; to recognize the conspicuous absence that occurs on Holy Saturday; to feel and confront loneliness, experiencing a real and painful desire for God. Not to be a sadist, but I think this is something Christians need to be reminded of more often and not just during Lent and Holy Week. To have an extended Holy Saturday would create a better understanding of the spiritual vulnerability of being human.

Holy Saturday is a day of silence, a day of waiting. God is dead. This day expresses the disconnection of modern humanity from God. So for now, I'll be depressing. Tomorrow is the day for hope.

"O Lord, God of my salvation, when, at night, I cry out in your presence, let my prayer come before you; incline your ear to my cry.

"For my soul is full of troubles, and my life draws near to Sheol. I am counted among those who go down to the Pit; I am like those who have no help, like those forsaken among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, like those whom you remember no more, for they are cut off from your hand. You have put me in the depths of the Pit, in the regions dark and deep. Your wrath lies heavy upon me, and you overwhelm me with all your waves.

"You have caused my companions to shun me; you have made me a thing of horror to them. I am shut in so that I cannot escape; my eye grows dim through sorrow. Every day I call on you, O Lord; I spread out my hands to you. Do you work wonders for the dead? Do the shades rise up to praise you? Is your steadfast love declared in the grave, or your faithfulness in Abaddon? Are your wonders known in the darkness, or your saving help in the land of forgetfulness?

"But I, O Lord, cry out to you; in the morning my prayer comes before you. O Lord, why do you cast me off? Why do you hide your face from me? Wretched and close to death from my youth up, I suffer your terrors; I am desperate. Your wrath has swept over me; your dread assaults destroy me. They surround me like a flood all day long; from all sides they close in on me. You have caused friend and neighbor to shun me; my companions are in darkness."
-Psalm 88

Here are several meditations by Cardinal Ratzinger, the current pope, who writes more eloquently than I.

Change of Plans

Who was I kidding? I couldn't stick to the plan I laid out for myself. I've always had this problem with having too many interests, so much so that I'm pulled in so many different directions that I can't focus on one thing for too long without becoming bored. I'm practically schizophrenic about my interests and want to learn about everything that interests me, but there's just too little time to do so. Thus, I rarely finish books or stick to my plans for reading (at least in the realm of leisure).

I wish that I could write freely on subjects that readers would find interesting without first having to be prompted. As of yet, this seems impossible. I've had this problem with writing creatively and expressing my own ideas, without citing some other source that either backs up or argues against my point. Sure, this makes my writing stronger from an academic sense, but it also limits my modes of expression. I've never had the inspiration, or perhaps courage, to try creative writing. Maybe I'm just so afraid that if anyone ever read my writing, they would hate it. Maybe I'm afraid that my ideas aren't original and exciting, and therefore not worth reading.

So, anyway, I've amended my plans for the blog a bit. I have two other books that I'm going to be reading now. Hopefully, this will keep the blog from being too dry and boring by only commenting on crusty old academics.

In addition to Huston Smith's "World Religions," I've just begun reading "Killing the Buddha" by Peter Manseau and Jeff Sharlet. The subtitle of the book is "A Heretics Bible"; it's a book containing stories of individual religious experiences, outside traditional religion. But the thing about heretical belief or experience, as the authors say in their introduction, is that it is a response to orthodoxy and defines a personal belief, a kind of orthodoxy in itself — if that description makes any sense. I discovered this book because I first discovered their Web site of the same name. I feel like I'm a little behind, as they founded the site in 2000, but it has some really interesting, relatable, and enjoyable stories.

And the third book I'll be reading and commenting on is "Jesus, Symbol of God" by Roger Haight. I think this will round out the trio really well. This way, I'll have an academic book, a book based on personal experience, and a theological book. I found out about Haight and his ideas because of this article on Religion Dispatches. (Which is also an awesome Web site to which I have included a link on the right hand side of the page.) Haight is a Catholic priest who used to teach at a Catholic university. There was a lot of controversy about this book because the Pope said that it disagreed with traditional Catholic doctrine. Haight seems to take his faith more symbolically/metaphorically and less literally than the Catholic Church would like. (That's just what I took from the article, but I'm sure I'll get much more insight into his ideas about Christology as I read the book.) As a result, Haight has been banned from teaching at all Catholic universities, though he retains his Catholic faith.

I'm looking forward to reading all three of these books and sharing my insights about them. Hopefully, by mixing it up I will retain interest in all three and calm my tendency for boredom. I'll hopefully be adding some substantive content to the blog soon and as a result stave off the boredom of my reader(s?) as well.

My First Blog Entry

So, I'm new to blogging. I'm currently trying to catch up on a few of the classics of religious studies, by scholars such as Huston Smith, Mircea Eliade, and Ninian Smart. My plan is to read a chapter and then write a response to it, in order to better formulate my ideas and thoughts about the reading and whether or not I agree with the opinion of the author. This will be good for me because I'll have a goal in mind while reading leisurely. In a way, I'm giving myself the assignment to read for pleasure and reflect upon it.

I'm going to begin with "The World Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions" by Huston Smith. First published in 1958, some of his ideas will likely be outdated in comparison to the commonly accepted understanding of modern scholars of religious studies. The primary reason I am interested in reading his work is because my religious studies professor said that Smith basically assumes all religions to be generally the same and to be reaching for the same ultimate goal. I think this is an interesting concept, because all people do seem to be striving to gain a greater knowledge of god, or at least an understanding of why the world is the way it is and what, if anything, will happen after death. Anyway, my professor said that Smith is "putting us all out of business" by saying that all religions are the same. Even if all religions serve the same purpose for humans, they arose from different cultural and historical backgrounds, making them fundamentally different from each other. On the other hand, if all religions do seek the same goal yet arise from such different cultures and philosophies, then that says something about an inherent human need for god, which is deserving of examination in and of itself.

Anyway, here's the link to the book on Amazon, where a summary and reviews are available.