Dewitt Jones

In anticipation of interest in Dewitt Jones, who was a freelance photographer for National Geographic Magazine, stemming from tomorrow’s worship service, here’s a link for more information.

More questions than answers

@ Duck and Decanter

Every time I pick up a new book I am reminded of two things I read in the 70s. The first was a statement made by a general – at least I think he was a general. The statement was “At this juncture of human events…”. He could have said “now”. The second was the safety report for Three Mile Island. Can you remember Three Mile Island? The report, written before the meltdown, was quite clear in its conclusion. The procedures in place were flawed and there was a good possibility of something going wrong. The problem was that the report was written in a scholarly fashion with data and facts comprising most of the report with the conclusion indicating a dangerous problem found in a paragraph on the final page. Anyone reading the report was put to sleep long before reaching the conclusion. I read books with those examples as a standard.

~

This past week I picked up two new books. The adult after church study class (I hesitate to call it a Sunday School Class) at Asbury is starting on this book Sunday. I don’t think I will be able to attend much but I bought the book anyway. It is Paul among the Postliberals – Pauline Theology beyond Christendom and Modernity by Douglas Harink. If you want a book report look here. So far I have managed the introduction (12 pages) and part (25 pages) of the first chapter, Justification. This is not a book for the faint of heart. It may not even be a book for me. Harink does a great job in the introduction of telling what the book is about (Pauline theology in relation to particular theologians). But, so far, I have a lot more questions than answers and that leads me to think that Harink may be somewhat akin to the verbose general.

~

~

I should have been warned by the title. After all, just exactly what is a “postliberal” (and here)? I thought perhaps the introduction might enlighten me. No joy. The best I could do was figure out that some theologians I know of (Karl Barth, Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder – note that in addition to the links I have given all three can be found on Wikipedia) with others that I am not familiar with (Krister Stendahl, Hans Frei and George Lindbeck – also to be found on Wikipedia) are/were postliberals. Great. I have read some things by Yoder and Hauerwas and neither of them are exactly easy to grasp. So now we have someone that clumps them together along with other theologians that I am totally ignorant of under the rather ill-defined title of postliberal and states that they preach Paul’s theology? Another question I have is: what books (of the New Testament) does he accept as authentic Pauline? I hope to find the answers in the rest of the book.

~

The second book I started is Deepak Chopra’s The Third Jesus. A less skeptical bio of Deepak can be found here. As with Paul among the Postliberals. I have not read much, just the introduction (4 pages), the first chapter, Redeeming the Redeemer (14 pages) and 5 pages of the second chapter, “I am the Light”. I am unsure at this point what I think of the book. I choose the book because I thought it would be nice to see a non-Christian’s view of Jesus. I expected a detached viewpoint. I don’t believe that is what we have here. I will continue reading and see what develops.

~

~

One impression I have is that Deepak has read the gospels rather uncritically. For example he assumes that Jesus’ actual words are quoted in the Gospels. I am not so sure of that especially when it comes to John. Don’t get me wrong, I love the language of John but I am not so sure of the accurateness of his wording. John and the other gospels for the most part were written in Greek but Greek was not the language that Jesus spoke. So how good is John’s translation of what Jesus said and how close were the words that he wrote to those that Jesus uttered? John wrote some 65 years after the crucifixion. I think maybe he (Deepak) was taught that the gospels were inerrant (at least in fact) by the Irish Catholic brothers that were his teachers in India. Deepak also appears to draw a lot of meaning from very few words. It is almost as if he has the inverse problem of the safety report for Three Mile Island. That is, he does not seem to have enough facts (reality) for his conclusions. I hope not but only the rest of the book will tell. On the other hand his ultimate conclusion appears to be in the last section of the book (judging from the table of contents). I hope I don’t fall asleep before I get there.

~

Did you know that Deepak Chopra champions intelligent design? I wonder if that has any bearing.

Final English Lakes Post

It’s 1:30 am our time.  We just finished a dinner that started at 11 pm.  It started a bit late because we  went an early evening, leisurely, celebratory hike above Ullswater Lake, along whose shore we’d started our hiking journey a week ago. Click here if you’d like to see the video.  It may be my favorite video, simply because of all the faces that are now dear to me at the front of it.  It has been a memorable journey – one that fulfilled my best expectations of a true study leave.  Now, I’m ready to return home to family and Countryside friends refreshed (after I get a good sleep on the plane!) and with renewed energy and vision.

Grace in the Tarn

Here’s a reflection I wrote after yesterday’s walk to Easedale Tarn – my attempt to put a concept like “grace” into common language.  Warning: I reserve the right to use this or a version of it as a sermon illustration sometime in the unforeseen future!  For definition’s sake, tarn is a small mountain lake often formed by glaciers.  And a gill is a British term for a small stream formed by a ravine.  In the case below, gill refers specifically to a stream with a waterfall and a little pool below it.  Okay, so I’m still having to define the terms, but at least they’re geographical rather than theological …  After reading what’s below, you may choose to see video of the hike by clicking here (Warning: It has a racy ending.  So I chose the “rock n’ roll” music from my selection of five loopable songs!).

Cresting the brow of the Easedale Tarn above Grasmere, the greater part of my companions prepared themselves for further ascent to places I knew would remain unknown to me.  I had swallowed my pride and made the difficult decision to stay behind, my knees still protesting the arduous ups and downs of the preceding day.

As the others moved off, I found the waters of the tarn too tempting to be left unpenetrated by my body.  Their depths seemed to be held in place by two knobby hands cupped and held tightly together as a wanderer in the Lake District might cup her hands to receive a drink from a craggy stream, pausing to admire the water’s clarity and coolness before quenching her thirst.

The mountain’s rocky fingers pointed themselves like sentinels standing watch before and above us; its grassy palms gently but fully embraced us from behind.  All these held the wind at bay allowing the waters to repose in utter stillness, calling the sky down rest upon its surface.

“Those waters’ll be a lot colder than the gill below,” someone warned.  Staying comfortable did not interest me.  I needed to accept an unspoken invitation.  Interloper though I was, the perfection before me did not seem wary of company.

Stripping down as far as modesty would allow, I gingerly stepped forward, trying neither to cut my feet on the sharp-toothed granite keeping the timid away, nor slip on the algae-covered larger stones sitting beneath the surface to thwart the overly eager.

At the first opportunity, I lurched forward into the swallow water, hoping to plunge my kangaroo pouch of a belly beneath the surface, as if my comrades had not already noticed it in the course of our last swim.

“How’s the water?” one of them called.  “Not much colder than the gill, actually,” I hastily answered.

As the greater part of the group made its way along the sloped shore toward the opposite end of the tarn, I inched out toward its center, cognizant of how poor my strokes must appear to onlookers.  My butterfly was an inchworm.  My crawl, a stumble.

Soon, my skin began voicing complaints to the increasing chill of the water.  “Guess I spoke to soon,” I told myself as those remaining behind prepared themselves for a swim.

Seeking warmth and tired of my awkwardness in the water, I stopped, treaded momentarily, then tilted my head back and thrust my chest forward until the length of my body rose to the tarn’s warmer surface.

“Ah, that extra bit of belly is good for something,” I consoled myself as I effortlessly floated like one of the clouds on the tarn’s still surface without increasing or deepening my breathing in any way.

As the late afternoon sun bathed and dried my face, neck, chest and toes, some imperceptible breeze slowly turned me until my feet pointed like a compass straight toward the palms of the hills.  My gaze shifted from the wispy clouds and surrounding blueness, to the green, rock-speckled slopes rising from water’s edge. For a moment, my protruding toes seemed to merge perfectly with the rocks on the lower hills.

My body thus united with mountain, water, and sky, I could almost hear a quiet voice whisper, “You have a place in this world; a place where everything comes together in your body and you disappear into a seamless whole.  Get over your clumsiness, and your fat little belly, and inhabit this place with your fullest self.”

A few minutes later, the breeze picked up, breaking my concentration and the water’s stillness, coaxing me to make my awkward way toward shore.  As I rose from the waters of the tarn, full-bellied, stepping gingerly again to avoid both the sharp and the slippery rocks guarding the edge, I lost hold of the peace I had just experienced.  I lost it until a quiet certainty arose from within that this peace I’d lost hold of had not lost hold of me.

Greetings from Melmerby!  I’ve posted two more video journal pieces on YouTube.  They’re just scenic videos, but will give anyone whose interested a taste of what we’re doing on our afternoon walks that follow our morning talks.   The group has really been enjoying seeing these video recaps of our day.  The software makes it easy to get them done almost immediately after we arrive back at the manor.  I simply to load the afternoon’s videos, push a button or two, and voila!  Here’s Saturday’s hike.  Here’s Monday’s hike.

For those Asphalt Jesus groups studying Affirmation 8 this week, I am reminded of something David Whyte observes toward the end of his latest book, The Three Marriages: Reimagining Work, Self and Relationships. I don’t have the book in front of me so I can’t quote him exactly, but he suggests that our greatest adversaries often serve as our greatest pathways into ourself.  An adversary tends to push and pull us in ways that lead us to discovering aspects of ourselves, or confirming aspects of ourselves, that are harder to get at when things are flowing smoothly.

Something to ponder this week!

On Sunday we’ll be exploring the relationship between what Jesus has to say about our “enemies” and living a creative life.  We’ll be hearing some really great wisdom both from the gospels and from DeWitt Jones, a photographer who worked for National Geographic for many years.  I look forward to seeing you then!

Prejudice

@ Duck and Decanter

I seem to be running into the same names over and over. This week I once again heard the name of Arthur Eddington. This time in was in conjunction with that of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (and here). I suppose I should not be amazed since I am still plugging through my video course, Understanding the Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy, 2nd Edition, from The Teaching Company. You may remember from my post, In the eye of the believer (or just the facts), that Arthur fudged his data a bit because he believed in Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. In that instance he got away with it because Einstein was correct in his thinking. In the case of Chandra (that is how he preferred to be called) he doesn’t come off looking so good.

~

The bare bones outline of this story I heard from Alex Filippenko, the professor of my course. It goes something like this: Chandra graduated from Presidency College, B.Sc. (Hon.), in physics – June 1930. He was twenty years old and had a scholarship for Cambridge University in England. He sailed to England (I am not sure that you could even fly from India to England in 1930) and the voyage took some three weeks. Not one to waste the time, Chandra did some heavy duty thinking and determined the upper mass limit for white dwarf stars. Eventually this limit was named after him (the Chandrasekhar limit) and he won a Nobel Prize in physics (1983) for this work. To arrive at his results he not only had to be conversant in astronomy but he had to understand quantum mechanics which was something that Albert Einstein never quite mastered. Oh yeah, his math skills had to be outstanding also. And he is a twenty year old? Pretty impressive.

~

It did not impress our friend, Arthur Eddington. In fact, according to Alex Filippenko, Eddington openly ridiculed Chandra and his work. Chandra for his part publically always referred to Eddington as a friend. Apparently, they also maintained a friendly social contact. I am rather surprised about this because Chandra was under no illusions as to the reason that Eddington was so antagonistic. It was prejudice – see here. He (Chandra) must have been quite a person (and from all reports was). I don’t know how Eddington referred to Chandra and I don’t really care. I don’t think I like Eddington very much. It is a shame Eddington died before Chandra won the Nobel Prize.

~

I love to hear stories of people overcoming prejudice. I wonder if Eddington’s prejudice had anything to do with Chandra moving to the US instead of remaining in England.

~

NASA’s x-ray observatory launched in 1999 was named Chandra.

English Lakes 2

Note: The entry below was written last Friday but I had trouble posting it until now.  The update is that we just figured out how to access wireless internet at Melmerby Hall Manor where we’re staying, so I expect to be able to write and post again shortly – including video.

We have not had internet access thus far at Melmerby Hall Manor, where we’re staying (though the website advertized it) so I don’t know how regularly I’ll be able to post news.  I found an internet cafe next to the lake we’re going to be walking beside this afternoon, so I thought I’d at least post a quick update.  Only have a couple minutes, though!

Had a wonderful session with David Whyte this morning. I began to realize one of the central attractions I have to him.  In nearly every circumstance where he uses the term “the world” (which he uses frequently), he uses it in the same way I would use the term “God” or “Spirit.” So reading or listening to him feels like having a deep, lively theological discussion without ever mentioning God directly.  What I like about his terminology is that it allows him to speak of a deeply incarnational sense about God.  That is, by calling God “the world” and using “the world” in the particular way David does, it holds together a whole string of intrinsic implications that are not necessarily implied by the word “God” even though they may very much be meant by the speaker (e.g. me … or you).  It’s like saying “the God of my experience, who is mystically and organically involved with humanity and nature, who has words to speak that are both universal and distinctive to you as an indidual, who loves you with a love that is great enough not to judge you and fierce enough not to let you pass thru life so easily without leaving your paricular mark it (and it’s mark in you), who is revealed in your own interiority, and in community with others, and in the earth, and in your vocational path, and in words you overhear yourself speaking from which you cannot retreat …” That’s essentially what I hear when I hear David speak of ”the world.” And by using that term he can reach people who have little or no concept of God and those who have a highly developed sense. I like that.  It gives me much to think about with respect to how I speak (and write) of the Divine.

In terms if out physical setting, I’m already plotting ways you to get back here.  I already feel that deep of a connection with it.

Incidentally, David’s son is here.  His name is Brendan, age 24, and seems a lot like what David would have been like at a similar age.  He actually looks a lot like a childhood friend of mine when he was in his young 20s.

The group is predictably made up of interesting people from all over the US (and one from the UK who lives in Montanegro).  At first they struck me as not so interesting and overly quiet, but then realized that they are all basically thinkers and are comfortable with sizeable periods of silence (an in fact expect it).  Have discovered they know too how to laugh and have a good time.  And a number of them enjoy tipping a pint of locally made beer at the end of the evening at the local pub – not that I would ever do anything like that …

Got to run or I’ll miss the steamer across the lake!

Matthew the astrologer?

@ Duck and Decanter

After I posted Age of Aquarius, that can’t be right; can it? I read The Star of Bethlehem and discovered a wealth of information about ancient astrology. The author, Michael R. Molnar, is an astronomer and former head of the Physics Instructional Labs at Rutgers University. Mr. Molnar collects ancient coins. One particular coin he bought led him to study ancient (Hellenistic) astrology and the “star” of Bethlehem. According to Mr. Molnar’s thesis the story told by Matthew (in the gospel according to) came from an astrological event and not some wondrous, dramatic, manifestation that everyday folk (or even kings such as Herod) would have noticed. To be sure the alignment of the planet Jupiter with Aries, the sun and other planets was visible to everyone but only those versed in astrology (i.e. the magi) would have paid any attention to the momentous (to astrologers) events in the sky.

~

~

The Star of Bethlehem has abundant information about astronomy, astrology, history and early Christianity. As such I enjoyed reading it. But more interesting than the well researched facts was Mr. Molnar’s attitude. His original attitude was that the story of the nativity found in Matthew makes little or no sense from a factual astronomical viewpoint. For instance, how does a star stop over a house? The answer is that it doesn’t. But the story does make sense from an astrological point of view. Furthermore it doesn’t make much sense if interpreted in terms of later astrology. But it makes a lot of sense from the viewpoint of a first century Hellenic astrologer. To some one versed in the astrology of the times the events of April 16 of 6 BCE did foretell of the birth of a powerful king in Judea. In fact many of the Greek words that Matthew uses to tell the story of the birth of Jesus are astrological terms. I am (with Mr. Molnar) forced to the conclusion that the author of Matthew was an astrologer or at least very familiar with astrology.

~

Almost as an afterthought Mr. Molnar mentions the birth story as told in Luke. Unlike Matthew, Luke did not believe in astrology (or maybe he just didn’t know much about it). But his story none the less has hints of astrology. Take the shepherds watching the sheep “by night”. Aries is a ram and when else do you see the stars. Then there is the term “heavenly hosts” used by Luke. According to Mr. Molnar the Greek term translated as “heavenly hosts” means the stars and planets of the heavens. We English speaking peoples of the 21^st century think of angels and what not but to the Greek speaking world of the first century it had a different meaning. He also points out that at the time planets were thought of as stars.

~

So there you have it. The story of the nativity was told by an astrologer (Matthew) and a skeptic (Luke). Same story, told with two different viewpoints. Today we read the story with different viewpoints; some read the story literally, some read it as skeptics, some read it from a 21^st century perspective, and some read it as a pair of fables. When I read both of the stories literally it never even occurred to me that there were any differences. After I read The Star of Bethlehem I realized that I need to remember how differently people of first century thought and that maybe both Matthew and Luke made sense to them.

~

I wonder if there are other stories told by Matthew that needs to be viewed with first a first century astrology filter in place. I’ll have to read his gospel again and see.

English Lakes Post #1

I’m in the Omaha airport currently, about to take off for the English Lakes District northern England for some much-anticipated study-leave.  A dozen or so people are rendezvousing with poet/philosopher, David Whyte.  This gathering is focussed on being a time to deepen one’s commitment to the direction one’s professional or artistic life is taking, or loose it toward a new direction (Don’t worry: I’m in the FORMER camp, not the latter!).  For further inspiration we will spend every afternoon amid the mountains and lakes that surround us, walking the hills and arriving at small pubs and hostelries for the evening meal. David will lead the morning sessions, bringing poetry to bear on the insights he has gained through twenty years of examining the necessities of work, career and relationship. Our accommodation is in a manor house nestled in the foothills of the North Pennines, one of 40 classified areas of outstanding natural beauty in England and Wales. 

If you’ve never heard of David Whyte, a wonderful introduction to his work is The Heart Aroused: Poetry and Preservation of the Soul in Corporate America.  That’s the book that got me hooked.  Now, after reading a stack more of his books, I’m looking forward to finally being able to experience how his brilliant mind works (Don’t count on me coming back with any of his brilliance!).  

Yesterday I visited Best Buy and drooled over a Flip Video mini-camcorder which is popular with video bloggers thinking I might take some video of David Whyte and others on the trip and perhaps post a few video reflections on what’s happening there and potentially on the Phoenix Affirmations.  I decided against it … and then rushed out this morning to purchase one … So for better or worse, you’re going to get some video entries in the coming week, should you care to watch them.  They’ll be posted on YouTube with links provided on this blog.  If you’d rather go straight to the YouTube videos and not go thru the blog, you can type “eelnes” in the search engine and find all my video blog posts (including some videos I’ve posted previously).  However, I do plan on writing a little here, too, not just doing video.  

My first entry is cheesy, and says nothing important, but it’s my very first video blog, shot at the airport in Omaha, so for those who wish, you can click here to view it.

But not to leave you with empty vapor, I thought I’d share one of David Whyte’s poems for your enjoyment:

“In the Beginning”

         by David Whyte (From Fire In the Earth)

Sometimes simplicity rises

            like a blossom of fire

                        from the white silk of your own skin.

You were there in the beginning

            you heard the story, you heard the merciless

                        and tender words telling you where you had to go.

Exile is never easy and the journey

            itself leaves a bitter taste.  But then,

                        when you heard that voice, you had to go.

You couldn’t stay by the fire, you couldn’t live

            so close to the live flame of that compassion

                        you had to go out in the world and make it your own

so you could come back with

            that flame in your voice, saying listen …

                        this warmth, this unbearable light, this fearful love …

It is all here, it is all here.

In the eye of the believer (or just the facts)

@ Macy’s in Flagstaff

Last week I watched a rerun of Einstein on the History Channel. I had seen it before but I always enjoy serious history. That and the fact that I am desperate for anything worth while watching on TV. A big part of the story was the attempts to prove Einstein’s theory of relativity by photographing a total solar eclipse and measuring the positions of stars that appeared close to the sun. The theory of General Relativity predicts that the path of light will be bent by gravity as it passes close to a massive object. Therefore stars that appear close to the sun (they aren’t really close, they are far beyond the sun in distance but lie in the same direction as the sun) will appear even closer to the sun than they are. See Putting Relativity to the Test for a better description. At the time (1916 to 1922) the only way to photograph stars close to the sun was during a total solar eclipse. Several astronomers competed to test the theory of which Sir Arthur Eddington from the UK and William Wallace Campbell (and here) from the US were the most involved.

~

I really liked the program for humanizing Albert Einstein but found it lacking in explanations. The most disturbing missing detail was in explaining the differing results obtained by Eddington and Campbell. World War I complicated things quite a bit. Einstein was in Germany, Eddington, a big fan of his, was in England and both were not too well thought of because of their views on the war. The American astronomer, Campbell definitely did not share their views of the war but was just as impeded by the conflict. What with one thing and another Campbell had the first opportunity to observe (and hence obtain photographs) of an eclipse. This was the 1918 eclipse which was visible in the state of Washington. After the war was over Eddington got his first opportunity on the island of Príncipe near Africa during the eclipse in May of 1919. Now here is the unexplained part. Campbell could not confirm that the theory was correct and was about to publish results that said Einstein was wrong when Eddington announced that he had confirmed the theory. Today we know that, in the main, Einstein had it correct and therefore Eddington was right on with his results. So, does this make Campbell out to be some sort of incompetent? The program (and almost everyone else) just goes on to praise Eddington and Einstein for this great advance in our understanding of the universe. It remained silent on how Campbell could have been wrong.

~

This wasn’t a case of religion vs. science with one side obtaining knowledge by divine revelation and the other by testing a theory by observation. Or was it? Eddington was a staunch Quaker and therefore an avowed pacifist. Einstein wasn’t a Quaker but did have pacifistic leanings. Campbell was just the opposite. Eddington was a big fan of Einstein and his theory. In more modern times some have suggested that Eddington fudged his results (if he did not lie outright). I prefer to think that Eddington, who understood the theory when most scientists did not, only found results he was looking for. Campbell had another astronomer measuring the results of his observations and this astronomer was more of an observational astronomer than either Campbell or Eddington. As such he was possibly more concerned with data than implications. It turns out that photography and astronomical methods of the time were not up to the challenge of being able to prove the theory. The photographic emulsions of the time could only resolve stars to about ½ of the resolution necessary to confirm the theory. In other words a stars position could not be measured to the accuracy required using photographic emulsions available at that time.

~

Today we have abundant proof that Einstein’s theory of relativity is the best description we have of the universe (even if there are some details where Albert missed the boat). There are many places where we can measure the amount of light’s deflection caused by gravity. Other proofs of the theory exist such as the explanation of the deviation (from Newtonian physics) of Mercury’s orbit. I try to remember that even scientists like to find the results they are looking for and that beliefs can put a spin on results.

~

To my way of thinking, creationists and Eddington differ only in degree. Still, I won’t be changing my thinking about evolution any time soon. I also note that the History Channel airs shows such as UFO Files, UFO Hunters and Monster Quest. The best that can be said of any of those is that they involve a good deal of belief as opposed to fact. What can one believe from a source such as that?

~

Note on the use of Wikipedia – often I look up things on Wikipedia but I always keep in mind that the authors of individual articles can biased and all facts reported there may not necessarily be so.