Props!

Barb wrote: "Oh, be still, my heart...."

Barb, I had the same immediate reaction but seeing you put it in words just made me giggle out loud!

Philip wrote: "This may be what Jean was referring to -- a front-page story by Michiko Kakutani in today's New York Times (for Monday 1/19) headlined From Books, New President Found Voice. I hope this link works..."

Thanks Philip. That's precisely what I was referring to. A literate president. Amazing!

Oh, be still, my heart...a well read president. It still keeps surprising me.

This may be what Jean was referring to -- a front-page story by Michiko Kakutani in today's New York Times (for Monday 1/19) headlined From Books, New President Found Voice. I hope this link works: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/books/...

Quite a few books are mentioned in the story, some of which are listed in a handy little sidebar on p. A16 of my Midwest edition:

The Bible
Parting the Waters by Taylor Branch
Self-Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson
Gandhi's autobiography
Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin
Lincoln's collected writings
Moby-Dick by Herman Melville
Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison
Works of Reinhold Niebuhr
Gilead by Marilynne Robinson
Shakespeare's tragedies

I've been trying to google it...but haven't come up with anything this morning. Anything to avoid laundry!

Go, Barack!

Wow, like Candy, I'd be curious to see that list. That's interesting to know he has Gilead on the list. Thanks for sharing that, Jean.

Jean...is there a list of his influences somewhere? Do you have a link or was it in a interview of some sort?

Just saw that Barack Obama lists Gilead A Novelamong his influences. Now I must read.

I have a chill going down my spine Capitu. I also watched the Hawkings show on discovery...my daughter had texted me and said I had to watch it...

I am going to check out you're link...and I don't think any of this is far off from our discussion of the novel at all.

Safe journey, I hope you have fun!

And Dottie, yes, most certainly this ties into the movie Mindwalk!

Have a safe and happy trip and we look forward to your return!

All right Candy, you and I must be in some form of literary serendipity. Last night I watched the show “A Theory of Everything” in the Discovery Channel, where in one hour they tried to explain a quest that has taken Steven Hawkins 2 decades to formulate. He has not yet gotten to the bottom it, but he is much closer thanks to other physicists (which I should remember the names but I don’t) whom, using “string theory”, have added elements to Hawkins’ theory. Anyway, their conclusion is that the universe is formed of up to 11 dimensions. In lay terms, they explain it as if our universe was a fish tank inside other dimensions, and contained in our universe there might be other dimensions, so small we may never find them (they used a donut as an example).

Of course, I found it mind-boggling. But, just a few hours earlier I had read and essay by John S. Spong, a now retired Episcopalian Bishop and theologian, in the same book I quoted Borg before, where he questions the traditional theistic views of God as our understanding of the physical world around us evolve. Here are some of exerts from it:

…I am seeking to raise to consciousness the fact that the primary myth around which traditional Christianity has organized itself has become inoperative.

…(the) theistic understanding was a compact, a snug and comfortable statement of who God is, what the universe is, and what our place within it is. But it is this very world view that has now been obliterated.

Galileo, building on the work of Copernicus and Kepler, has made us aware that the three-tiered view of the universe, assumed in our theistic definition of God, no longer exists. Our tiny planet Earth circles around a mid-sized star called the sun, which is part of a galaxy of one billion stars in a universe that contains at least 125 billion other galaxies. The theistic God above our sky is no more. Before that realization had been absorbed Isaac Newton began to squeeze the presence of miracle and magic out of life, reducing dramatically the arenas in which the theistic God was believed to be able to operate.

Next, Charles Darwin challenged the myth of our special creation in God's image. He also raised questions about the human self-definition gleaned from the Biblical story that we are those who, though created perfect, had fallen into sin so total and so complete that only the theistic God could rescue us. Darwin provided us with a countering image. Human beings, he suggested, like all other forms of life, have emerged out of the evolutionary struggle to survive. They were never created perfect so they could not have fallen. If this Darwinian view is correct, as I think it is, then it immediately invalidates the traditional understanding of the saving work of Christ as the one who was the theistic God's emissary to rescue the fallen sinner, the one who accomplished atonement by means of his sacrificial death, which somehow paid the necessary price required for our restitution. That understanding of the saving work of the Christ still undergirds traditional Christian liturgies and still provides the content of many of our familiar hymns. But those images have become inoperative in a post-Darwinian world. For if we are not fallen, sinful, helpless creatures as the Bible has proclaimed, but are rather unfinished, still evolving, emerging creatures as Darwin has suggested, it is not rescue but empowerment to take the next step into an ever-deepening humanity that we require.

Next, Sigmund Freud forced us to look at the infantile and oedipal aspects present in our traditional faith story. Then Albert Einstein confronted us with the reality of relativity, not just in the world of time and space, but in the religious claims we make for both God and Christ, as well as in the authoritative claims with which we have surrounded our creeds and doctrines. The security found in the Christian assertion that we are in possession of Divine truth revealed directly by this theistic God in either scripture or tradition has been obliterated. In turn, this has rendered such Christian assertions as papal infallibility and Biblical inerrancy to be no more than an ecclesiastical version of the Maginot line behind which deluded people hid with false expectations.

That, ' in thumbnail brevity, is why I have asserted that Christianity must change or die. This faith tradition can no longer rest on the fading theistic claims of yesterday. The presuppositions upon which Christianity was built are not today sustainable. If Christianity is to survive, it will require a radical, new reformation that will recast every aspect of this ancient faith story. That is also why I have suggested that the reformation that is now upon the Christian Church will make the reformation of the 16th century seem, by comparison, to be something like a Sunday school tea party.

You can read the whole essay here: http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2000/s...

All right, this is quite a leap from the original discussion and I apologize for it. I also have to apologize for I am leaving the discussion at this point. I am traveling tomorrow and have not yet finished packing. But, all my last posting was to say that our interpretations of God in Christianity may just be returning to the views expressed in Hinduism. And we may have to do it with the help of string theory.

Divine Serendipity or what?

Candy -- lovely post. No, I totally got what you were saying about the emotion of the end of your reading and the melding of that with thoughts on Travolta. Interesting contemplation on the whole.

The Lila name and the Buddhist concept are very interesting and the TOE information takes me to that film once again -- you know, I'm walking around Mont St Michel again in my mind.

Fantastic discussion here, just for the record, everyone.

Well, I survived my crying...heh heh. Nothing like a good boo hoo to clear out all the spiders in the brain. Thanks for asking Capitu. Of course I realized later I must have sounded like a moron crying over John Travolta's loss, mixed in with the emotions at the end of this novel and I had a date with a hot water bottle...but oh well. Reading stirs up many things doen'ts it heh heh. Who knows what might be a trigger for the heart or feelings...

I totally agree too! I do tend to consider Christ as someone subverting the norms, shaking the dust of conventionalism aqnd that the kind of "rebelion" or "outsider" that Chjrist could be seen as...is the energy of a potential transformative...or transcendental...Christ can wke up people...the idea of being eborn fits with this as he inverts conventins. T^he idea that conventins may be holding us back from living a "Christ-consciousness" existence...? I think this endng section where we find out so quickly and how Jack has played a role in Ames life is really something.

I am thinking...you know the novel really does challenge...starting so slow. Earlier Mary Ann said how she wished she had enjoyed it but felt just get on with it...and I did have that feeling too...but then for me, at least, it really starts to make sense the style its written.

There really are so many references and it's a much more well written book than I remembered. It really does have a lot of structure...where it felt at first like kind of off the cuff...simple.

I was so shocked on this reading...here in discussion I had said how the passgae on page 124...again...the section suggesting god's interest and investment so to speak, is of an aesthetic one rather than judgmental:

This is an important thing, which I have told many people, and which my father told me, and which his father told him. When you encounter another person, when you have dealings with anyone at all, it is as if a question is being put to you. So you must think, What is the Lord asking of me in this moment, in this situation? If you confront insult or antagonism, your first impulse will be to respond in kind. But if you think, as it were, This is an emissary sent from the Lord, and some benefit is intended for me, first of all the occasion to demonstrate my faithfulness, the chance to show that I do in some small small degree participate in the grace that saved me, you are free to act by your own lights. You are freed at the same time of the impulse to hate or resent that person. He would prbably laugh at the thought that the Lord sent him to you for your benefit (and his), but that is the perfection of the disguise, his own ignorance of it.

I am reminded of this precious instruction by my own great failure to live up to it recently. Calvin says somewhere that each of us is an actor on a stage and God is the audience. That metaphor has always interested me, because it makes us artists of our behaviour, and the reaction of God to us might be thought of as aesthetic rather than morally judgemental in the ordinary sense.

And how this section had been similar to the idea of the universe as a "sport" or "play" and we are in this game or play...and there is a Sanskrit word for this concept in Hinduism..."lila"

Well...I had not noticed Ames wife's name...and there reading I almost fell over. It's Lila!

I think her name is only mentioned once...or maybe it only stuck out to me now once!

Here is another mysterious section:

This morning a splendid dawn passed over our house on its way to Kansas. This morning Kansas rolled out of its sleepinto a sunlight grandly announced. proclaimed throughout heaven-one more of the very finite number of days that this old prarie has been called Kansas-or Iowa. But it has all been one day, that first day. Light is constant, we just turn over in it. So everyday is in fact the selfsame evening and morning. (page 209-210)

This is sharing a perspective with "theory of everything" in particle physics. And sharing a concept also found in Buddhism and Hinduism. Of everything is connected and interconnected. Time is an illusion we agree to...(also part of the "lila" concept of the universe)


From Wiki: A theory of everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena. Initially, the term was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories. For example, a great-grandfather of Ijon Tichy — a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's science fiction stories of 1960s — was known to work on the "General Theory of Everything". Physicist John Ellis claims to have introduced the term into the technical literature in an article in Nature in 1986. Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify or explain through a single model the theories of all fundamental interactions of nature.
There have been many theories of everything proposed by theoretical physicists over the last century, but none have been confirmed experimentally. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine.

According to Buddhism, time and space are just concepts created by our perception of the world, and have no existence apart from our perception. In other words, they are not "real".

The idea of an absolute beginning of time is therefore flawed according to Buddhist thinking. For many buddhists, time is "psychological" or "conventional"...in that it is referred by human references rather than havin git's own existence...say like a tree is a tree. Or magnets have their own "rules": time is an imputed entity because it is identified on the basis of something that is other than itself.

I also thought this other thought ...page 238 was really wise

It is worth living long enough to outlast whatever sense of grievance you may acquire. Another reason why you must be careful of your health.

If we think of Christ as someone subverting the norms, shaking the dust of conventionalism, Jack definitely fits the form. We all seem so impressed by Ames’ religiosity and natural goodness, we seem to fail to notice that Jack is the one forcing a transformation of values. Maybe this is what the blessing is all about: Ames realization of Jack’s (and people like Jack) importance in the transformation of the world around them.

Yes, yes, yes!

Found this in a review here of Kushner's book and it addresses the question of free will so perhaps is relevant to recent discussion of Gilead.

"But if Man is truly free to choose, if he can show himself as being virtuous by freely choosing the good when the bad is equally possible, then he has to be free to choose the bad also. If he were only free to do good, he would not really be choosing. If we are bound to do good, then we are not free to choose it." Harold Kushner, p. 79. (When Bad Things Happen to Good People)

Capitu, Kushner's thoughts on Job are at the core of much of this book and not in another separate work.

Marian, is the review of the book of Job in the book "When bad things happen to good people"? I somehow understood it to be a separate work, but I cannot find it among Kushner's books.

Oh, Mina! That you and I share a love of Edward P. Jones was great, but now I find that we also share Marcus Borg. This has made my day.

Marian, I have put Rabbi Kushner's review of the Book of Job in my TBR pile. Thanks for mentioning it.

Candy, Gilead is a very reflective book and I can see how it can stir very deep feelings. I hope that you are feeling better by now. You say: I was very struck by a message I felt...that sometimes fancy families are missing out the special details of some unusual children. Somehow...the Jack young man was a bit of a Christ figure in the end...and his value was completely misunderstood by even his own family.

I think you may be into something here. If we think of Christ as someone subverting the norms, shaking the dust of conventionalism, Jack definitely fits the form. We all seem so impressed by Ames’ religiosity and natural goodness, we seem to fail to notice that Jack is the one forcing a transformation of values. Maybe this is what the blessing is all about: Ames realization of Jack’s (and people like Jack) importance in the transformation of the world around them.

If anyone wants to read a little of Borg before jumping in, there are lots of his writings on the internet - just Google him. I read his book The First Christmas: What the Gospels Really Teach about Jesus's Birth this year before Christmas and was challenged and inspired by his interpretation of the Christmas stories and why they differ according to which gospel is being read.

When I was posting on Griefnet, several people mentioned that "When bad things happen to good people" was a very helpful book. I had read it earlier, before, & Rabbi Kushner's review of the Book of Job came to mind when I re-read Gilead. (I had first read Gilead before the loss of our daughter & later my husband.) S.C. Lewis was also recommended, but he hasn't "connected" with me as a simple novel like Gilead has.

Dottie, I read Job so I could follow the discussion. It is one story I am familiar with in the Bible. I had to go and look up the word "perdition" when I was reading Gilead. I had no idea what it meant. And I had to go look it up again today. What a scary concept! I would probably have nightmares about such a place if I were a Christian...although I suppose Christians must only believe that someone like Hitler or a serial killer goes there. Surely regular people don't...

I will go and check out the link to Borg some later in the weekend, thanks Capitu.

I enjoyed the quote you posted and it's very close to what I was trying to describe earlier when I was saying how God is um not a fixed priority in some ways among many Buddhists. It is partly the idea/belief that the universe, the world the dimension we are in now is all connected. And that ties in to the Franny and Zooey idea that Jesus Christ is in everyone and thing...he IS the "fat lady"...

I saved the few remaining pages of the book for today. Capitu, Jack does ask Ames about predestination and he says he has no conclusions...that more or less the idea of one polarity or perspective should over power the answer is not the way to approach predestination. I am fudging it with paraphrase no doubt...but his reluctance to talk about it in a forced manner is too long to quote here.

I was a wreck this morning reading the last few pages. It was a combination of things...but I couldn't stop crying. The ideas of the ending...with the gesture to bless the younger man...of fathers...

You know...the young Jack was a trouble maker...but the fathers in his life always seemed to be much more involved with their studies and each other...no wonder he was always trying to get attention!

But at any rate...I was very struck by a message I felt...that sometimes fancy families are missing out the special details of some unusual children. Somehow...the Jack young man was a bit of a Christ figure in the end...and his value was completely misunderstood by even his own family.

I found this tore me apart this morning. I couldn't come and post here. I also wanted to come online...but then I found an article saying that...now bear with me...John Travolta's son had died. He was only 16.


I found myself experiencing thi strange connection between this sad celebrity news story and this novel. Here John Travolta has been often ridiculed for being a Scientologist. Now...I know for many people Scientology is a strange religion. After all, they pay a lot of money over many years and eventually...to find out that aliens came to earth and bred and made us humans.

You know...there are worse things to believe in...and I had this feeling...here was poor Travolta, who has experienced religious ridiule, persecution and bigotry...and here it turns out...maybe he needed his faith so he could survive this tragedy. We just don't know.

Anyways...the ending really threw me for an emotional loop this morning...it was very touching. I don't know if it was because I read the Travolta story, or I am emotional more than usual having my period right now...but what an ending!

Now...the way the narration starts so slowly...and the story and memories takes over...it is really an extrodinarily written book. I was very moved and tearful the first time I read this but I didn't expect to be so moved again...Robinson has really done a terrific bit of work with this novel.

Dottie, if you are interested on reading Marcus Borg, I recommend Heart of Christianity, The. I don’t have any extensive knowledge of his work and have not ever read his more widely known Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, but The Heart of Christianity had a great impact on me. I should say that it has alowed me to call myself a Christian again, although my personal beliefs are so different and even opposed to the more tradicional and dogmatic views in Christianity.

Candy, I'm thinking you were not yet around when we had the great Job discussion -- or were you?

Capitu -- thank you for the link. I have not previously encountered Borg and your quote has me interested in looking at his work.

I am in complete agreement with the assessment of those who state things such as Mina and others have mentioned in their posts. I have a relative who made just such a comment when my mother had serious cancer many years ago shortly after my step-father had had a long recovery from a serious heart attack. I wanted to strangle the person right then and there in the waiting room of the hospital but I walked away instead. And I shudder to think of the inappropriate words spoken when my young cousin died.

This idea of "if God is all-powerful then why?" reminds me of the wonderful discussion which is now lost in the ether which was held on Constant Reader and Classics Corner of the Book of Job from the Bible and of J.B., A Play in Verse by Archibald MacLeish -- we ran two threads to the capacity and then some and sprouted several side discussions -- one of which was When Bad Things Happen to Good People which is a book addressing just this dilemma. Another side discussion was of Pagels' book The Gnostic Gospels.

I keep bringing this marathon discussion back to remind those who seem to think we have shied from religious discussion -- we tend to avoid the topic coloring the general discussions which is proper I think but we have never shied away from seriously discussing reading which is quite obviously religious in nature. Another official discussion was held on the Book of Genesis. Gilead truly is not a new phenomenon for us to tackle in discussion.

Holy Bible, King James Version

J.B.: A Play in Verse

When Bad Things Happen to Good People

The Gnostic Gospels

Janet, I also appreciate your candid post. I have not experienced anything like your experience of motherhood, but my first daughter was born very premature and could have died at the time. Someone suggested to me then that maybe God was punishing me through her. Just to remember it makes me so mad. First at this person’s cruelty, and then at the notion of such a God, resentful and vindictive.

As I already mentioned, I lent my book so I cannot check it, but I remember a passage when Jack does ask Ames about predestination. Ames seemed to avoid answering it at all in my memory.

This is one of the big questions in Christianity, isn’t it? If god is all-powerful, why the misery among mankind? And if all is part of God’s plan, where does free-will fits in? My take, in this book and pretty much in my life as well, is not that “everything happens for a reason” as much as “there is a lesson to be learned in everything” (much as Sherry says in her post). Then, going back to Candy’s passage, “there is also a lesson in every human encounter”. This still may not bring any consolation to the parents of a dying child, as in Mina’s example. But takes away the idea of a God that could have intervened, but did not.

Oh! I want my book back! Because I really need to re-read some passages again. This discussion is reminding me of the theologian and philosopher Marcus Borg. Borg makes a distinction between the vision of God as a supernatural person-like being “out-there” (or theism) as opposed to the idea that:

…The sacred is not distant and separated from the universe. Rather, God is the encompassing Spirit who is all around us, “right here”, as well as “more” than right here. …theologians use the name “panentheism” to name this way of thinking about God. … Panentheism means “everything is in God”. Thus, for panentheism, the universe is no separated from God; rather the universe is in God.
Expert from the essay Re-visioning Christianity by Marcus Borg in The Once and Future Jesus page 53.

I may be getting somewhat away from the discussion with my musings here, but suddenly I feel I have a better grasp of Ames religiosity in Gilead.

PS: More on Marcus Borg, if anyone is interested, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Borg...

Mina, I totally agree with your evaluation of "God needs another little angel". I can't tell you how many times people have said God gave me a special child because I am strong enough. That does not reflect a loving God who would reward his faithful with trials bringing them to the breaking point. I have known some who are not strong enough. I think in these situations it is more appropriate to understand when trials occur it is up to us to rise to the occasion by reaching out to draw strength from God through other people placed in our path. If someone truely wants to offer comfort, just saying "I'm here for you if you need it." is much more comforting.

I'm glad you said that, Mina. I am not a member of any organized religion, but still like to think of myself as spiritual. At least searching and open. I agree that everything that happens is something we can learn from, not necessary because of "fate." We can take something unpleasant and turn it into a lesson. (Some lessons are unfathomable to me, though. Those grander-scale evils.) I loved Gilead because Ames was first a good man and then a Christian. He would have been good in any case. That's why I think it's a book that can be appreciated and learned from on many different levels and from anyone, skeptics and believers alike.

I wouldn't say that Ames feels that everything happens for a reason; many things - illness, death, etc. - happen just because we are mortal. But I would say that he feels that everything that happens gives one an opportunity to live out one's beliefs. And that is certainly a choice, every time.

Personally, I tend to avoid the "Everything happens for a reason" explanation because it seems to attribute very unloving actions to a loving God. You end up with people telling parents who have lost a child that "God needed another little angel." This. I understand, is supposed to be comforting, but God-as-a-Hit-Man is not God the loving parent with whom I am familiar.

Absolutely!

I have often felt, especially here at CR, that speaking about spiritual experience has been a taboo. I still did it...but usually to quite a quiet room. Except for Robert...who I was hoping was going to join us here.

I volunteer at a place in Chicago with Francesean monks...and I have always had friends who were nuns or priests and the Hubs is Catholic...and I used to go to meditation retreats etc. and for me...there has always been a rapport. A seemless rapport. And always lots of humour! I wish sometimes if I only had one inch of the energy and faith of the folks I've met at this food shelter....

I feel really comfortable talking about the subjects here...but...it's more like it's difficult to find kindred spirits.

I am sure it is because of the fundamentalists (which are actually NOT religious people...they are nihilists) and scary events...outspoken programers on tv that have firgh=tened us off.

Oh boy...Trisha, I kind of got a chill down my spine when you likened talking about g.o.d. to s.e.x. and I also laughd...funny how the world changes.

In Buddhism, god is actually not a big part of the scenario. We tend to take the position that the practice is something to do regardless of whether there is a god or not. I was trying to tell my Hubs about this discussion...and about the Buddhist tend to not focus on God or not...it's a different thing. And he said, so what about faith. Hmm...he kind of stumped me there. I don't think of faith and god as the related as any absolute. I tend to consider faith as something that represents one's culmination of experience. The more experience one has...with any vocation...not just practicing a religion or belief system...the more faith one has. Faith has always been related to confidence in some way.

Anyways. wonderful posts here...

I think it's true that we're all afraid of offending others by sharing our thoughts and beliefs with regard to spirituality. It seems that G*O*D talk is as taboo a subject in our culture as S*E*X used to be to the Victorians. That's one of the reasons a book like Gilead is so significant - it makes it possible to bring these things out into the open...where I think they need to be.

Candy, I loved that passage too. I actually already lend my copy to someone I know will appreciate this book very much (and I have a couple more I want to lend it too), but now I almost want it back, just to go over certain passages.

Trisha, what an amazing experience to hear the Dalai Lama up close. Candy brought up his comment about how each spiritual tradition is an expression of the time and culture were it was manifested. I deeply believe in that.

I was so worried when I last posted that I may not make sense, but it seems that we all were saying the same thing. Dottie, you thought you were mumbling, and I thought I was mumbling. I wonder if we all feel uncomfortable talking about Christianity and religion in general as it is a subject often charged with deep emotions, so we all stepped on eggs among each other here, measuring words so much, and in my case being so apologetic, that the meaning does get a bit “mumbled”.

Overall, what this discussion is making me realize is how terrible it is that fundamentalism in every and any religion distorts the primary spiritual teachings of that religion to the point that reading a book that reverts us to those basic philosophical questionings is quite surprising. If discussing Christianity feel so awkward, how does it feel for moderate Muslins, for instance, to discuss the basic tenets of their religion publicly? Even that I make a point to discern “moderate Muslins”, or that we distant ourselves from “right-wing Christians” is sad at the end.

PS: Andy, I usually write and mull my posts on Word before pasting it here. I had this post all written when I read your last post. So, I am sorry I seem to be taking this in other direction then your questions. I have to go get some food on the table for my family, but I will be back later after I mull over your post.

The passage I excerpted last night...and oh boy I hope I didn't make too many typos...I was really getting tired...is so profound and wonderful to me. Seriously, I read it out loud to the Hubs last night and I got onion eyed again.

Trisha, great memory form your experience with christians and Buddhists monks. I too have participated in such weekends and workshops.

For me...the Christianity in this novel...IS the Chritianity I am familiar with. When I see other people such as fundamentalists claim to have a Christian agenda...I am confused. You know, on tv or such. I just scratch my head.

Yes, Andy, I think there is a feeling of "everything happens for a reason" in the above passage.

I don't think we'll ever figure out the free will either...it is one of lifes great mysteries. Science hasn't been able to figure it out either...but the study into contradictory emergence is close to the idea of the quest those of us who struggle with free will...or "nurture vs nature" feel.

I don't see why our funny human brains have such a resistence to accepting that free will and destiny work in concordance...and we might only recognize the concordance by reflection or prayer or meditation.

I totally see Jesus as a player in the stage Andy. Yes, it may be that his role was as healer...which it seems to be. Even his final death is an act of healing...by taking the pain so others can say..."hey I shouldn't be so complaining or ungratefullJ Jesus took most of the heat for all of us".

It's very difficult to feel too sorry for oneself...and "have a bad day" when we consider the suffering and courage that a healer like Jesus went through. And in the same way...isn't his story a metaphor to extend the lessons and compassion to current events? How do we watch news reports , or walk past a homeless person without seeing...we are on the stage at this moment...how shall I play out this moment?

I believe free will is connected to surrender. I know. THAT sounds contradictory doesn't it? But...with surrender of our own desires and ambitions...of analysing "what do I want out of this situation?" if we can see our our often pathetic ambitions in most social situations...even if it's to be "the centre of attention" or "to help others" as rooted ina feeble unresolved issue (this ties into fathers and sons...abandonment that Andy emntined earlier) we might see how actually STRONG we are...and how much our free will can be exercised when we see that our ide a of destiny is locked up into our sense of needs.

Oh dear, I am sure this doesn' t makes sense...

I'll let that sit.

More meditation is needed, clearly, but first I must nap...


:)

Candy, this passage you quoted makes me think that the theology of the book can be partly explained as "everything happens for a reason." Does anybody else have the feeling that Ames is getting at some kind of God-inspired fate or destiny?

And, if everyone is an emissary from god, doesn't that suggest a lack of free will? Hey, I'm a very leniant person, I tend to not hold people responsible for their actions, I can usually think of a million hidden reasons for peoples' actions and excuse just about any kind of behavior (which does make somewhat of a sucker at times). I don't think we'll ever get to the bottom of this free will business, but this might be another aspect of the book that turns some people off?

Also, regarding the god-as-audience metaphor, it's interesting to combine that with the Jesus-as-healer idea. Jesus as another actor who is put on stage to create healing within the other characters. In this way, I feel like Jack Ames has a sort of healer role, also.

How fascinating, Trisha.

I'm new to Constant Reader and have been enjoying it a lot....especially the Gilead discussion because like so many of you I think it is a deeply spiritual book and I love the way it captures the very essence of what Christianity is really all about. (I believe the essence of Christianity is quite different from the way it has been twisted to conform to the rigid and intolerant ideas of the Christian Right.) Several years ago I had the extreme good fortunate to meet the Dalai Lama and participate in a dialogue with Buddhist and Christian monks and nuns at a Trappist Monastery in Kentucky. It was a mind-boggling experience and one of the things the Dalai Lama said strikes me as being relevent to some of what has been posted above. The discussion was all about the similarities between Buddhist and Christian Cobntemplative practices and someone asked the Dalai Lama for his views on how Christians can enhance their spiritual practices by incorporating elements of Buddhism. His reply was that the best way for a Christian to practice what Buddhists do is by being a good Christian! I think the Dalai Lama would love reading Gilead for the same reasons that the rest of us in this discussion do.

That is a truly beautiful section, Candy. And I love the humanity which requires the nap! This is such a human book - that was what was so funny to me about the town that tried to be a part of the underground railroad. All of their impulses were so good and their execution so bungling! The poor runaway slave had to escape from their kindly intentions before they were all in deep trouble! I do think that God looks at our struggles with humor and with love.

Oh, and Candy, no one gets all of the Marys straight in the Bible. Apparently every third girl in Galilee was named Mary!

Another beautifully expressed post, Mina. I think I've been talking in circles and perhaps trying to be too circumspect, thus muddying up my meaning. I agree this book is for all and it needs to be read with acceptance that this is a book told from the character's viewpoint and as the saying goes "he is what he is" and what he is you describe perfectly -- a thoughtful, prayerful, contemplative Christian just struggling to do his best. Admitting mistakes, admitting his failings, not excusing but telling, making sense of and wondering what the young son will think and know of him.

I think that you expressed it beautifully, Capitu. This is a very Christian book and, to me, fits solidly in that tradition. That doesn't make it a book that can't be read by everyone, but it does mean that a non-Christian reader has to take Ames as a sincere, struggling Christian pastor, even if this is not a tradition with which the reader is familiar. I'm wiped out from the holidays, so I'm very glad that you expressed the issue so well. I do think that the idea of what it means to be Christian has been so thoroughly hijacked by the right-wing evangelicals that the idea of a thoughtful, prayerful, contemplative Christian just struggling to do his best seems contradictory to many people. Like you, these are the Christians I know, the ones who bring their hearts and minds to the table, not just blindly following what they are told, but trying to understand more deeply and live more fully what they believe.

This book just takes my breath away.

Capitu, "I would rephrase it to: this book/story is an attempt to show that the myth/meditative/spiritual (non-labeled) religious aspects of all humankind are very much reflected in the Christian tradition."

I totally agree.

Actually, I thought that was more or less where I was going...and what I was saying, heh heh! Obviously not very well!

The Dalai Lama suggests that the different religions and philosophies of the world suit the different temperments and intellects of the people while delivering the basic tenants.

I believe most religious concepts are also or rooted in nature...for example monkeys, dogs, most animals practice out the golden rule ...they give as good as they get etc. I believe it part of the human brain to study the common precepts found in religions.

Oh and I sure don't feel picked on. I'm a pretty tough nut, you'd have to be a real creep to turn me off of anything said on this web site. I'm actually pretty easy going. I just totally ignore the vampires when they are around,(and they are around!) heh heh...so don't feel you have to tip toe with me.

I also have never understood why people in book discussions sometimes take thigns so personally and I see no reason for a group of people to have different opinions about a book or life etc.

It's funny...Capitu, I have been very hesitant to say much in this thread...because I think it's a bit nerve wracking to discuss some spiritual things...or Christian things on the internet too.

I have a section of the book I'm going to excerpt here...which brings me to tears. And it feels kind of weird to admit such...especially with a book club where spiritual topics have offten been dismissed or potentially mocked...

I love this section following...I've read it dozens of times...and it also plays into what I was trying to say that the reflective life is also like the life of an artist! AND it also ties into the idea of those nasty vampires we run into in the world!

Here...

This is an important thing, which I have told many people, and which my father told me, and which his father told him. When you encounter another person, when you have dealings with anyone at all, it is as if a question is being put to you. So you must think, What is the Lord asking of me in this moment, in this situation? If you confront insult or antagonism, your first impulse will be to respond in kind. But if you think, as it were, This is an emissary sent from the Lord, and some benefit is intended for me, first of all the occasion to demonstrate my faithfulness, the chance to show that I do in some small small degree participate in the grace that saved me, you are free to act by your own lights. You are freed at the same time of the impulse to hate or resent that person. He would prbably laugh at the thought that the Lord sent him to you for your benefit (and his), but that is the perfection of the disguise, his own ignorance of it.

I am reminded of this precious instruction by my own great failure to live up to it recently. Calvin says somewhere that each of us is an actor on a stage and God is the audience. That metaphor has always interested me, because it makes us artists of our behaviour, and the reaction of God to us might be thought of as aesthetic rather than morally judgemental in the ordinary sense.

I was very surprised by this excerpt and concept because it has a precedence in Eastern religion yet again. The idea of the sanskrit word "lila". Lila is a concept that the universe is laughing. Let's say...you're stuck in traffic, you start to run for an appointment and it begins to rain of your silk dress, and then all the power goes out...you know "a bad day". And in Hinduism "s a concept within Hinduism literally meaning "pastime", "sport" or "play". It is common to both monistic and dualistic philosophical schools, but has a markedly different significance in each." (from wikipedia)

And the Calvin reference was interesting because of course of Shakespeare who likely co-opted the concept of stage actors "All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;"


And at the end of this passage (page 124 in Picador version, paperback) this ends...and I laughed again out loud

Much more prayer is called for, clearly, but first I will take a nap.

Capitu -- not only have you talked much -- which was perfectly fine, by the way -- but you have made much sense of this and explained all of what I've been mumbling about in my confused way in a much more direct and logical manner -- amen and hallelujah. In one of my posts I believe I commented on my having been told I think and speak "backwards" and I think you have just proven that to be true. I was coming at this from the totally opposite of your comments but attempting to say just what you are saying. I think your version of my words are opposite only because I was couching my arguments and ideas in the lower case christianity of my own definition (which is the same as your capitalized Christianity without the bugaboos which have attached as you point out within the past 50 years or so). Maybe I'm still being far too "politically correct" in how I express my religious thinking and that is a part of the problem. In any case, I don't believe that you and I are on opposite sides on this discussion nor do I think Candy is so far on the other side. Great addition to this discussion!

And another thing, you definitely do not come across as picking on anyone -- please believe me there.

I have been following this discussion and having trouble verbalizing a response to posts because it seems awkward to discuss Christianity on the internet. But…

Dottie says: To illuminate the connections between the practitioners of organized religious groups and those who are more attuned to the contemplative, meditative practices. But in my experience of Christianity, practitioners of organized religious groups are very much attuned to the contemplative, meditative practices. Unless what you are calling “practitioners of organized religious groups” are only the extreme evangelicals.

I am not trying to pick on you, Dottie. Or on you, Candy. But my take about Gilead is in some ways exactly the opposite of yours.

While you say: …this book/story is perhaps an attempt to open the eyes of those who do hold to religious views of whatever kind the possibility that those views/beliefs are also reflected in the myth/meditative/spiritual (non-labeled) religious aspects of all humankind.

I would rephrase it to: this book/story is an attempt to show that the myth/meditative/spiritual (non-labeled) religious aspects of all humankind are very much reflected in the Christian tradition.

What I found refreshing about Gilead is that it is a Christian book (definitely capital C Christian) without the controversies that seem to have hijacked Christianity in the past 50 years or so. The popular perception of Christianity nowadays is tainted by the extreme right wing Bible belt. Questions of birth control, creationism and homosexuality have taken the forefront of many Christian denominations, and distorted the fact that at the core of Christianity is the search for the transcendent and the divine.

Ames uses the Christian tradition (by it I mean Christian dogma, rituals and mythology) on his own spiritual search all his life. No different than a Buddhist monk would use Buddhist dogma, rituals and mythology on his spiritual search. If Ames had been a Buddhist monk we would not be making the distinction of capital or small “b”.

If we can disrobe the notion of Christianity of all our own prejudices, and see only the philosophical quest post by the ancient Jewish mythology, it is not that big of a leap to see connections to the mythology of other ancient cultures. And the spiritual quest of all mankind.

I have talked much and still don’t know if I have articulated the message I intended here. I have to think more and come back later.

I wonder, Dottie. She might have been feeling that way.

I often think...Jesus was Jewish and Mohammed was Christian...so why the problems?

I have another section to quote...it's really incredible. And it also ties in with Franny and Zooey excrpt in some ways....back in a bit.

I hope it's just quiet around here because of holidays...

Candy, definitely a great visual image painted with words there.

Candy wrote: It is also an example of what I feel is a reference to mythology in this novel. And again...why I feel it has been enjoyed by a secular audience as well as a religious readership...I do not feel this is a novel for religious people.

Precisely. In my earlier post I was trying to say this book/story is perhaps an attempt to open the eyes of those who do hold to religious views of whatever kind the possibility that those views/beliefs are also reflected in the myth/meditative/spiritual (non-labeled) religious aspects of all humankind. To illuminate the connections between the practitioners of organized religious groups and those who are more attuned to the contemplative, meditative practices. To erase the divisons created by being one or the other rather than being inclusive of all aspects of the nature of spiritual seeking.

Well, one of the reasons thie above section struck me was in large part because it is really beautiful. Couldn't you just see this in film in your mind?

It is also an example of what I feel is a reference to mythology in this novel. And again...why I feel it has been enjoyed by a secular audience as well as a religious readership...I do not feel this is a novel for religious people.

I feel the sparks of fire...when Boughton says Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward is Promethean!

from Wiki In Greek mythology, Prometheus (Ancient Greek: Προμηθεύς, "forethought")] is a Titan known for his wily intelligence, who stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mortals for their use. Zeus then punished him for his crime by having him bound to a rock while an eagle ate his liver every day only to have it grow back to be eaten again the next day. His myth has been treated by a number of ancient sources, in which Prometheus is credited with (or blamed for) playing a pivotal role in the early history of humankind.

In this same paragraph there is an idea of civilization and Gilead, Iowa (and maybe biblical Gilead?) being either blessed or tainted with this fire. Fire gives life...but it also is associated with intelligence and human flaws.

I thought it was very beautiful the idea that the earth was created in fire and had a smoldering center. Note here we have an acceptaance of time in the scientific and paleontology sense. Robinson is drawing a character of reverie, mysticism and science! The big bang is not a blasphemy for that Christian.

There is another passage...just before the gun being buried and thrown in the river...I will try to find it...but it also seemed to be a mythological reference. Let me see if I can find it.

Did anyone else have this sense of many references of human storytelling in the novel? This ties into my feeling of crossovers between religions and includes worldviews...like big bang and mythology...???

That is one d*** fine example of why I fell so in love with this book in the first go round! Thanks for posting that passage, Candy.

I looked for a used copy of this last week to no avail and I have no clue which box my own copy is in. Maybe I'll have to check it out and read the library's copy after all because all this talk has me chomping at the bit to start into it again. Do I have time to read? No, but since when do I let that stop me? Should have just kept reading when I had the book checked out in the first place.

Ooh, that IS a nice image, Candy.

Trouble and grace and distance and metaphor all at the same time.

It's interesting, too, that light represents trouble in this passage, where normally light represents the opposite of trouble I suppose.

I wanted to record this sectin too...it's compelling to me:

Once when Boughton and I had spent an evening going through our texts together and we were done talking them over, I walked him out to the porch, and there were more fireflies out there than I had ever seen in my life, thousands of them everywhere, just drifting up out of the grass, extinguishing themselves in midair. We sat on the steps a good while in the dark and in the silence, watching them. Finally Boughton said, "Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward," And really, it was that night as if the earth were smoldering. Well, it was, and it is. An old fire will make a dark husk for itself and settle in on it's own core, as is the case with this planet. I believe the same metaphor may describe the human individual, as well. Perhaps Gilead. Perhaps civilization. Prod a little and the sparks will fly. I don't know whether the verse put a blessing on the fireflies or the fireflies put a blessing on the verse, or if both of them together put a blessing on trouble, but I have loved them both a good deal ever since.

Yes, Andy, there are many crossovers...and I think perhaps it is what I enjoy especially in this novel.

I kind of wish I had marked pages where I laughed out loud.

I laughed when Boughton comes over and he decides not to die when he has to climb out of the porch swing.

I also laughed on the next page..."If I live, I'll vote for Eisenhower"

This still cracks me up as I type...just even aside from the context of when it is said.

There are also so many things in the story that are the Judeo-Christian motif...that it is wise to remember the roots. He mentions "bread of affliction" that he continued to study Hebrew (and Greek and Latin too, no?) throughout his life.

Hm...I think we could have a lot of fun wondering why he compares his wife to Mary M. Maybe it is because she had her own natural kind of faith and religion...before she met him...and her beauty and sexuality seems to be part of his spiritual attraction to her...???? She is an organic kind of intellegence rather than a religious intellectual? Mary M. came "from the streets" depending on what version oen believes in (I believe she was a female version of Jesus...also a teacher...rather than just the prostitute motif of some churches)