Thinking About Christianity on Christmas Morning, December 25, 2011

The Wartburg room where
Luther translated the New Testament
 into German. An original first edition
is kept in the case on the desk

I'm trying to think of something to say for Christmas Day 2011 that will not be a complete waste of reader's time.  However, maybe everything I say is a waste of reader's time.  I don't know.  I thought that maybe a few words about Christianity might be appropriate. I also think it's appropriate to think about one's Christian beliefs on holidays like Christmas and Easter, if not any other time.

I am a Christian, not just because I was born into this tradition, but because I have read and studied other religions, and have objectively chosen Christianity as the one that I think has the most to offer me.  However, my background may also have something to do with that.

I think it's a really hostile and a hurt person who denies their own religious tradition.  This reminds me of James Joyce, who left Ireland, turned his back on his country and religion, but then wrote about nothing else and still always went to church on Easter.  Although I have considered the idea of becoming a Catholic and even took classes at St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC to prepare for becoming a Catholic, I never did.  The classes only confirmed to me that I was really deeply Protestant.

One really amazing thing happened this last year.  While on Ancestry.com, I learned that Martin Luther was my 15th great grand-uncle.  His father, Hans, was my 16th Great Grandfather.  Since learning that, I have been reading and studying Luther.  I've always been more of a Calvinist, who are more radically liberal than was Luther, but in studying Luther, I have changed my mind on some subjects.

1.  I always thought that infant baptism was ridiculous because a baby can't know what is going on.   Baptism is a symbol of God coming into one's life, but that's something that is subjective.  You can't make God go into someone else's life by dabbing water on it's head.  Accepting God is a psychological process mostly done by adults.

I now believe in infant baptism.  Mostly, because I can't see any harm in it.  I also think it establishes in the child when he grows up and knows that he has been baptized some feelings of belonging and tradition.  I think having these kinds of feelings is important and helps in self-esteem and feeling that one has a place in this world and is not just a drifter.  I also think it is comforting for the parents to know their child has been baptized and that will give him some Christian roots.  Luther was much more into outward symbols than was Calvin.

2.  Most Protestants, especially the Calvinists and people like the Mennonites, are against religious statues which they think are symbols of idolatry.  Mennonite churches are also bare rooms.  They have no religious icons or statues because they associate this with idolatry.  Religion is something that comes from inside.  God comes to us through the spirit, not through praying to some statue.

I no longer believe that anything is wrong with praying to a statue, if it makes the person feel better and closer to God.  I don't see anything wrong with seeing art objects in churches.  I think people understand that the statue is only a symbol for the spiritual.  The statue, or whatever the material object is, can serve the purpose of getting oneself out of being entirely introspective.  I think introspection can be carried to an extreme.  Objects in reality can keep us more balanced between the inside world and the outside.  I don't believe in entirely denying the outside world, like Monks.  Cutting oneself off from the outside world in order to get closer to God, I think too easy.   The people I admire are the people who become part of the world and try to make it better.  Not the people who find it so unsympathetic to their nature that they feel they can't live within it.  These people are usually people who have been deeply hurt in their lives.

Luther's Writings

Martin Luther as an
Augustinian Monk

3.  My changed thoughts about the Eucharist.  I always believed that the bread and wine in the Eucharist ceremony symbolized the body and blood of Jesus.  This is the traditional Calvinist belief.  After all, Christ is is up in heaven sitting next to God, which is a picture that many if not most Protestants have in their head.  Luther said that this isn't right.  That when Jesus said that the bread and wine was his body and blood, he didn't mean it symbolically but literally.  It's rather hard to tell when Jesus is being reiterated in the Bible, if He should be taken literally or symbolically.  Catholics and Evangelicals take Him, and everything else, more literally than do the Protestants.  Luther was more religiously conservative and closer to the Catholics than Calvin.  Luther was an Augustinian Catholic Priest before his revolt again the Catholic Church.  However, his revolt was only against everything he saw as corrupt in the Church, not most of it's basic Augustinian philosophy.   (1) this idea that Jesus is sitting some place next to God is entirely anthropomorphic.  It's making God and Jesus both appear as people in one's mind.  Neither are people, they are spirits.  Both God and Jesus are everywhere and part of everything that exists, therefore they also exist literally in bread and wine.  I think the main purpose of the Eucharist is to remind us that God and Jesus are everywhere and in everything around us.  I also think that when one is taking the bread and the wine, that if they feel that is literally and actually Jesus's body and blood that the experience becomes much more meaningful.  

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, whatever you may believe, but believe.  

St. Teresa of Ávila

St. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582)

I just started reading The Way of Perfection by St. Teresa of 
Avila.  Also she called St. Teresa of Jesus.

One reason I think this book is relevant today is that she writes a lot about money and people's relationship to it.  In this time of material hardship what she says may sound unrealistic to the secular mind, but I don't think it does to the religious mind.  In my mind it's the absolute truth.

Although I'm not a Catholic, I study and read a lot of what the Catholic writers and saints have written, because it's so good and true.  I believe in studying different religions and I learn from all of them.

St. Teresa lived during the life and rise of Martin Luther and really puts the Lutherans down as lost souls.  It's true that the first Protestants in Germany had a very rocky beginning.  However, I think other things she says in this book are great.  I consider myself essentially a  Protestant, but a Catholic in many philosophical ways.  I can't accept authoritarianism of any kind--if it comes from man--not when it comes from God.  However, I've also been studying Martin Luther who despite his rebellion against the Catholic Church was still very authoritarian.  Despite his rebelling against the Catholic Church, he thought it wrong for people to rebel against their governments or secular rulers.  He didn't believe in being a protester.  Luther thought that the peasant uprisings in his day were bad, and that their being slaughtered was justified.  In our time, that's something very hard to understand.  I think because we have seen more of history since the 1500's, our hindsight provides a longer historical view.  Luther believed that the kings and men in power were put there by God and their authority should be accepted.  Luther's rationale was that Jesus didn't protest, but endured and suffered his enemies and died on the cross.  However, it seems to be that in his life, before his dying episode, he did do a lot of protesting, which is basically why he ended up being crucified.  He was crucified because he protested against the society in which he lived and the practices of Judism.  Jesus's main objective was reforming Judism.  He also thought that the Roman's were scum.  If he had just accepted everything, he wouldn't have been crucified.

[Since I discovered that Martin Luther was my 15th great grand uncle, I've been studying him, although I was fascinated by him before I even found out this fact.  This I think shows that discovering one's ancestors can be of value.  It has stimulated my interest in history tremendously.]

St. Teresa on the materialistic side of life (quotes from her book)--[St. Teresa addresses her sisters because she was a Carmelite nun.]

Let us not pray for worldly things, my sisters.  It makes me laugh, and yet it makes me sad, when I hear of the things which people come here to beg us to pray to God for; we are to ask His Majesty to give them money and to provide them with incomes--I wish that some of these people would entreat God to enable them to trample all such things beneath their feet.  Their intentions are quite good, and I do as they ask because I see that they are really devout people, though I do not myself believe that God ever hears me when I pray for such things.

I totally agree that God does not hear when you pray for money.  When I ask God for something that is spiritual in nature, I'm blown away by how fast he gives me an answer.  Even when I've prayed for some relief of some physical ailment, I'm been cured quickly.  However, when I've prayed for money or to better my sustenance, which is how I phrase it when I pray, nothing happens.  That's because I'm praying for the wrong thing.  I believe that if you pray for something that God in his infinite wisdom doesn't think that is good or right for you, he will ignore your prayer.  Anyway, that's how it has worked in my life.

...and are we to waste our time upon things which, if God were to grant them, would perhaps bring one soul less to Heaven?  Mo, my sisters, this is no time to tret with God for things of little importance...

Do not think, my sisters, that because you do not go about trying to please people in the world you will lack food.  You will not, I assure you:  never try to sustain yourselves by human artifices, or you will die of hunger, and rightly so.

...For the love of the Lord, let us not forget this: you have forgone a regular income; forgo worry about food as well, or thou will lose everything.  Let those whom the Lord wishes to live on an income do so: if that is their vocation, they are perfectly justified; but for us to do so, sisters, would be inconsistent.  Worrying about getting money from other people seems to me like thinking about what other people enjoy.  However much you worry, you will not make them change their minds nor will they become desirous o giving you alms.  Leave these anxieties to Him Who can move everyone, Who is the Lord of all money and of all who possess money...

The irony is that she talks of poverty and its importance and the evil of material concerns while at the same time saying that Lutherans are lost souls who will burn in hell.  Luther revolted against the greed and material concerns of the Catholic Church.  The same thing that Avila is against.  Luther revolted because the Catholic Church was selling "get out of hell" cards for money.  The Catholic church owned castles and land in many countries, and these countries sided with Luther because they wanted their land back.  The way that Avila writes about poverty, she seems to totally disregard the practices of her own Church.  She seems to think that rebellion for any reason is a great sin that will cause a person to go to hell.  However, it is true that some of Luther's followers went too far and undoubtedly ended up in hell, but they were probably there to begin with.

I also don't agree that the best way for a religious person to find God is to remove oneself from society to help avoid temptation and the wanting for the material aspects of life. That seems too easy to me.  I don't believe the best way to solve a problem is by just removing oneself from the situation.  It seems stronger to me to stay and change things.

However, I agree with her that she offers a path to perfection, which is her goal.  If you feel that you are on that path, I would recommend this book.

The world is but a dream


On Amazon.com I wrote a review of a book called "Start Where You Are" subtitled "A Guide to Compassionate Living by Pema Chodron, who is an American Buddhist Monk.  Her main thesis was Don't take yourself or life so seriously because it's only a dream anyway.


Around 1567, Saint Avila wrote :  

Now it seems to me that, when God has brought someone to a clear knowledge of the world, and of its nature, and of the fact that another world (or, let us say another kingdom) exists, and that there is a great difference between the one and the other, the one being eternal and the other only a dream;...

Pema Chodron, an American, rejected Christianity for Buddhism, but as of yet I haven't found one idea in Buddhism that doesn't exist in Christianity, except Buddhists don't believe in God.  I think the reason for that is that the Buddhists can only think of God in anthropomorphic terms, and they reject Christianity because they think that is the way all Christians see God.  Christianity is far more metaphorical than Buddhism, and people who have trouble understanding metaphors seem to like Buddhism better.  I also think that people who reject the religion of the culture into which they were born, comes from deep hurt from people in their culture.  They knew people who professed to be Christian, but were mean and terrible, so they reject Christianity altogether as worthless.  But every religion has people who are mean and terrible, because they have no understanding.  It isn't the fault of the religion.

This idea that the world is but a dream, or a shadow, of the real world, which is spiritual and eternal, comes from Plato.  Although I think that many people, most likely Saint Avila, probably come to this conclusion on their own and have never read or heard of Plato, but Plato was the first in literature that I know of who expounded this idea.  The idea may have existed before Plato, and I'm not just well-read enough to know about it.

Jane Austin and Myself on Our Respective Postal Systems

A Sketch of Jane Austen

I just finished reading Emma by Jane Austen.  Austen began writing Emma in 1813, and it was published in 1814.  While reading, I became exceptionally aware of certain comments on how great their postal service was in rural England.

It's mentioned in Austin's novel twice when a character not only states how fast and reliable it was, but how nice are the clerks in the post office.  This surprised me, because I wasn't aware that England had postal service back then.

When I first started reading Emma, I thought that when someone received a letter--something that happens often in this novel--that it probably had been delivered by the sender's servant on horseback, until I read the comments about the postal service, which take place in a conversation between two people.

In Austen's novels, letters often play a crucial role, as in Pride and Prejudice, in which a letter totally turns the story around.  Novelists often use letters as a literary device.  I did that myself in my own novel That Smooth-Faced Gentleman.  It's a convenient way to deliver information in a different way--adding variety.  It's also a way to change a character from the third person into the first person voice.  I've totally gotten off the subject here, which is supposedly the postal service, something that obviously has quite a history.  Did America adopt the English postal service as a model when we were starting out?  I wonder from when the USA postal service dates from.  I will have to Google this.

I don't see why we need post office delivery service on Saturdays.  I can't think of anything that has to be delivered on a Saturday that couldn't wait until Monday.  If something has to be delivered on a Saturday, the person could use a private delivery company.  The USPS needs to reduce real estate and workforce.    People who insist upon being a computer illiterate need to be encouraged to learn computer technology at least to the point of sending and receiving emails.  If the price of sending a letter skyrockets, perhaps that would encourage them.

Newt's Opinion on Children Working

Kids like having a lemonade stand to earn money.
This kid is working in the Farmers' Market in NYC's Union Square on Saturdays,
but I can't see any different than this than having a lemonade stand.
It gives him work experience and installs in him the work ethic. 

I find Newt Gingrich detestable; however, I agree with him on his controversial opinion about children working.  This comes from my own family background as well as my experience of growing up in the 1950's.

In the middle to upper-middle class society where I grew up, back in the 1950's, women who worked were looked down on as inferior to women who didn't have to work.  The ethos back then was that women worked only because they had to, not because they wanted to.

I hated this way of thinking and revolted against it.  I saw getting a job and working as my avenue to independence, especially from my family.

Gingrich talks about poor kids who don't have any work ethic.  I grew up among upper-middle class kids who hadn't any work ethic.  One of the upper-middle class values back in the 1950's was that working kids were looked down as being lower class.  At least this was how it was in my neighborhood.  This is just the opposite of what Gingrich was saying.  In the environment of my youth (generally the West Los Angeles area) it was the poor who worked and the upper-middle class who didn't.  People presumed that the reason the kids worked was because they came from poor families.

Many liberals are saying that Gingrich is advocating children being janitors and cleaning out toilets.  He never said anything about making children clean toilets.  He only said it wouldn't harm them to pick up a broom once in a while.  I totally agree with that.  I think children should have regular duties they perform at home, too, and it wouldn't hurt to have a small duty like this to perform at school.   I was also raised by my grandmother, who never gave me any household chores to do, and because of that I was turning out very irresponsible.  My school picked up and that, and I was given a little job at school of ringing the bell after recess for everyone to come in.  This helped me.  When I was in Junior High School, I also got a job of working in the cafeteria at lunch time.  In return for this I got a free lunch.  They gave me this job because I was always arriving at school without a lunch or lunch money.

 My mother was never strong enough to become financially independent from her family, even though she was a well-trained secretary who earned a fairly good salary.  She put up with all kinds of emotional abuse (even physical) because she never could be financially free from them.  I didn't want that to happen to me.  I started working as soon as I could by making things and trying to sell them and babysitting.  The day I turned 16, I went to Santa Monica and got my social security card.  The next day I got a part-time job at a five-and-ten cents store in Westwood Village, where I worked on Monday nights and Saturdays for the next year.  My mother never encouraged me to work and said that back home in Kansas, girls who worked in 5-and-10 cent stores were looked down on.  Even though this hurt, and I never forgot it, I was smart enough to pass it off as being insane.  I started working full-time at the age of about 18 and became financially independent.

At 16, my mother was incarcerated in the State Mental Institution by the State of California, and I went to live with a family of a screen/TV writer in Bel Air.  This family had exactly the same set of values as my mother.  Women who worked were inferior to those who didn't.  No one could understand a woman working unless she had to for financial reasons.  The only socially acceptable avenue for a woman was marriage.  They wouldn't listen to any idea I had for my future except to marry and become a housewife, as this woman had done.  Successful women were looked down on even more.  As though they were putting all their energies into working because they couldn't get a husband.  I still revolted against this line of thought and it made me not have much respect for my new family.  In this family, I felt that the man felt that if his wife worked, he wouldn't feel needed any more.  The male aspect of this ethos was that men had to support their family entirely in order to feel needed and important.  They saw their wife working and earning money as a possible threat.

However, in a way I did buy into this ethic of women who worked were inferior, because I never took classes in high school that would help me to earn a living once I got out, nor even when I went to City College.  Girls who took vocational classes, in my social set, were looked down on as being intellectually inferior.  Fortunately, I did at least take a typing class which gave me my in to the corporate world where I always managed to get a job.

In my later years, after I moved to Staten Island, I came into contact with an entirely different group of people that I never knew existed before.  In the USA, there is an entire level of female society that start having children when they are 16 and start being supported by the government.  They have no intention of working, nor did they ever, but keep having children, because with each one they get a little more federal or state money.  These girls come most often from families where their mother did the same thing.  Nothing more were never expected from them so they quit school as soon as they can.  I have no idea how to cure this social problem, except maybe by the educational system.  There is a male counterpart to this kind of thinking.  Once a middle-aged man told me that his father told him that working for a living (something he had never done) was really dumb.  This cycle of government dependence has to be broken.

However, to say that all poor people are like this, or all people who live in poor neighborhoods, are like this is not true.  I live in a poor neighborhood and I've never been that way, and people all around me are working.  The neighborhood I live in is full of immigrants, mostly from Mexico and Latin America, who are anxious to work, and who work all they can.  I can't see any reason to be against these immigrants (illegal or not) who will work at anything, and to support all these Americans who think it's stupid to work.  It's also stupid to think that anyone can find a job who really wants one.  After I turned 50, I really had a hard time finding work even though I had good skills and was trying every minute.  I was a much better employee, with much better skills, than when I was a pretty young girl, but I couldn't find work like I could when I was a pretty young girl.  My working experience was always in the corporate world--I only say this as to reference my frame of mind.

It has always amazed me how some people live their entire lives by some stupid thing that their parents told them (i.e., working is dumb) as though it never occurs to them that maybe their parents were wrong.  I still run into this kind of thinking all the time.  I hate it when people say "Well, that's how I was raised," as an answer to why they do something that is not beneficial or bright.  I've always detested people who never learned to think for themselves.