uncertainty and #thedress

Last week's social media was dominated by a discussion of a dress that some people saw as white and gold, while others saw the same dress as blue and black. After the partisan fights have been fought and the dust has settled, we are left with some people incredulous that this got any attention at all, and others entranced by how interesting it is that something so simple can cause such a controversy. I find myself in the latter group. I don't think this debate is at all about the colors of a dress but rather how two people can see things differently and have both of them be absolutely correct ... sort of.

http://www.bgr.in/news/thedress-breaks-the-internet-which-color-is-it-really/

First of all, let me say I personally see #thedress as white and gold but I am well aware it is blue and black in real life. I have (don't judge me) tried to stare at the picture long enough to convince myself that I can't force my brain to see it as blue and black. This is different from other optical illusions which can only be seen one way at a time, but with some mental gymnastics the brain can be convinced to see it the other way. Therefore, there are two kinds of illusions: 1) fixed illusions that your brain is hard wired to see only one way, and 2) flexible illusions that you can only see one way at a time but you can bounce back and forth from one illusion to another. How does one even know that there is an illusion in the first place and then subsequently discern which type of illusion it is? Is it through someone else's advice or based on our own experience?

Most of us would not figure out that there is an illusion until someone points it out. One person looking at #thedress and saying it is white and gold is not a controversy. Even if that person later finds out the dress is really blue and black they will just say "oh it must have been the lighting or the exposure or the way the photo was processed." It's not until the second person looks at the same picture and says they see it differently that the first person questions her sanity and wonders "is the other person right, am I seeing things?" So the first person then starts to investigate and see why there is a discrepancy and figure out if there is an underlying truth. 

In our spiritual lives, there are many illusions. Some of these are fixed and others are flexible, but we as Christians believe that there is Truth behind every illusion. We do not claim to see this Truth perfectly, but rather see it dimly, for now, until we see our Creator face to Face (1 Cor 13:12). Until then we rely on the Wisdom of the Church to point out these illusions to us so that we can go out and see the Truth for ourselves. We are not (or at least should not) be asked to follow blindly. We should never hear "I don't care what you think you see, that dress is blue and black!" Rather, we should be told "I know that dress looks white and gold - I see it with my physical eyes the same way that you do - but I can tell you that behind the illusion there is a different reality." 

The most common complaint against Christianity is "how can you be so smug and sure that you are so right?" The irony is that true Christianity is apophatic, meaning we are quite comfortable saying that, while we are in this world, we will never know everything there is to know. What we do say we know about our relationship to God is experiential, reproducible and paradoxical. It is experiential in that In order to "see it" one must first try to experience God. If we do not seek a personal relationship with Him then there is no Christianity. It is reproducible in that God has promised that anyone who truly seeks Him will find Him, and this has been my personal experience that the genuine seeker of God is not disappointed. Finally it is paradoxical in that the Way does not always (in fact often does not) make rational sense. We become fools so that we may become wise. We accept blindness so we can see. Finally, we choose to die with Christ so we can live. If we have nobody to tell us there is a paradox then how are we to figure that out on our own? 

I love this dress controversy because it reinforces my discomfort with any absolute certainty. Anyone who appears to be sure of anything I think should be suspect even if you happen to agree with their point of view. By no means am I saying we should not have conviction. I am saying that we should say "I am sure that I see the dress as white and gold" and be open to correction if others have a different interpretation. If after hearing the other viewpoint we still feel the same way then we can go on in our conviction and maybe even a little more convinced, having weathered another storm of doubt. In the end, all will be made clear, and "the last will be first and the first will be last" (Matthew 20:16).

Language vs. Spirituality - What Really Matters?

There has been an ongoing conversation for over two decades in North America on the role of language in the worship of the Coptic Church, with many polarized opinions that I will try to summarize briefly in their most simplistic forms:

1) We should do everything in English. We live in an English speaking country and there is no place for Arabic, Coptic or Greek because people don't understand those languages. This opinion has some support from the concept that the Church should "incarnate" itself in its new environment and to a large extent reinvent itself to suit that environment (Incarnational Exodus by Father Michael Sorial).

2) We have to preserve Coptic at all costs because it is our heritage and it would be a great loss for the Church if everything were in English or Arabic. Here and moving forward I will shorthand all Coptic and Greek references as "Coptic" for the sake of simplicity.

The bad news is that if the zealots have their way we will end up with a fragmented church that has to individually cater to each person in the way that they have chosen for themselves. We would have to have an "all English church" and a "mixed English/Arabic/Coptic church" and maybe an "English/Coptic church" and while we're at it let's add an "Arabic/Coptic church" in there, too. If you don't like this church then go to that church. If your kids grow up in the Arabic/Coptic church and they want to pray in the all English church then they can do that when they get their drivers license and you can pray separately.

The good news is that the zealots don't have to win. We can have a church that reflects the Body of Christ with all of its different yet complementary pieces (1 Corinthians 12). In order to do so, however, we must find a way to compromise. By definition this means that the zealots will not get what they want. I don't want this point to be unclear, so I will repeat this in no uncertain terms: if you feel that a specific language is absolutely necessary and another language is completely unnecessary then you cannot have things the way that you want them because if you do then the church will be divided. 

Now that I have, unfortunately, irritated and alienated a large percentage of the people reading this, let me state it a different way. If we can let go of the "language conversation" we can start discussing what actually matters - the spirituality of the Church - and maybe then we can make everyone happy. I know what you may be thinking - "How is that possible?! That person wants to pray in a language I don't understand and he doesn't care about me at all! He just wants a deacon show every week!" To which the other side responds - "There is no way I can agree to having a church that doesn't pray the way we have prayed for 2000 years and all they want to do is get rid of all of that for some english sing-a-long songs that somebody made up last week." Everybody relax. Let's step back and ask what each side is really looking for.

The English zealots are looking for accessibility and inclusiveness in our worship. These are good things. These are very good things. We want everyone in the church to feel at home. We want everyone to feel like they are in Heaven. We want them to feel like Heaven is their Home. The Coptic zealots are looking for a preservation of the spirituality and hymnology of our worship. These are good things. These are very good things. We want everyone in the church to feel like they are in the presence of God. Music is a powerful medium that has a tremendous effect on our emotions and is used in various contexts as a way of delivering a message. So what happens when we take the best of both worlds? What happens when we give everyone what they are looking for? We get a Church in which music plays a central role in our spirituality, elevating all of us together as a unified Body of Christ to Heaven. Is this vision overly idealistic? Maybe. Is it impossible? Maybe. Is it worth praying for? Absolutely. Let's look at what we could do to make everyone happy, by evaluating what each side would have to give up to make the other side happy. 

First of all, the Coptic zealots need to give up the idea that Coptic is intrinsically valuable in and of itself. The beautiful, spiritual hymns of the Church could have been written in any language and they would still be "the hymns of the Church." They just happened to have been written in Coptic. If one could translate these hymns into English while at the same time preserving their musicality and spirituality then I would say there is nothing lost. I understand that there may be some argument against this based on the "heritage" and "identity" that is preserved in the language, but this is a weak argument and is easily overcome by the reality that many people feel that the native culture should take precedence over the imported culture.  Everyone gets to define their own identity and if the identity defined by your church excludes some people then don't be surprised when they don't want to come pray with you. 

Second, the English zealots need to give up the idea that Coptic is intrinsically evil. "But I don't understand it!" Yes, I agree that we need to make the hymns more accessible but this is not going to happen overnight. For now, the Coptic language is intertwined to a great deal with the spiritual hymnology of the Church. There are many efforts being made to translate the hymns in a way that preserves their musical spirituality (Midnight Praise, Liturgical Hymns, and even long melismatic Paschal Hymns). It will take a decade or maybe even a whole generation for us to transition to a standardized way of saying these hymns in English. Rushing this process may result in a loss of some of the hymns or the acceptance of a poor translation - either way it would be a great loss and we should take our time and do it properly. 

Third, we all need to regard the opposite opinion as a point of view that is worth having because keeping my brothers and sisters in Church is more important than praying in the language of my choosing. It is possible that some churches will eventually pray completely in English, but I hope that this will be with a gradual and natural translation of the Coptic hymns to English over time, and not because there was a mandate to get rid of Coptic. It is also possible that some churches will choose to maintain some Coptic, which also works as long as the congregation is supportive and there is a translation and explanation of the hymns available. 

My goal here is not to infuriate both sides. My goal is to reconcile. Unfortunately, I understand that may make me the "bad guy" to both sides and that's ok with me … as long as this is temporary and allows for us to start a conversation that is inclusive of everyone's opinion. Ultimately this decision will fall in the hands of our bishops and priests who will have to balance the importance of unity against the importance of serving different demographics within our congregation. My hope and my dream is that we can preserve unity by truly understanding what is at the core of what everyone wants and giving it to them in our worship, so that our Church is able to truly say with St. Paul in 1 Cor 9:22-23 "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."

Who is your lesson about?

In high school I had a teacher who taught history, but the lessons were always all about the students. Yes we may have been learning about people and events, but in the end the goal was for the students to appreciate the material. Any frustration she had was always a function of why we were not learning and not about how that reflected on her as a teacher. She was one of the teachers that I always knew was not teaching for the benefit of her ego but for my benefit as a student. You may say that it doesn't matter - "what difference does it make as long as we learn history?" That is like asking what difference does it make why you give to charity - "as long as they get the money who cares if you're just doing it for the tax exemption?"

This way of concrete thinking may work on a functional level in the physical world but breaks down in the spiritual realm. We know that many things look identical in the physical world but look very different in the spiritual world. Intent is one of those things. Secret feelings are one of those things. Incomplete repentance is one of those things. I have written before about imperfection and I'm still fully in support of "fake it till you make it" as an acceptable strategy. Once again, however, there still remains this question of intent. Am I aware that even though I am acting on the outside to have forgiven this person that inside I burn with indignation? If so I completely agree that we continue to act how we think we should act, and pray that the internal feelings will follow. However, we should never accept "acting the right way" as the same thing as "doing the right thing." The former is an objective external process while the latter is a hidden internal process. 

"The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." 1 Samuel 16:7

We must strive toward perfection and that perfection is not just what people see but the heart of hearts behind what is seen. If we are teaching then we must be quite certain that the center of our lesson should not be ourselves and our own ego. Unfortunately I am the first to admit that I'm not always sure. Am I teaching for the edification of the other person who can benefit from what I have to say or am I teaching for my own edification and glorification to be seen as a respected educator? While we must be careful that we do not allow the devil to use this as a way to discourage us from teaching we should be self critical enough to ask this question and ask it often. I'm convinced that the people hearing the lesson are affected in some way by the internal struggle of the speaker against himself. 

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." - Ephesians 6:12

Even if the person hearing what you have to say does not consciously question your motives I do believe that there is an unseen spiritual warfare that is happening during the exchange of information. I hope you pray for me as you read this that as I write this and other contemplations I am doing so with pure intentions. There is a fear I have that I will stop writing because of the whisper in my ear "who do you think you are to write anything?" There is an equal and more worrisome fear that I will keep writing and eventually allow myself rather than Christ or my reader to be the center of my writing. May God protect you and I in our desire to spread His Good News. 

Are we asking HOW or WHY?

Many of us have grown up in the Church. Our parents grew up in the Church. Their parents grew up in the Church. You get the idea. We have always been Christian and we may not know any different. Yes, we have questioned our faith from time to time, but we have always fundamentally believed that God exists, and that He wants a relationship with us. Some of the seeds of doubt that are sown in our hearts and minds are the questions: "What if it is all imagined? What if we are just starting with a set of assumptions that are simply self-validating? What if it is not so much the existence of God but rather the idea of God that really matters?" This is the position of some atheists who now practice a "Religion Without God". When our fundamental belief in God is challenged we may look for validation and are overjoyed when we hear that "Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God." The reality is that this is not in any way a new question - for centuries people who don't believe in God have been using science to "disprove Him" and people who believe in God have been using science to "prove Him." Neither one really makes any sense.

The reality is that the existence of God is non-falsifiable. There is no way to design an experiment that will tell you that He does or does not exist. This puts the question outside the realm of science. Period. End of story. Any attempt to prove or disprove God using science is not scientific - this inexorable paradox puts us in the position to either believe that God exists or that He does not - either way it is an act of faith. To illustrate the futility of science in telling us anything about God's existence let us look at two extreme positions. 

The first extreme is the extremely simplistic person's view of the world - the one with really no science. You can make this as simple as you can imagine. Take away the internet, airplanes, electricity, sanitation, and even fire if you like. This prehistoric cave man existence may be seen by some as the perfect breeding ground for the ignorance that is necessary for someone to believe in God. Since this person cannot explain anything about the world then everything must be left to "the hand of God." This is what Newton did with physical phenomena that he could not explain so this cave man who can't explain anything will have to use it to explain everything. Yes? Well, I don't think it's that simple. Isaac Newton understood enough about the world to know that there are things that are beyond his understanding and in some cases the more we know the more we are in awe of the improbability of our existence. The cave man, who knows nothing about the world, has no concept of how complex the world is and has nothing that is in need of explanation. The world just "is what it is" to use a tired modern colloquialism. Therefore the lack of knowledge does not in any way impart a tendency toward theism. 

The other extreme is the current or even future understanding of the world. We currently have a great appreciation of the world that includes command of our physical world (aeronautics, modern medicine, computer science, etc.), a deep understanding of the creatures that occupy that world (biology), an ability to manipulate the invisible properties of matter (chemistry), and even the ability to "create" matter with high energy colliders (particle physics). In the future we will understand even more and with new theories and discoveries that may 1) integrate all known physical phenomena and obviate the need of the "hand of God" cited by Newton and others, and 2) address the mechanism of creation of our complex world and thus question the very need for God in a probabilistic sense. While I find these scientific discoveries very interesting and illuminating I take issue with the assumption that if I understand HOW something happened then I also understand WHY it happened. If a car is driving down the road, the designer of that car can tell you in great detail about how the engine works and how it is that the car is able to get from point A to point B; however, the designer can tell you absolutely nothing about why the driver is going to point B in the first place. 

My goal here is not to convince you to believe in God because He can't be disproved by science. Similarly my goal is not to make you doubt in God because science can explain how everything happens even if God doesn't exist. My real goal is to clarify that science can only explain the HOW but not the WHY of our existence. God is my answer to "why?" Someone else may have a different belief of why we are here but that is still a belief that is only true to them because on a faith that is often based on a priori assumptions (Abolition of Man by CS Lewis). May we all act in faith and in love allow others to do the same.

On Imperfection

We live in a world that values perfection. We idolize people that look perfect, act perfect, and seem perfect. We watch sports and entertainment events that instill in us a reverence for a perfect score, a perfect game, and perfect records. Why then are we surprised when we feel dissatisfied? The standard has been set for our psyche to refuse to accept our lives, which rarely meet this unrealistic standard of perfection. 

What does God say? He tells us to strive for perfection but accepts us despite our imperfection. So what is the requirement? Are we good enough as is or are we expected grow? The answer is "yes" ... we are both good enough as is AND we are expected to grow. In Mere Christianity, CS Lewis teaches us: "As a great Christian writer (George MacDonald) pointed out, every father is pleased at the baby’s first attempt to walk: no father would be satisfied with anything less than a firm, free, manly walk in a grown-up son. In the same way, he said, 'God is easy to please, but hard to satisfy.'" So at once we must strive for perfection and at the same time accept an intermediate stage that serves as a stepping stone on that path to perfection. We see this concept in Christ's healing of the blind man in Mark 8:22-26, who is healed in stages, first seeing "men, like trees, walking" before his sight is completely restored.

At every point in our spiritual warfare, our own personal Wormwood (Screwtape Letters, by CS Lewis) will try to keep us from striking an appropriate balance between accepting ourselves and striving for better by constantly trying to push us either to complacency (wallowing in sin) or misguided perfectionism (beating ourselves up and falling into despair). In either case the end result is that we find ourselves focusing on the sin by saying it is either too much for us to handle (despair) or that it is manageable enough as it is (complacency). In either extreme we are becoming "sin-centric" and taking our eyes off God, which is exactly what happened to Peter when he "saw that the wind was boisterous" and began to sink (Matthew 14:22-33). Peter was doing fine when his eyes were on Christ and it was only when he took his eyes off Christ that he became afraid and began to sink. So we need to constantly ask ourselves what is tempting us to take our eyes off Him - at this moment are we feeling overwhelmed by sin and being pushed to despair or do we feel ok and are thus being pushed toward complacency?

We sometimes struggle with despair when we have trouble accepting ourselves the way that God accepts us. We should stop and ask ourselves a very important question - do we accept his acceptance? Oftentimes we hold on to guilt because we don't feel that we are worthy of his acceptance. Sometimes we even feel that this guilt is from God because he wants us to be better and he (like maybe our parents) uses this guilt to "encourage" us to improve. I still remember when I heard for the first time that "guilt is not from God." This was a mind-blowing revelation and it took me years to fully process it. Soon after hearing that phrase I heard And Can it Be by Church of Rhythm, which I listened to over and over again, trying to convince myself to accept that God is looking to love me much more than I am letting Him.

As soon as we find ourselves comfortable in accepting God's love, our spiritual warfare immediately shifts to pushing us toward complacency, with our Wormwood telling us "good job, God loves you, relax and enjoy yourself a bit," which unfortunately sometimes means that we get dragged back into our former sins by "the remembrance of evil entailing death." When St. Paul struggled with this question he felt the need to stop and ask if God's unconditional love means that we are allowed to sin, to which he immediately answers himself: "certainly not!" (Romans 6:15) So then if we are loved unconditionally then what is the point of avoiding sin? Stop and think about that for a second. If we are loved unconditionally, then there is a natural temptation there to say "well, that's great, now I can do whatever I want." Clearly this idea does not hold water, and I can't give a better explanation than St. Paul did in Romans 6-9 or St. James in his epistle. The answer there is "you don't avoid sin because you want a reward or to avoid a punishment - you avoid sin because you don't need sin anymore because you have Christ." I am a sinner. I am imperfect. God loves me anyway and that love is unconditional. This should make me love God and avoid sin not because I want to impress God but because sin is no longer on my agenda ... or is it? 

The reality is that despite the grace of God's forgiveness I still find myself sinning. Despite Christ freeing me from the bonds of sin I still find myself going back, sometimes to what feels like square one. However, it is important to figure out whether I am actively struggling with sin or I have given up and let myself become someone who accepts sin. In The Great Divorce, CS Lewis gives us the example of the woman who grumbled so much that she ceased to be a person because she had become "a grumble." We each have our personal sins, but as long as we are struggling against sin then we agree with God that the sin is bad and we hope and pray and wait for Him to give us the strength to get rid of the sin. It is when we give up the struggle that we are at risk of sliding so far into the sin that we are no longer "people who do a a certain sin" and become "people who are that sin." Part of our spiritual warfare is to resist the temptation to submit to a sin simply because we constantly find ourselves falling. Would it be better not to sin? Yes, of course, but God accepts the effort that we make as long as it is genuinely and sincerely our best effort. We must embrace this intermediate stage where we "see men like trees, walking," not because it is good enough forever but because it is good enough for now. If we do not accept this intermediate stage then we fall into despair and if we accept it too much then we fall into complacency.

The next question I want to ask is "does this fixation on guilt and misguided expectation of perfection affect other things in our life?" Let's look at how the complacency-despair problem affects how I look at forgiveness, prayer, and unity in organizations.

Imperfect forgiveness: In dealing with others, we should strive to forgive others as God forgives us fully and unconditionally. I'll be the first to admit this is hard. There are people that I have "forgiven" in that I am not willfully holding a grudge against them, but no matter how hard I try to forgive, I still feel a twinge of resentment. This emotional remnant is an indication that my forgiveness is imperfect. How do I react to this? Just as we discussed with sin, there are two mistakes I can make: 1) complacency - "I can't fully forgive so this halfhearted forgiveness is good enough," or 2) despair - "I am a terrible person because I don't know how to forgive." In reading Romans 12:19-20 I was always confused that St. Paul was telling us not to avenge ourselves but rather forgive because this would make it worse for the person we are trying to forgive, "For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” This flies in the face of Christ's words on the cross that we should forgive completely and unconditionally. To me this is, once again, evidence of an intermediate stage of forgiveness that is only acceptable if that is the best we can do. In the end, I may eventually be able to truly forgive, or maybe I will not be successful. The result is not as important as the process of continually struggling and asking God to help me forgive as He forgives. 

Imperfect prayer: I was recently asked to comment about the practice of asking for a saint's intercession with the promise that if the request was granted a donation would be made in the name of the saint. This phenomenon is quite common, so I will first start with the bright side that there are positive elements here in that the believer is 1) praying in some way, 2) developing a relationship with a saint in some way, and 3) making a donation or performing a good act. The discomfort some people have with this practice is that it is a bit of a "genie in a bottle" type of magic trick and not reconcilable with the idea that we should not be praying for our will but rather for God's will. In the Great Divorce, CS Lewis says that “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'" So, yes, I completely agree that holding a donation ransom for a certain outcome is not ideal, but I hope we can see it as an intermediate stage that will hopefully eventually lead to a true relationship with the saint and with God that is not predicated on "what have you done for me lately?"

Imperfect unity: We are all part of multiple organizations in some way shape or form, and for many of us the Church is one of those organizations. The relationship that we develop with God and each other within the Church is called fellowship, or koinonia in Greek. This unity through the Holy Spirit has guided the Church through the ages and continues to bind us on multiple levels: individually to God, individually to each other, as a group to God, as a group to each other, etc. So now you may be thinking, "ok, so if the Holy Spirit is supposed to be unifying us perfectly, then why are people constantly disagreeing and arguing about things in church?" Once again, we are asked to accept an imperfect unity as an intermediate stage that may be the best we can do ... for now. We must not be complacent but rather strive towards a more perfect unity, and the Church in its wisdom reminds us of this every morning when we pray that we "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (First Hour Prayer excerpt from Ephesians 4). We also should not fall into despair, questioning the presence of the Holy Spirit, but rather work with Him to wage war against this disunity. 

In conclusion, when we struggle with sin, imperfect forgiveness, imperfect prayer, and imperfect unity we must find a balance between the frustration of things not being how we want them and the complacency of accepting something as a final product that should just be a work in progress. This is even true in how we approach how we follow the rules of the Church, which are set before us as a guide to help us get to know God but are not a goal in and of themselves. Sometimes we fall into despair because we can't follow all the rules or become complacent feeling that we "follow enough of them to get by." To quote a recent Sunday sermon, "the teachings of the Church are clear, but in teaching the teachings I have to know what is my intention." If following the teachings of the Church becomes a system of checking boxes then I am missing the point because it will never be about how many boxes are checked but rather whether or not checking those boxes is bringing me closer to Christ. Keep struggling. Keep forgiving as best as you can. Keep praying as well and as much as you can. Keep working towards unity. God loves us in our imperfection and will bless our effort to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).