This is the second in a series of posts titled The Conservative Arts taken from an address by Robert Shaw at Harvard University in 1981. If you have not read the previous post I hope you will take the time to do so prior to continuing with this post.

Shaw asks a series of questions: What are the meanings of art? What is it trying to tell us of [humanity]? What is [humanity] trying to tell us of [humanity itself]? . . . What may be the function or influence of art in a world gone schizophrenic, paranoid, masochistic? What does art show itself to be? Why is it important? How can it help us? (Blocker, 357-359)

In the next post we will consider the four answers that Mr. Shaw offers to these questions. In the meantime I would suggest that each of you answer these questions for yourself.

Shaw then follows this discussion with the question: And where does Religion meet the Arts? He then continues: Its very own task forces would prescribe that the gospel crusade with anything less than a choir of 4,000 “Just-as-I-yammers” is not merely underserving of prime time, but has only one foot in the stadium. Organized religion has learned well the lesson that from a T.V. studio or on the road a lot more apples are merchandised by serpents than by penitents (Blocker, 361).

Shaw then poses the question: Are the arts, then, simply tools of communication available to thief and fraud no less than saint? (Blocker, 362)

To be continued in the next post. I hope that you will join the conversation by leaving a comment on this blog website – http://humanbeingsanon.com.

Many of you are already aware that one of my primary mentors – both in arts and in life (after all the two cannot be separated) – has been Robert Shaw (1916-1999). The following words, by Robert Blocker, open the Preface that opens the magnificent volume from which at least this post and likely several more to follow are from:

Most people who knew Robert Shaw first met him through his music. Some were acquainted with him only in this way, while others had the experience of knowing him as a friend, or conductor, or cultural leader, or educator, or raconteur – or more than one, or even all of those roles he embodied. As a musician, however, he belonged to the world. His musical signature was – and still is – an extraordinary sound that touches one’s deepest emotions . . . this is Robert Shaw’s book. Each word is his – wisdom, wit, and immediacy from a treasury of writings and musings. It is a volume that reflects the unique perspective he brought to the podium (Blocker, vii).

The Robert Shaw Reader. Robert Blocker, editor. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.

For me he was also a theological mentor – establishing a personal basis for theology that has steadily grown from a strong foundation rooted in intelligence, passion, and love.

I will never forget the time I saw him and said, “Good morning Mr. Shaw.” He responded, “Tom, my name is Robert” to which I responded, “Yes sir, Mr. Shaw!” My respect for him did not allow me to address him by his first name even though I knew and understood that he was genuine when he reminded me that his name was Robert.

I will close this post with a quotation from the early part of Mr. Shaw’s address entitled The Conservative Arts which was delivered on November 9, 1981 at Memorial Church, Harvard University:

The argument, then, behind the title is that the arts, and probably in direct ratio as to how liberal and creative they are, are the preservers and the purveyors of those values which define humanity (and for some divine Divinity) and finally, in fact, may prove to be the only workable Program of Conservation for the human race on this planet (Blocker, 357).

I promise that you will not want to miss the extraordinary words offered by this giant of humanity that will provide the central focus for coming posts.

And, as usual, I hope that you will be willing to join the conversation by leaving your comments at http://humanbeingsanon.com. It is not possible to have a discussion community unless people are willing to join in the discussion.

Grace and peace!

The theme of our worship yesterday at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas was “Communion of Saints” – the next to last service in a series that started in Lent considering The Apostle’s Creed from the point of view of the modern mind. The series will conclude next Sunday with a focus on “Life Everlasting.”

Yesterday’s post utilized the Centering Time from the service by Ilene Dunn. This post today is borrowed from Jim Rigby’s blog (http://www.jimrigby.org ) – a wonderful blog with frequent postings on a wide variety of subjects), which Jim also utilized in his sermon helping us all understand that the “saints” are not just a group of spiritual all-stars. In reads as follows:

Some time ago, in an attempt to discredit one of the Zapatista leaders in southern Mexico, Sub-comandante Marcos, government officials there tried to put forth the idea that Marcos was gay. In a region where machismo still runs strong, it was hoped this would tarnish the leader’s credibility.

He responded by writing a poem:

“Yes, Marcos is gay. Marcos is gay in San Francisco Black in South Africa an Asian in Europe, a Chicano in San Ysidro, an anarchist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, a Mayan Indian in the streets of San Cristobal, a Jew in Germany, a Gypsy in Poland, a Mohawk in Quebec, a pacifist in Bosnia, a single woman on the Metro at 10pm a peasant without land, a gang member in the slums, an unemployed worker, an unhappy student and, of course, a Zapatista in the mountains.

Marcos is all the exploited, marginalised, oppressed minorities resisting and saying ‘Enough’. He is every minority who is now beginning to speak and every majority that must shut up and listen. He is every untolerated group searching for a way to speak. Everything that makes power and the good consciences of those in power uncomfortable — this is Marcos.”

[From Social Justice E-Zine #27.]
Greenleft.org

I conclude today with some of the lyrics from the final stanza of the hymn text that closed our worship:

They lived not only in ages past, there are hundreds of thousands still. The world is filled with living saints who choose to do God’s will. You can meet them in school, on the road, or at sea, in a church, in a train, in a shop, or at tea: for the saints are folk like you and like me . . .

Let us all commit to strive to always do God’s will! Amen and Amen!

Part of our Sunday worship at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas is a Centering Time. These are prepared – and usually presented by Ilene Dunn. They are always wonderful but sometimes they are even better than wonderful – such was the case today. With gratitude to Ilene Dunn – a superb colleague and wonderful friend – with special thanks for these words:

There’s a quiet place that breathes peace, and the peace breathes love, and the love breathes memories heart-cherished forever of people
whose life paths embraced yours,
whose living made yours better
with smiles that warmed away the cold of bitterness,
with soft touches that smoothed away the rawest ragged edges,
with listening into which you could pour the deepest aches and longings
of your heart,
with understanding that soothed still tender wounds,
with courage that inspired you to new hope and new daring,
with wisdom that guided you through wilderness, toward new horizons,
with love that whispered, “I’m here with you.”

Lovely memories of people
      whose life paths entwined with yours,
      whose living made yours brighter
           with smiles that beamed the light of sun and moon and shining stars,
           with laughter that led your heart to dance,
           with an exuberant life-melody that lifted your heart to sing along,
           with playfulness that re-introduced you to your own light-hearted delight,
           with creativity that re-opened the way of your own art.

Come now into sacred space, where beautiful memories linger, living Love’s circle with you always . . . be centered within the encircling communion of ordinary people, who had their own faults and foibles, but whose love and willingness to bless you named them “saints” in your life . . . be centered now in the sacred light of Love.

Amen and Amen.

A few years ago I experienced the events in this story during a meeting of the Session at the congregation I was serving at the time. For those of you who are not Presbyterian – the Session is our version of the administrative body of leadership elected by the congregation.

I do not believe that this discussion was listed on the agenda for the evening, but it became the focal point of the meeting. Somehow the group got involved in a discussion of the differences in a business and a church. The expected points of view quickly surfaced – “a church is a caring organization” – “a business is driven by profit” – the usual and predictable division of the discussion. Finally, after some 30 to 40 minutes of discussion (seemed more like 3 or 4 hours) – one of the elders raised his hand for permission to speak. This particular person was known for his wisdom and clarity – and – for waiting to speak later in almost any discussion. Here is the gist of what he said:

It has been my experience that there are two kinds of people in the world – people who care about other people and people who do not. I have come to this realization from many years in both business and church. I have discovered both kinds of people in church, and I have also discovered both kinds of people in business. We should strive to be a church where members are people who care about other people.

My experience has led me to the observation that the words of this very wise and experienced elder were true. Labels – church or business – really did not distinguish between caring and non-caring. My recent experience indicates that this is also true for the labels – liberal or conservative.

Happily – at least for me – my colleague and friend Jim Rigby summed it all up in a very few words earlier today with a post of his own – so – with gratitude I conclude this post with the words of Jim Rigby:

It makes no difference whether someone is called “liberal” or “conservative.” The only question that matters is whether one is willing to share power with the masses and to redistribute wealth fairly.

My prayer is that we may all become people who truly care about other people!

Today I am going to take a step that I know is risky. I am going state some ideas that are very important to me. Some of them I have believed for many many years. Some others, I believe, have grown stronger with the passage of time – some over a matter of years and some in recent months, weeks, and days – and also with my increasing “chronological giftedness” – I am now 67 years old.

God has always been an important part of my life. From time to time in my journey of life I have felt like I understood more than I have at other times in my life – it has not been a continuum – more like a path with many twists and turns – forward, back, and forward yet again. Whether it has been a time in my life when things were going well, or a time when I thought that things likely could not be much worse – in all those times – God has always been an important part of my life.

Many times I have said, “If you understand everything that you believe you need to know about God, then you need a larger, bigger, more comprehensive God.” I am still convinced that this is true. With each passing day it seems more obvious to me that major problems were created by two events in history. The first, the “great schism” of 1054 which for all practical purposes separated the east from the west – a division that has continued to the present time. In my thinking, the primary problem with this event is that the western church allowed most of mystery to become the sole property of the eastern church. The second, the “protestant reformation” of the sixteenth century when the protestant reformers for all practical purposes handed what little mystery was left in the western church over to the Roman Catholic church. This sent the protestants on a road of logic, facts, and knowing – the properties of the mind – without the benefit of mystery as expressed in and through the arts – the properties of the heart.

During recent years some western protestants have begun to “rediscover” some of the eastern religious traditions that seem to have been missing since the “great schism” – in truth, they have not been missing – they have been ignored by the western church which has too much pride to admit that it is not able to know everything. I never cease to be amazed when I hear of a “new” idea that is hundreds and thousands of years old.

A phrase that is part of our Presbyterian heritage refers to “the peace, unity, and purity” of the church. I have heard a number of people argue that the order of these three words do not matter. i disagree. Unity cannot exist peace is present. This does not in any way imply that everyone agrees about everything or anything. Real peace – shalom – is a prerequisite for unity. Finally, I believe that peace and unity are matters of human construction, but that purity is in the sole province of God. Purity is not a list of doctrines and dogmas that are a creation of the human mind, but a product of the Creator.

Finally, at least for this day, the arts can no longer be the luxury of a few. The arts are a vital necessity for all parts of creation. The arts are part of the language of mystery – part of the vocabulary of not knowing – a way for creation to listen to the Creator.

These thoughts will continue in the following posts. It is my hope that some of you will be willing to join the conversation. I can’t imagine that we will agree on everything, but I require that our discussions be conducted in peace – with dignity and with an open mind which might allow us to hear each other which involves more than just listening.

So for now – grace and peace!

Many of the issues that I have been facing in the past few months center on what – at least to me – is a needless struggle between following Jesus – primarily as revealed in the Sermon on the Mount – or the doctrines and dogma that seem to be a plague that may well be the true reason behind the continuing decline of many of the “mainline denominations” in our current culture.

My thinking on this was brought to the forefront while I was reading the book that I introduced in the last post: Changed By Grace: V. C. Kitchen, the Oxford Group, and A.A. by Glenn Chesnut (New York: iUniverse, Inc., 2006). As a result this post will take a look at more of Chesnut’s writing with particular emphasis on the life and work of V. C. Kitchen.

Chesnut introduces Kitchen with these words: Victor Constant Kitchen (1891-1975) was a New York City advertising executive. His firm – Doyle, Kitchen & McCormick – had its offices at 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue. He had a great interest in the Calvary Rescue Mission for down-and-outers at 246 East 23rd Street near Second Avenue, an operation which was supported by Calvary Episcopal Church and run by Oxford Group members.

In November 1934, the same year that Kitchen’s book [“I Was a Pagan”] came out, an Oxford Group member named Ebby Thacher came to visit a stock broker named Bill Wilson in his kitchen in the second floor apartment at 182 Clinton Street in Brooklyn, and told him about the group and its teachings. As a result Bill visited Calvary Rescue Mission, began learning more about the Oxford Group, and eventually (after his vision of the light in Towns Hospital) began attending Oxford Group meetings at Calvary House, where he got to know Father Shoemaker himself. Bill Wilson eventually founded Alcoholics Anonymous as a split-off from the Oxford Group of some of the members who were recovering alcoholics, who saw their drinking problem as their central spiritual issue(1-2).

A few pages later Chesnut continues his profile of V. C. Kitchen, writing: Kitchen had already been taught in church when he was young that we are justified by faith alone and not by works of the law. But before he came in contact with the Oxford Group, he thought that faith meant belief in church dogmas, and that we could automatically obtain the fruits of the spiritual life simply by believing the right doctrines and performing the correct religious rituals. As Kitchen put it: “In my early church life I was taught salvation by faith. But I was not taught how to make my faith anything more than a belief in certain doctrines. It seemed I had only to stand up, say I believed in Christ and submit to baptism. I then became a ‘full-fledged’ member of he church. There was to me no real birth here. I was not even an incipient saint. And there was no growth thereafter. I remained an adult spiritual infant. The faith that was nothing but a credulous belief lay stored in my memory, like a suit of clothes stored in the attic, and just about as useful.” And one of the biggest problems he had had as a child, Kitchen said, was that the church told him to believe all sorts of teachings about God’s enormous power, but gave him no proof that any of these things actually worked at the pragmatic level of life.

In order to be intellectually honest, people living in the modern scientific world had to ask a major question about any kind of religious system, which required a credible answer . . . What the founders of the modern evangelical movement had realized was that no spiritual system could be effective in the modern world unless it responded to this Enlightenment attack . . . Unfortunately, by the beginning of he twentieth century, there were people all over the world who claimed to be evangelicals, but who were in fact teaching only the old authoritarian and legalistic religion of woks righteousness: being “saved” meant following all of their rigid fear-based rules about what kind of clothes you could wear and how you had to fix your hair, and so on and so forth, and it meant accepting all their particular sect’s laws and rules with a blind and unquestioning faith(58-59).

And so it seems to me that not a lot has changed over the years. The issues and points of contention may be different, but the difficulty largely remains unchanged. Sadly, in many many situations the standards for being Christian today would likely not be recognized by the person for whom Christianity is named – Jesus the Christ!

This now becomes a launching point for our continuing discussions.

In the post on Monday, May 12, 2014 I made the following statement as my reason for resuming this blog: “the events of recent days have led me to the point where I am no longer able to stay silent” – and that is true. However, I feel that it is only fair to begin at the start of my current adventure with an event that was very positive – also – one which has generated at least two more significant writing projects – more about that later in this blog.

For a number of years I have been part of a discussion group made up of professionals involved in various roles in assisting people in the process of making the continuing journey of recovery from substance abuse. This group of colleagues and friends have made a significant impact on my life – an impact for which I will always be extremely grateful. Sometimes we have read books and had discussions that mostly left me in the dust wondering if I really should be in such a group – examples: Drug and Alcohol Abuse: A Clinical Guide to Diagnosis and Treatment by Marc A. Schukit and Traumatic Stress: The Effects of Overwhelming Experience on Mind, Body, and Society edited by Bessel A. van der Kolk, Alexander C. McFarlane, and Lars Weisaeth. Recently the group – which had been on sabbatical for several months – studied Changed by Grace: V. C. Kitchen, the Oxford Group, and A.A.written by Glenn F. Chesnut (New York: iUniverse, Inc., 2006). The Preface of this superb volume includes the following:

A number of wise commentators have already uttered the judgment that Alcoholics Anonymous was the most important new spiritual movement in the twentieth century . . . their twelve step approach to spiritual development also successfully navigated the sweeping transformation in our understanding of the world which took place over the course of the twentieth century, and did it far better than most religious and spiritual groups of that period . . . the biggest shift in human understanding since the Ancient Greeks destroyed the old mythological world view over two thousand years ago . . . Instead of fighting the new science, A.A. learned how to express fundamental spiritual concepts in ways which men and women of the new scientific era could understand and accept. Ancient spiritual ideas came back to life again with a bold new power when expressed in twelve step terms.(xi-xii)

The opening chapter of the book traces the work of Victor Constant Kitchen (1891-1975) and Frank Buchman (1878-1961), founder of the Oxford Group, and their influence on the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous. Chesnut also explores the impact of the work of two “key” figures from the modern evangelical movement, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), a Congregationalist pastor in Massachusetts, who was selected as the first president of Princeton University before his death, and John Wesley in England (1703-1791), a priest of the Church of England who taught Greek and Latin classics and theology, including the New Testament, at Oxford University.(Chesnut, 7) Wesley, of course, is remembered as the founder of Methodism. Chesnut describes the environment which surrounded these two important figures: Edwards and Wesley were both thoroughly conversant with the new Newtonian physics, as well as the writings of John Locke, the founder of modern psychology. Both believed firmly that good theology had to fit in with the best findings of modern science. Neither one saw any necessity for conflict between science and religion, if the theologians were doing their job properly . . . both [were] highly educated intellectuals who not only knew the ancient philosophical and theological tradition backwards and forwards, but were right at the forefront of all the new developments in thought which were taking place during their lifetimes, which was the period when the rise of modern science first began to affect western ideas in a major way.(8)

Chesnut also speaks to the environment of the life of Frank Buchman, a Lutheran pastor of German-Swiss background.(3): The modern Protestant evangelical movement had arisen within the English-speaking world, and moved to a very different kind of spirit than was found in orthodox German and Scandinavian Lutheranism. Orthodox Lutheran pastors laid great emphasis upon holding all of the correct doctrines and dogmas which had been laid out in such enormous detail in the Augsburg Confession, the Book of Concord, and the other standards of Lutheran orthodoxy . . . The emphasis which Frank Buchman placed upon Gefuhl (feeling and emotions) and the religion of the heart also came from his Lutheran pietist background. So Buchman’s pietism enabled him to break with the kind of rigid orthodoxy which was typical of so many Lutheran pastors, and made it possible for him to learn how to work with Christians who held a wide variety of other beliefs.(3-6)

The writing of Chesnut immediately sent me on a journey that will eventually result in two more significant research and writing projects. The first centers on the evolution of spiritual thought and understanding beginning with the thinking of Aristotle and continuing to the present day. The second, which develops from the first, focuses on the different ways that certain faith traditions have developed and the possible ways that the development of those traditions may have with the discord that is present in many of our current institutional faith traditions. Certainly, I will have much more to say about each of these in future writings.

Enough has been said, however, in this post – so – grace and peace until we meet again.

On June 17, 2013 I posted the following on this blog: “Time for the summer vacation . . . will resume posting in about one month. In the meantime – love each other as we all have been loved!!!”

At the time it was my intention to take about a month of vacation from blog writing and then to resume. At some point during that month I found myself questioning if there was any reason to resume my blogging. Clearly I decided that the answer was “NO” – however – the events of recent days have led me to the point where I am no longer able to stay silent – so – I title this post, “Here we go again . . . time for another new beginning . . .” At some point in the coming days I will elaborate about the happenings that have caused me to return to writing – but today – it is sufficient to say that there are some things that I must say – I am no longer able to remain silent!

Before I begin I need to make a request of the people who read this blog. I do not want this writing to remain a solo endeavor. It is my great desire that people who read this will respond with comments that create a community of discussion. That is very important to me because I know that I am stronger when I am not alone. I need other people – those who sometimes agree with me and those who often – or possibly always – disagree with me. The only ground rule that I will establish is this — it is imperative that our discussions be civil and polite because I am convinced that we experience growth through what Frances Taylor Gench labels as “faithful disagreement.” (In a future post I will describe the process that led Professor Gench toward the writing of her book Faithful Disagreement: Wrestling with Scripture in the Midst of Church Conflict – Westminster John Knox Press, 2009). As we journey along together I will do my very best to honestly state my thoughts and I ask that you do the same. Also, please make others aware of this discussion if you believe they would have interest and benefit from our discussions.

Today I conclude with some words that have frequently assisted me along the path of my personal journey. They are the opening words from the final chapter of Faithsong: A New Look at the Ministry of Music by Thomas L. Are (The Westminster Press, 1981).

The song we sing is good. It is called grace.

For the prophets, the only requirement for writing a book was to begin by saying, “Thus saith the [Holy One].” Later the church fathers [and mothers] would write: “The church has always said . . . .” But the most I can say about the gospel we sing is, “It seems to me.” I can’t say, “Thus saith the [Holy One],” because [God] doesn’t always speak to me. Nor can I say, “The church has always said . . . ,” for the church has seldom had enough unity to have always said anything. The most honest thing I can say is, “It seems to me.” (93)

And so we begin again . . .