From time to time I will post pieces that might best be desribed as story-essays. Maybe I’ll call them stessays, or essories… or fictessays…fictessories…essayictional. Perhaps real writers have more elegant names for such things. Some columnists do it and call it journalism. Some CEOs do it and call it creative accounting. Some politicians have done it and called it justification for war. Preachers do it all the time in the name of the Lord. I just do it to tell a truth. I’m not pretending to report the news to you, or ask you for your vote, or convert you. If I were, I would have a strong responsibility to be as accurate as possble. But in this web log, I’m just telling you things that are meaningful to me, in a way that is meaningful to me. Hopefully you will find them meaningful as well. I leave it to you to pull the truth from the tangles.
These writings generally begin with and follow the details of real-life events. The mountaintop story pretty much happened that way, at least as it lives in my memory. The Chicago El story is accurate too, except that at the time I had no vision of God as an Asian woman, and I couldn’t possibly have gotten all the dialogue correct. And I don’t think the Fullerton stop is on the Red Line. That’s the way it works. I mean, when Frank McCourt tells us in Angela’s Ashes about a conversation he overheard when he was six, I don’t believe for a second that it actually went down that way. Doesn’t mean the story isn’t true.
The truth isn’t always in the data. More often than not, the truth is in the telling.
I’m not attempting to fictionalize the events to deceive or manipulate. I’m not selling anything. It’s just that as I recall these things I can’t always remember all the details, so I fill in the blanks. Also, I think about the meaning of the events. What the story means is as real as what physically happened. If I want to dramatize that meaning, I can. It’s my blog and I’ll do what I want. If you don’t like it, argue with me in the comments section, or add me to your prayer list, but for God’s sake don’t talk to me about the Truth unless I'm your president or pastor.
I happen to believe that there is a Truth “out there,” separate from our experiences. But I also happen to believe that such a Truth is pretty worthless. The only truth that matters is the one that’s “in here,” emerging through our stories and our relationships. Anything else is just a weapon. If it has to start with a capital letter, it’s probably used way too often to inflict blunt trauma.
If you’re the type to get your panties in a twist over what’s “true” and what’s not, here’s my advice: relax your grip on all the things you think you possess. First because it’s pure folly to think you really own anything anyway. And second, just because you think you control it doesn’t make it yours. Just sit back and enjoy the reach.
I heard singer-songwriter David Wilcox talk about putting God in a box, and how absurd that was.
“That’s like trying to put the wind in a box. You open the box a few days later, and you go ‘Damn, he was just here’.”
Kris Kristofferson might say these stories I share are a written contradiction: partly truth, partly fiction. Me? I’d say if Kris Kristofferson said that, he’d be mostly right.
COMING IN FEBRUARY: Book Reviews and…Politics (I think I’m finally ready to talk about it again.)
11 comments:
I have just discovered your blog. I love it. Keep up the good words. The things you are saying are real and honest. This is just the kind of thing we need to hear.
some use it to justify apathy and appeasement, afraid to call evil by its name. Moral courage is a poo-pooed thing in our culture. Ride that train if you must...me, I'll pass
TO ANONYMOUS COMMENTER: I'm confused. Why is it more morally courageous to judge and condemn than it is to promote dialogue and grace? In a society that seems to champion polarizing rhetoric and the doctrine of self-righteousness, sharing stories in love seems pretty courageous. Come on, you can do better than that.
Your not so subtle and not so casual swipes at a political ideology that differs from yours is what needs improvement. What you idealize as dialogue and grace is merely your secluded rantings for your point of view. Come on, your waxing on may bluff some, but not all. You know, the best lies are mostly true.
I'm confused, Anonymous. What needs improvement? Is it my lack of imagery and concealment, or is it my beliefs that need changing (I'm so embarrassed that you saw through my transparent charade.)? This seems to pose a paradox: If I move closer to the ideology you so clearly favor, I fear that my capacity for subtlety may be permanently impaired. Not to mention the fact that I would lose all moral authority for my arguments and would have to rely exclusively on my own arrogance or the you're-either-with-us-or-against-us, word-became-flesh talk radio hosts.
I'll pass. I tried the moral certainty and culture war approach for awhile in college. I won lots of arguments and caused lots of pain. I think I'll stick with the two commandments--loving God and neighbor--this time around. But you have fun with the Truth now, you hear. Be careful though, the most popular truths are mostly lies.
Well, I have many rantings to seclude before I sleep.
Sorry I didn't reply last evening, slumber called. Maybe I should start by saying perhaps I owe you an apology(only you will know). I don't know you from Adam, so perhaps I made an unfair assumption about your points(again, only you will know). You state that I have an ideology which I clearly favor. That is true, and I'll make no bones about it, nor try to hide it.
What I believe needs revision in your writing is your trying to portray yourself as a neutral searcher in this big ol' world of ours. When, in the first paragraph,you liken president's using stories to justify war with the likes of crooked CEO's, televangelist preaning for conversions,etc. Now, if in your mind when you typed this you included Clinton lobbing missles into a pharmaceutical company killing innocents on the brink of his Grand Jury, JFK surrounding Cuba w/warships and telling us of the evils of Communism, FDR retaliating against Japan and warning us of imperialist Japan, again JFK and the totalitarian scare stories regarding North Vietnam, etc...if in your mind you thought of these when you typed this and not only of the much maligned Bush,than I owe you an apology.If you were merely taking a jab at your political foe, Mr. Bush and wrapping it up in clever banter re: folk stories and parables to convey a point...than that Mr. Miller reveals you as the partisan I assumed you to be, and that is what needs improvement. Good things and bad things were accomplished in all those war efforts. But war is hideously ugly and an imperfect art to say the least. To dismiss the terror of the regimes dismantled in all of these efforts would be naive and foolish.But, Today's Left is all to willing to do so in hatred of Mr. Bush. Good luck in your political dialog which you stated you are about to undertake on your blog, and if I owe you an apology, please accept.
At the risk of surpassing the size of the original post with our comments (too late, I'm afraid), let me say that I appreciate your last response. I'll try to be brief, then flesh out these ideas in future posts.
I admire your passion and your desire for honesty. Your concerns about deceptive communication are well-intentioned, if not exactly realistic. Would that we could all cultivate the ability to speak (or blog) without bias or loss of neutrality. However, the moment we lay our hands on an idea, it begins to be shaped by our perspectives, whatever those may be. We are all partisans. So of course any time we tell a tale or turn a phrase, we risk betraying an ideology. The important question is, how conscious are we of our true intent? The extent to which we pose as one thing, only to slip another under the radar, is the extent to which we are not being entirely ethical. There is much more to this than I care to cover here, but it's a fascinating topic.
As for your concerns about my political fairness, they are well-founded. Few things make me more ill than to hear someone, who agrees with my politics, justify the operatives on our side of the fence while demonizing the other side. While we could debate about the significance of the events and the appropriateness of the comparisons, I would agree that in all of your examples presidents acted reprehensibly.
I make no secret of my opposition to much of President Bush's agenda. I had not, as yet, felt the need to delare that. I assumed that it would become apparent in my writing. I prefer to let my stories (lived and told) declare my positions, rather than declarations.
I suppose the two things that cause me to focus more on Bush are 1) he is the president now, and I'm not that interested in critiquing history; and 2) he has made much hay (and millions of votes) from his claims to evangelical Christian faith. While all the presidents you mentioned were men of faith, none of them have aligned themselves as closely to God. "To whom much is given, much is expected." Then Bush is accountable to a higher standard of behavior. You can't get the political benefits of faith, then neglect it in your behavior.
In my eyes, this war and the means through which we entered it don't meet that test. That's the point on which I'm sure we will not agree (and I won't debate in the comments section).
Thanks for the dialogue (looky there, all this resulted in a conversation). I hope you will drop by from time to time.
If Anonymous thinks that one of your motives in life is to mask political ideology with subtlety then he should attend one of your folk music concerts.
(I feel that i cannot dialogue fully and transparently unless i draw the other into who i am and i am drawn into who he or she is, so please allow me to give that my best shot.)
Maybe I'm demented...maybe schizophrenic...maybe confused...maybe trying to be something I'm not...but ironically i find that there are two kinds of people in this world and i am both. From birth i have been a reacher...idealistic...not dogmatic per se...but someone who has strived to stretch the limits of the possible by faith in the impossible. I have never been satisfied with what is, and have been fervently and consistently obsessed with what could be (and in many cases should be). I do not, however, embody either the one who rebels flagrantly and violently or the one who claims personal infallibility. Call me crazy, a liar, pious, or whatever you like, but my reach has been and continues to be driven by genuine empathic, burden-bearing love. Impossible? In the natural state of every human being, absolutely. In, through, and by the One who places His otherly divine Spirit in His children and lives His life through them... possible.
Some periods of my life, however, have been concerned with grasping. Like all graspers, uncertainty has made me most uncomfortable, and on a handful of occasions, suicidal. My zealous pursuit of Truth and of truths has often left me doubting, wandering, terrified of the future, and apathetic. While some of you reachers would embrace the doubting and the wandering, and though they have been valleys of tremendous growth, it is against my nature to embrace them. Yet through these valleys, which have been succeeded by rolling hills and mountaintops...more valleys...and more mountains, i have become increasingly eager to embrace the uncertainty along with the certainty.
Now we can get somewhere (or have we already gotten somewhere?).
What is this Truth we speak of? Or should i ask who is this Truth? I believe that there is one Truth, period, and that that Truth is the only thing worth reaching for. Can He be grasped? Of course not. Can He be tasted and seen "in here"? Without a doubt. The mystery of God is that He is both visible AND invisible...imminent AND transcendent...friend AND king...master AND servant...graciously and mercifully loving AND holy and wrathful. For me, and for anyone who earnestly desires and commits to reaching for Him, the mystical, non-polarized, uncategorical, blow-your-wildest-dreams-out-of-the-water Truth is more than worth reaching for. It's the only thing we have.
(BM-sorry for the "all caps"...blogger doesn't have italics so i capitalize for necessary emphasis. i hope you aren't too badly injured. ;-)
Excellent thoughts, Beloved. I appreciate your desire for humble, honest, relational dialogue. I also think you make a great point about the balance of reaching and grasping. It was never my intent to create some sort of oppositional dichotomy: a West Side Story-like showdown between the reachers and graspers. We need both kinds of people, and we need the duel urge within our spirits to keep us in balance. I suppose I felt the need to stress the reach, because it seems to be in shorter supply these days.
As far as I am concerned, you absolutely nail it with your description of Truth. It exists within relationship, and is thus full of paradox and mystery. It is something that exists out there, but is only known in here. What makes it so transcendent for me is the knowledge that I am loved, not as I should be, but as I am. When I understand Grace as the love that relentlessly pursues me, I am freed to reach without fear of injury.
When you grasp, may you always feel the grace that allows you to reach again.
Amen.
Post a Comment