noisy prayer today.
too many issues: a juryless trial mentioned in the news and no proper mention of the protesters outside the courtroom; the media now fretting about what parents put in their children's packed lunches with possible legislation mentioned. . . . more sliding to the right.
I was reading an old diary last night [1994] and my prayer was therefore full of difficult memories around this.
on the positive side, the part that those I have loved have played in my spiritual life and, more negatively, the way in which that spiritual life is such a difficulty in my own family.
the essential links between the spiritual (religious) life and the artistic one but the way in which the former can incorporate the latter but the latter cannot incorporate the former.
some confusion over a book I am presently reading about st paul (in search of paul). written in 2005 this book is clearly influenced by media 'on-the-spot' documentaries [perhaps hoping that it will be made into one] and our present obsession with archeology (the 'timeteam syndrome') . there are also clipped ungrammatical bloglike sentences.
although hard to read because it's so badly laid out, it has a great deal of important new information about st paul which may well (but similarly might not) be future-changing:
an insight into the nature of 'imperial divinity' through augustus caesar and the part it played in holding together an otherwise disparate empire. much is made of this and at times one wonders where paul comes in at all.
this connects with something I read about paul by tom wright: namely the way in which paul was (unknowingly?) instrumental in 'bringing down' the roman empire. this latest book sheds more light on that amazing idea.
listened to an important talk on youtube by tim radcliffe (my old chaplain at college) 'the church in the 21st century'. I didnt agree with everything he said (to my surprise). he was emphatic that the enlightenment was all about control rather than freedom citing henry viii as an example. oversimplifying? this sounds reactionary to me. further thought needed.
[he also got me thinking about spin. he speaks wonderfully on openness and 'conversation' on behalf of a church whose leader doesn't really share these strengths [except nominally?] is this justified? is he trying to lead or trying to smooth over? I know that he is actually doing the former. though the result may well be the latter, provided one keeps firmly in mind that 'we' are the church and not 'they', one can overlook this. but isnt he in a way being 'used'? [but doesnt the church in a strange way 'use' all its saints?]
the dominican jesuit role in the church is sometimes a difficult one in this area. . . . . . . . . . . I am tempted to delete all that because I can see that I am taking the stand of the 'enemy' here. I am confusing the church we see with the church that God sees and this will always lead to impasse. I should know that by now.
talking of the church I took a stand at sunday mass. the collection at the end was on behalf of anti-abortion but where was that money actually going? campaigning? I didnt put money in the collection and I refused the little white badge the lady was wanting to stick on everyone.
tim radcliffe raised this matter in his talk and put it so sensitively that noone could be offended.
diplomacy.
the noise gets me nowhere.
let go you say
and you muffle my music again. . . . .