During my meditation time, I’ve been experimenting with contempletive prayer.  The basic idea is to sit quietly, remaining open to God’s presence and leading.  Today I thought I would share with you some of Thomas Merton’s guidance about this spiritual discipline:

“What is the purpose of meditation in the sense of the ‘prayer of the heart’?  We seek . . . to gain a direct grasp, a personal experience of the deepest truths of life and faith, finding ourselves in God’s truth.”

“We return to simplicity and sincerity of heart.”

“We wish to lose ourselves in <God’s> love and rest <in God.>” (Note that I have changed the masculine pronouns referring to God to the noun “God.”)

“We wish to hear <God’s> word and respond to it with our whole being.”

“We aim at purity of heart, an unconditional and totally humble surrender to God, a total acceptance of ourselves and our situation.”

“<We renounce> all deluded images of ourselves, all exaggerated estimates of our own capacities.”

“What am I?  I am myself a word spoken by God.  Can God speak a word that does not have meaning?”

“Does God impose a meaning on my life from the outside, through event, custom, routine, law, system, impact with others in society?  Or am I called to create from within, with <God>, with <God’s> grace, a meaning which reflects <God’s> truth and makes me <God’s> word?”

“We wish to embrace God’s will in its naked, often unpenetrable mystery.  I cannot discover my “meaning” if I try to evade the dread which comes from first experiencing my meaninglessness.”

“. . . my life and aims tend to be artificial, inauthentic, as long as I am simply trying to adjust my actions to certain exterior norms of conduct that will enable me to play an approved part in the society in which I live.”

“. . . we should let ourselves be brought naked and defenseless into the center of that dread where we stand alone before God in our nothingness, without explanation, without theories, completely dependent upon <God’s> providential care, in dire need of the gift of grace, mercy, and the light of faith.”

“When we seem to possess and use our being and natural faculties in a completely autonomous manner, as if our individual ego were the pure source and end of our own acts, then we are in illusion and our acts, however spontaneous they may seem to be, lack spiritual meaning and authenticity.”

“Meditation implies . . . a permanent disposition to humility, attention to reality, receptivity, pliability.”

“If our hearts remain apparently indifferent and cold, we should at least realize that this coldness is itself a sign of our need and of our helplessness.  We should take it as a motive for prayer.  The waiting .. . itself will be for us a school of humility.”

The ruling by Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, that Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, is illegal is having reverberations around the nation.  Appealed immediately, of course, the ruling is destined to go all the way to the Supreme Court, which means that the highest law of the land and every citizen of the land will be involved.  Those who previously were looking on from the sidelines can do so no longer.  This is as it should be, for the kind of discrimination LGBT folks have experienced should be lifted up and looked at in the clear light of reason, for once and for all. 

Some of the excerpts from Judge Walker’s decision (NY Times 8/5/10) are telling.  He wrote:

“Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.  Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”

“Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.  . . . . this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.  The Constitution cannot control private biases, but neither can it tolerate them . . . .”

“Tradition alone . . . cannot form the rational basis for a law.”  (italics mine)

Consider all of the various ways that “tradition” would continue to oppress huge classes of people, had not the law intervened, backed by years of protest, and often written in blood:  slavery, child labor, denial of property rights for women and people of color; denial of the right to vote; denial of due process. 

Tradition is simply patterns of behavior which have evolved.  Some of these patterns are useful and nurturing of person and of community: holidays and holy days, birthday parties, memorial services, the 4th of July, for example.  Others tie us to our ancestors in ways that remind us where we came from, or what we believe: we may go to midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, or fast on Yom Kippur; we may have a special dinner every Thanksgiving, or go hunting for deer as soon as the season opens. 

But some traditions divide, some say, “We’re different, and we’re better, and we deserve more.”  This attitude, Judge Walker reminds all of us, is not a rational basis for law–and is downright unAmerican.  May I remind us all of the following Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all <persons> are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

One of the finest ways of pursuing happiness is falling in love and choosing a life partner and declaring your love before all the world in a public ceremony called “marriage.”  It is a promise worth making, and a declaration most holy.  Why should it be denied to anyone who loves?

For those of you who haven’t had a chance to see our documentary, “Raw Faith,” the film will be shown this Thursday, August 5, at 7:00 p.m. at Maitripa College, 1119 SE Market St., here in Portland.  I will be present for a Q&A after the screening.  The screening will be in the Meditation Hall and will be preceded by a social hour from 6:00-7:00.  The event is free and open to the public.
 

Spoiler alert: don’t read this review if you don’t want to find out what happens in this movie.

Yes, the kids are all right, though their family is unconventional: Joni and Laser have two moms, Nic and Jules, and this lesbian couple each had one of the children, courtesy of an anonymous sperm donor, Paul, when Paul was 19.  Except Paul doesn’t remain anonymous–the now-teenage kids seek him out, and everybody in the family begins to try to relate to this late-coming “dad,” who is a charming hippie organic farmer.  The film’s strength is that it shows the two moms as, hey, just an ordinary couple with ordinary couple problems and helps viewers who might have stereotypical ideas about same-sex couples, reconsider.  And yes, the kids are all right– they have not been adversely affected by having moms instead of a mom and a dad.  Score another point for same-sex marriages. 

Now, then–all hell breaks loose when Jules (played by Julianne Moore) begins doing some landscaping for Paul (Mark Ruffalo).  He appreciates Jules’ work, whereas her partner Nic is something of a control freak and tends to behave “one-up” in her relationship with Jules.  Jules surprises herself by falling into lust with Paul, and after one tryst, they can’t stay away from each other.  He’s falling in love with her, and begins to see that this family thing is really nice, what with the two almost-grown children he now has in his life.

Now I like this film–it captured my attention all the way through with excellent acting and a fine script–but I began to have a problem with the resolution–or non-resolution of the relationship between Paul and Jules.  Basically, Nic finds out about the affair, confronts Jules, and of course the children find out.  Everyone is mad at Paul for messing up this tidy family.  Paul comes over and apologizes abjectly to everyone, and then stands outside the house and in anger and disgust with himself, throws his motorcycle helmet on the ground.  Jules makes a pat speech to the Nic and the kids about how tough marriage is, but how you just have to work through the tough times, and says that she’s sorry for the affair and that she loves Nic.   And that’s supposed to be the end of it?

No, that’s what I don’t buy.  The passion between Jules and Paul is real and was strong, so where are these two going to go with that?  Is it really “all over”?  Are the kids never going to see their biological father again?  Will Paul never be a part of the family?  Also, Nic is not really a very sympathetic character, as I see her.  She comes across as terribly controlling and condescending–plus being uptight and something of a budding alcoholic.  For my money, Paul is a much nicer person.  Yeah, yeah, I know other reviewers are describing him as “self-absorbed.”  I’m not sure exactly why–he is a business man with an organic farm and a restaurant.  He seems to be genuinely sensitive and relational.  And he is way sexy.  

So if Jules is going to give up the passion she has with Paul, who genuinely respects her and cares for her, plus their shared interest in farming and gardening–which we’re all thinking she must do, because no body wants a lesbian couple to break up on screen, and we all want the children to have an intact home, then I wish the director had made Nic a little nicer, a litter easier to live with.

Just kidding.  If women’s values were predominant, then nobody would “rule the world”: we would understand our profound interdependence, and know that the good of one is inextricably bound to the good of all others.

Which brings me to the fascinating article, “The End of Man,” by Hanna Rosin, in this month’s Atlantic.  Rosin cites some significant changes in the balance of gender roles.  For example, for the first time in history, more women than men make up the work force of our nation.  Women hold 51 percent of the professional and managerial positions (although not so at the top of this heap).  And when choosing the sex of a child, couples these days more often than not say, “We want a girl.”  And this is only the beginning, says Rosin.

So what’s causing the shift?  Maybe we just want a change.  Maybe we’ve had enough ego-based behavior, testosterone-driven wars, puffed-up striving.  Maybe we can see that the values that have driven our society have driven us into the ground and are on the verge of making life unlivable for future generations.  Maybe we’ve saying “enough, already.”

Now we know that both men and women carry both male and female sides within.  So we have no shortage of examples of women who will lead nations into war or who will cut throats in the boardroom.  And there are also plenty of examples of men who are gentle and nurturing, who care passionately for the earth and its inhabitants.  I have two sons I would count among them, and a husband. 

But note that 90% of the folks who are in jail are male.  Men are much more likely than women to develop their aggressive side.  The male hormones, androgen and testosterone; male physical strength; the cultural mandate that men be warriors; the societal conditioning of men to avoid tender feelings; the evolution of an economic system that rewards competition rather than co-operation; and the expectation, until quite recently, that the male be the bread-winner: all these factors have combined to push aggression in the male and to discourage the development of relationality, spirituality, and an emotional life that can contain fear and sadness as well as anger.

So what would the world look like if, in fact, women ruled?  If when you opened your newspaper and saw on the front page a picture of the latest meeting of world leaders, or corporation heads, or members of Congress, almost all of them were women–and not just white women–but women of color–what would our world be like?  Allow me to fantasize, to dream:  

–The United States would no longer squander its resources on foreign wars to protect American business interests and to support our reckless habits of consumption.  Instead, the money would be used for education, for service to the most vulnerable among us, for the strengthening of our infrastructure, both human and material.

–Competition would belong to the world of sport and games, but in other human endeavors, other values would prevail–values such as co-operation, excellence, integrity, character, skill, patience, care, and compassion.  Phrases like “We killed them!” and “We really kicked ass!” and “We rolled over them!”  would sound antiquated and offensive.

–Elected leaders would ask one another the question the Masai tribe use as a greeting, “How are the children?”  And if they cannot answer, as the Masai do, “The children are well,” they would set about making a world in which children would be well, both now and in the future.  Most of these leaders would be mothers, you see–that would be their primary identity–and so more than anything else in the world, they would want the children to have a future.

Everyone needs both male and female energy, both yin and yang, to become a whole personality.  We need the male initiative, courage, power, the thrusting forward; we need the female nurturing, listening, feeling, taking in and holding.  But we’ve been way, way over-loaded with male energy in this culture.  What is happening now, I think, is that we are reaching for more of a balance.  At least that is my fervent hope.  We’ll all be the better for it.