Majesty

"On Maui, one November, Hugh and I went swimming, and turned to find a gigantic sea turtle coming up between us. As gentle as a cow she was, and with a cow's dopey, almost lovesick expression on her face.  That, to me, was worth the entire trip, worth my entire life, practically.  For to witness majesty, to find yourself literally touched by it--isn't that what we've all been waiting for?" -- David Sedaris, in his article Loggerheads: Sea turtles and me which was included in the January 7th, 2009 edition of The New Yorker.

Soul Types: Matching Your Personality and Spiritual Path

http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/reviews/item/31
In the book Soul Types, the authors, Hirsh and Kise, link personality types and preferred methods of pursuing spirituality. Click through on the link above to read Meg's review.

The Sacraments -- From the Shorter Catechism of Craig

The Larger Catechism of Craig was first printed in Edinburgh in 1581.  The General Assembly (that's the ruling Presbyterian body) endorsed it and asked John Craig, the author, to shorten it a bit.  This catechism was then used until the Westminster Catechism became the standard in 1649.  (The Westminster Catechism is still used by most Presbyterian (and Anglican/Episcopalian ?) churches today.)

I thought the bit on the sacraments in Craig's catechism was interesting.  I'm not a huge fan of sacraments, mostly because they seem utterly meaningless to me in the form they're often administered in now-a-days. But I found John Craig's take on them worth a double take.  I wonder if most Presbyterians would agree with him today.  The following is taken from Philip Schaff's book, The Creeds of Christendom. The bolded parts are the bits that intrigued me most. 

Q: What is a Sacrament?

A: A sensible sign and seal of God's favor offered and given to us. 

Q: To what end are the Sacraments given?

A: To nourish our faith in the promise of God.

Q: How can sensible signs do this?

A: They have this office of God, not of themselves.   

Q: How do the Sacraments differ from the Word?

A: They speak to the eye, and the Word to the ear.

Q: Speak they other things than the Word?

A: No, but the same diversely. 

Q: But the word doth teach us sufficiently?

A: Yet the Sacraments with the Word do it more effectually.

Q: What, then, are the Sacraments to the Word?

A: They are sure and authentic seals given by God.

Q: May the Sacraments be without the Word?

A: No, for the Word is their life.

Q: May the Word be fruitful without the Sacraments?

A: Yes, no doubt, but it worketh more plenteously with them. 

Q: What is the cause of that?

A: Because more senses are moved to the comfort of our faith. 

If a Sacrament is a "sensible sign" I wonder what an insensible sign was? 

In the 3rd question, he refers to the Sacraments almost as if they have a life of their own. They're not the ones that have authority, God is.  They're just followers of God's orders.  And later he says the Word is their life.  What an organic and dynamic way of referring to what many make obscenely dull and lifeless!  

I love how in the 6th question his answer begins with "yet."  Today we'd say, "Yeah, but...." It's like a little teeny slap in the face to anyone that wants to diss the Sacraments.  

And in the end, why are Sacraments so important?  Because they take the truth of the Scriptures and make them physical to the rest of our senses.  God made us sensual beings, craving taste, touch, sound, sight and smell.  Our faith should be appealed to throughout all of our senses, not through our intellect alone.  How many Presbyterian churches today would believe as much?  Not many that I know of. (OK, so they're big on music and preaching, but sight, touch, taste or smell?) 

Stories vs. Facts

I watched an episode of LOST last night in which one of the characters told another one that he loved her.  There'd been a tension going on for awhile in the show, then other characters entered in as possible love interests further muddying the water, and then this -- an out and out declaration. 

The fact that love was declared isn't really the most interesting tidbit, though. What I find interesting is that that scene kept running through my mind, unbidden, while I was stuffing laundry into the washing machine.  I'd most recently spent about an hour working on the church finances and sending out work related emails.  My mind had many other facts and figures it could have settled on.  But it settled on a story.  It wasn't even a matter of recalling the "fact" in the story (that love was declared) but recalling the whole scene, the trees, the looks on their faces, the words themselves.  

Stories are like that.  They contain facts, or details.  (I should point out that I'm using the word "facts" somewhat loosely here.  It's a "fact" that the statement was made in the show.  But given that the show is entirely fictional, how much of a "fact" is that really?) But stories contain so much more -- context, images, actions and reactions, feelings.  When I was stuffing laundry into the washing machine, it wasn't just an impersonal detail that drifted into my mind, it was a whole feeling that seemed to expand in my chest, an image that flashed before my eyes, a sensation of reliving the moment in all of its joy and angst. 

D recently posted something along the same lines (although the concern was rather different). Stories stay with us differently than facts do.  They seem to nest within us, occasionally flapping their wings to remind us of their presence.  

It's interesting to note that dreams come in the form of stories -- not necessarily coherent stories, but stories all the same.  We don't wake up and think, "Wow, that was quite a dream about the periodic table." If we're going to have a dream about science, it will involve action and people and some odd plot line that we'll later try to explain to our spouse or friend or roommate and we'll struggle because we recognize that we're simply not doing the intricate twists and turns any justice.  We don't dream in lists or outlines or powerpoint presentations. We dream in stories. And when I wake up, I'll feel that story in a way that I just don't feel facts and figures. 

I think facts are important. The right set of facts can build up into a compelling story eventually.  But to remember something, to connect with it and respond to it, what works best is a story. That's exactly why the anecdotal evidence is often believed despite facts to the contrary.  It's not scientific or precise, but it's compelling.  It connects to my being in a way that facts simply don't. 

Soul Types - INTJ

My sister has started to give me personality type related books for Christmas.  The most recent one she gave me is called Soul Types by Sandra Krebs Hirsh and Jane A. G. Kise. The book divides people into 4 over all soul types and then breaks each of those down into two smaller subsets:

Sensing

- Extroverted Sensing (ESTP, ESFP): The Active Spiritual Path

- Introverted Sensing (ISTJ, ISFJ): The Time-Honored Spiritual Path

Intuitive

- Extraverted Intuition (ENTP, ENFP): The Catalytic Spiritual Path

- Introverted Intuition (INTJ, INFJ): The Illuminating Spiritual Path

Thinking

- Extraverted Thinking (ESTJ, ENTJ): The Analytical Spiritual Path

- Introverted Thinking (ISTP, INTP): The Conceptual Spiritual Path  

Feeling

- Extraverted Feeling (ESFJ, ENFJ): The Community-Oriented Spiritual Path

- Introverted Feeling (ISFP, INFP): The Personal Spiritual Path

Though not everything she said about INTJ's fit with my natural tendencies, many did  (not just in terms of spirituality, but in other areas as well).  I thought I'd post a few excerpts that I think describe me:

"Their paths reflect a desire to learn, know, and work out their own spiritual philosophy. Often they are most interested in exploring big questions significant to their worldview and working out their own answers, studying in depth until they reach a solid understanding."  (p. 121)

This is in stark contrast to those who hear something from an "expert" and fall for it hook, line and sinker.  I know people like that, but that is definitely, certainly, absolutely and positively not me. Although I may come to agree with something that "experts" have written, it is only because I have done copious amounts of study on my own and have decided that the "experts" did a decent job.  That said, I'm not above adding notes and corrections to what an "expert" has said.  (Well, except Jesus.  I don't know that I've ever corrected him.  He rocks.)

Here's more along a similar vein:

"While Introverted Intuitive types enjoy listening to qualified experts or participating in discussions, if they need answers to a particular question, they are likely to go to a library or bookstore, read several sources, then come to their own conclusions.  They also enjoy in-depth study of a variety of topics, retreating with a stack of books to an inspiring place to indulge in the luxury of spending time with intellectual explorations that feed the soul." p. 124-125)

This is so me... and so not Rob.  Rob likes to take a passage of Scripture, perhaps even just one little verse, and sit and think on it.  He'll repeat it and meditate on it and underline it and read it again.  But doing that would drive me absolutely batty (more so than I already am).  Reading something once is enough for me.  I want to move on and see how it fits in context.  Better yet, I want to do a study on a greater theme and see how the bits and pieces and details fit together to create a cogent whole that I can them fit into some pleasing metaphors or guiding principles.  

"Introverted Intuitive types often pursue study for the purpose of designing or planning educational materials or presentations that will help others deepen their beliefs."  (p. 125)

OMG. That has Meg written all over it.  I've worked on a devotional for years.  I've seen other people's devotionals and they're essentially just pretty bits of string tied into little bows.  There's no substance to them.  Of course, if someone else were to read what I've written, perhaps they'd think the same thing.  But writing them, that took all sorts of study and thinking and cud chewing.   That's what I love.  ... Hmmm, I think I've published the first chapter here on Multiply somewhere. Sure enough. (Ignore the dorky logo.  I just didn't want Multiply-Man standing there.)

I've also, more recently, been working on writing a Bible study.  We attend a fairly conservative church and though I tend to agree with the doctrine, the church's opinions in other areas (such as politics, the environment, and meat eating) tend to turn my stomach. (But I've willingly put myself into that congregation, so I don't make a big stink about it.  I just make occasional jabs and they all make occasional jabs back... all in good fun.  And having to relate to someone who agrees with them theologically but disagrees in other areas has been really eye-opening and paradigm shifting for some of them in a good way, imo.)  I've tried to suggest a systematized study of environmental issues and what the Bible has to say about them.  But the book I suggested was shot down faster than my dog can nab a squirrel.  So I decided that the only way to really address this issue in any way that as going to work with these folks, I'd have to write a Bible study.  They wouldn't hear anything an unknown (tree hugging) author said, but they'd listen if it came to them straight out of Scripture.

... Anyway, all that to say that I definitely fit into the soul type that wants to do research in order to educate others.  I think that also comes out in my interactions here on Multiply.  I'm often helping people figure out how to use the site or fix problems. 

Our spirituality is something that we think of as something deeply personal and unique to ourselves, but here I've been pegged by Sandra and Jane who don't even know me.  Whew!  That's a trip.