The Prayer of the Wounded…

God, if you are there, come among us.

…if you are not…

May we be found faithful in the wake of your memory.

May we give raise to song in the remnant of the Event.

May we be found mournfully joyous in the knowledge of who we must now become,

The answer to each other’s prayers…



The Harrowing

The dust and I are daughters of destiny
I sit low
Dirty feet like souls laid bare, falling fallow on sacred ground
I breathe in the earth deeply
Like coming home
I am diving my descent

The dust and I are daughters of deficiency
I sit silent
Absent of a seed like soil tilled and turned over
Laying dormant
Staunchly empty
Purposefully preparing for the potential of the present
In rejection of a harvest for a season
I am found wanting

The dust and I are daughters of discrepancy
I sit in tension
In my lack may I be found fertile
Like a void of barren pregnancy
Ripe and teeming with the paradox of the possible
I sing with a mournful joy
Like a sorrowful serenity
The smell of Ash lingering upon the tips of my fingers
Bitter to the taste yet, sweet upon my lips

The dust and I are daughters of destiny

Is Religion Part of the Problem?

The second entry in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary (2011) defines religion as “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” While this is certainly a concise, applicable, and usable definition of religion, and though it is seemingly conducive to how the text has sought surmise the basic description and functionality of the religious framework, there are, indeed, subtle and nuanced differences that are cause for a greater divergence.

R.L. Johnstone (2007), in the book Religion in Society: A Sociology of Religion, defines religion as “a set of beliefs and rituals by which a group of people seeks to understand, explain, and deal with a world of complexity, uncertainty, and mystery, by identifying a sacred canopy of explanation and reassurance under which to live” (p. 14). Though this defining statement is much more unpacked, drawn out, and detailed, the two working definitions as presented by that of Johnstone and Merriam-Webster do bear many intrinsic commonalities and one could conclude that they are each explicitly similar. However, upon a closer examination, one will have revealed and realized what this observer believes to be at least one dramatic difference that seems to be ripe with implications.

Merriam-Webster begins by asserting the “personal” orientation of this “institutionalized system.” This emphasizes what is believed to be or what is seen as a highly individualized set of “attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” This definition has the person as center and as its starting point. The individual and personal nature of religion is at the heart of this proposal, highlighting only the individual activities. Also, this definition then seems to simultaneously contain a contradiction, in that how can an institution and or a system be ultimately defines as personal. While participation of the individual religious observant is an integral component to the operation of the institute, it seems antithetical to postulate that religion as a whole and at its most basic of levels is altogether personal.

Johnstone is then quick to retort by underlining the communal base as primary for the religious systemization.  This is decidedly a group effort and a shared experience. This does seem to be the more logical of the two arguments, as a collective comprisal would present a substantiated progression towards and an inundation of the institutionalization of a religious ordering of belief and practice. Yet, while this view does explain and give light to the standardization of the group, the definition seems to be asocial in the greater surrounding context of the religion. This definitive phrasing, taken on its own, does seem to suggest that although it may recognize the religious event as a social system, it alludes to a detachment from society. Although religious sects can and have withdrawn from the greater society, this does not free them from its effects.

This is what I find to be so intriguing in regards to the theories of Georg Simmel. Simmel underscored the influence that society has upon religious institutions.  Johnstone (2007) writes of Simmel’s thoughts, “Many feelings and patterns of expression commonly termed ‘religious’ are also…basic ingredients of social interaction in general” (p. 30). He goes on to say that “the models for many, if not all, religious sentiments, expressions, and beliefs, reside originally in society at large” (p. 30). This theory supposes that rather than society forming around a religion, religion, contrarily, forms around society. Just as Jean-Paul Sartre once suggested that existence precedes essence, likewise Simmel proposed that “society precedes religion” (Johnstone, 2007, p. 30). Thus, making clear that “Before religion can develop, there must first exist general patterns of social interaction – that is, a society – that can serve as a model” (p. 30). If this is true then all the efforts of religious communities to revitalize the faith, to renew its fervor, or to make it more relevant is itself, a misguided and ineffectual endeavor as it still does not address the root of the problem but only a manifestation. This treats only the symptoms while never actually attacking the virus. If we are asking why our religious institutions are failing it is surely because we have ignored the depravity lurking beyond the doors or our churches, choosing only to concentrate on internal conductions. Thus, until the religious communities abandon their temples and evacuate their houses of worship and take up active residence in the world of this earth, seeking  to dismantle and deconstruct the sociological fabrications of Western culture, socially, politically, economically, and philosophically. We must serve the “least of these.” We must clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit those in need, not in an effort increase numbers, or as an implicit humanitarian marketing campaign, and not even as the fulfillment of some arbitrary moral imperative delivered from the pulpit or from the misinterpreted pages of a book that we have stripped of its political subversiveness, but, because the face of the other is the face of God. Until we can replace and rebuild the dilapidated frames of our culture and our society our religious institutions will forever be found in ruin.

Christian Consumerism

Annie Leonard makes clear in The Story of Stuff that “Our primary identity has become that of being consumers – not mothers, teachers, or farmers, but of consumers. We shop and shop and shop” (Leonard, Priggen, & Fox, 2007). Certainly today’s mass media, mass marketing, and mass producing endeavors of the supermarket and megastore have captivated both our focus and our funds. They have tapped into what neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp “seeking” (Glei, 2010). Emily Yoffe, in her article entitled “Seeking,” writes that this behavior is the ultimate “mammalian motivational engine that each day gets us out of bed, or den, or hole to venture forth into the world” (Yoffe, 2009). Yoffe continues,
For humans, this desire to search is not just about fulfilling our physical needs…[H]umans can get just as excited about abstract rewards as tangible ones…[W]hen we get thrilled about the world of ideas, about making intellectual connections, about divining meaning, it is the seeking circuits that are firing.
The juice that fuels the seeking system is the neurotransmitter dopamine. The dopamine circuits ‘promote states of eagerness and directed purpose…It’s a state humans love to be in. So good does it feel that we seek out activities, or substances, that keep this system aroused (Yoffe, 2009).
In keeping with the movements and methods of a consumeristic society, religious institutions, themselves, have begun to adopt these capacities, all too willing to provide the “world of ideas” through which to “divine meaning” in an effort to “promote eagerness and directed purpose” in both its present and potential members. In other words, in many cases, the religious experience has become just one more commodity to be sought, bought, and sold. The dominating religions, denominations, communities, and organizations have become a kind of “brand” eliciting a type of “brand-recognition” to which one will prefer over another. Membership then becomes a semblance of “brand-loyalty.” As a result religious communities have adopted similar marketing models targeting their desired demographics. This, I think, is precisely why many churches have self-titled themselves as “seeker-sensitive.”
One quickly thinks of the empire building efforts of many in Evangelical Christianity. In these instances the pastors of the growing number of “mega-churches” have become equal parts media mogul and corporate CEO. As a result a religious industrial machine is created; in which constant capital must be poured into in order to keep the wheels of industry continuingly moving and producing, and will seek to do so via targeted membership who will enable the means of the organization. “[T]elevangelists can fill a stadium at the same rate as a rock star and theme park can sell tickets to the Holy Land, organized religion has in many ways put a price tag on salvation” (Christman, 2011). Those heavily inundated by this type of economic ideology will see the magnitude of numbers in the way of attendance and contribution as a sign of God’s endorsement or favor.
However, many of lower socio-economic statuses are disenchanted by this vision of religion. They can no longer relate to these organizations, and thus, seek to form a congregation of greater similarity, and this is precisely why many sects form. The sect members will then often condemn and forbid actions or appearances reminiscent of the overindulgent system they cry out against. Yet, as increased social mobility occurs within the membership, many will become more loose or lenient with these prohibitions or will leave altogether.
Just as a total separation of church and state is nearly impossibly, so the separation of religion and economics is next to an unimaginable possibility. Whether a religious institution chooses to operate upon a business model more closely resembling that of a corporation or chooses to be a more socially engaging and justice orientated organization of community outreach and grassroots activity, power, water, and lights must still be paid. Even if not at the center of a religious community, economics is a necessary evil in keeping the organization in operation. It takes money to stay in motion, the most important question that remains is then will the religious community act in fiscal responsibility, maintaining a basis inclusivity and effectuality, concerning itself first and foremost with the well-being of its members over that which is monetary, or will seek to monopolize the market in an effort to sell God?
Christman, C. (2011). Selling God. [DVD]. USA: Breaking Glass Pictures.
Leonard, A. (Writer), Priggen, E. (Producer), & Fox, L. (Director). (2007). The story of stuff. [DVD]. USA: Free Range Studios.


I pour over pages not my own
The words are the voice of another
I sit silently
And I have nothing to say
Another book dated, annotated, and placed upon the shelf
Keeping score of my inconsequential accomplishments
And I have nothing to say
My head, filled to the bursting
My heart, brimming over with desire
My hands, burning for a chance
My ink wells are empty
And I have nothing to say
I scream to be heard
Give me a platform
A stage
An audience
A microphone
And I have nothing to say
Tongues are torn out for the confession of contradiction and controversy
Yet there is no heresy greater than the tongue silenced from disuse