Jul 23, 2023 | My sort-of Sermons, Spirituality
A few years back, my oldest daughter told me about a podcast she’d discovered called Harry Potter and the Sacred Text. Hosted by Vanessa Zoltan and Casper Ter Kuile, each episode analyzed a single chapter from one of the books using poignant themes like loneliness, compassion, advocacy, etc. They were determined to show that you can treat secular things as if they are sacred.
From June 2016 through March 2021, the two of them read, interpreted, and exegeted every chapter of every book. They offered creative ways to look at the text, invited easy-to-apply practices (marginalia, florilegia, PaRDeS, lectio divina, to name only a few), and helped us become better people along the way. Then, in April 2021, Vanessa started over, this time with a new cohost and a commitment to “re-examine the whole Harry Potter series again from the beginning with even more rigor, demonstrating that loving a text responsibly means acknowledging the places where it falls short.” [Source] (Oh, how I love this last phrase . . . and could not possibly agree more!)
I wish I could say I have listened to every episode vs. only the first season. I have meant to go back and pick up where I left off, but it still has not happened. Nevertheless, Zoltan and Ter Kuile’s beautiful sacredizing of what most would consider secular has kept me in its grip . . . its embrace, really.
I grew up with the not-to-be-questioned belief that only one Text was to be called sacred; only one Text was worthy (and demanding) of my time, attention, devotion, and obedience. Whether because I am an oldest child or an Enneagram 3, perfection and excellence and proving myself were paramount where this Text was concerned. I read it, over and over again. I underlined. I copied whole sections into organized notebooks. I memorized. I undoubtedly read more books about it than the Text itself had pages. And I did everything in my power to live according to its teachings. Honestly: it was exhausting! I’d like to say that I did become a better person along the way, but not without cost.
What is the cost of viewing the sacred as something nearly unattainable but requiring our endless pursuit? What is the cost of determining one’s worthiness through a lens of self-sacrifice, sin, and the pursuit of perfection? What is the cost of believing the sacred to be something transcendent as opposed to a way of being that honors the everyday and the ordinary? I’m still counting those costs, to be sure: undoing them, deconstructing them, healing them.
It took me decades to even obliquely consider the possibility that the sacred was mine to define and discern, to experience and express, let alone be discovered outside the narrow and prescriptive path I’d been committed to walking. But once I began to see other ways of understanding the sacred, I couldn’t un-see. Thankfully.
It’s helpful to acknowledge the most common definition of “sacred:” The Oxford dictionary says it means being connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration. Synonyms are holy, hallowed, consecrated, sanctified, revered. It assumes “religious” rather than secular and it usually embodies the laws or doctrines of a religion.
It’s no wonder this eludes our grasp, even our experience!
I prefer Vanessa Zoltan’s definition, instead:
“[The sacred is] something that you are in an intentional relationship with that gets you better at loving.”
This is worth reading again. (Go ahead: I’ll wait for you.)
It’s also worth pondering.
What are the things (people, activities, habits) with which you are in intentional relationship? Do they get you better at loving? What memories do you have of the sacred that expanded your way of being in the world, that invited you to more compassion (for self and others), that increased your capacity to love? If you were to adopt this distinct definition of “sacred,” with what might you choose to be in relationship?
These questions open up whole worlds of worship, really; vast realms of awe and wonder; room to move and explore and broaden our understanding and experience of the sacred. Which, it seems to me, is the very point of any kind of spirituality: more, deeper, wider, open, inclusive, expansive.
Sadly, we’ve been plagued for centuries by smaller and smaller allowances of the same. Denominations. Doctrines. Dogma. Smaller still, are the ways in which these very things now segment us from one another; they create us/them divisions with increasingly loud agendas: how we vote and for whom, who is allowed rights or even considered “sacred” in the first place, how much freedom particular people (women, specifically) have to make choices for themselves. . . .
As the collective mind narrows, it’s not all that surprising that we struggle to find the sacred in much of anything. We desperately need a new understanding, a new way forward, and for sure, anything that helps us get better at loving. Even if it’s Harry Potter . . . or Jane Eyre.
In 2021, Vanessa Zoltan wrote a book called Praying with Jane Eyre: Reflections on Reading as Sacred Practice. She used many of the same premises applied to the Harry Potter podcast, but this time with a literary classic (that I happen to love). Within it she says this:
Sacredness is an act, not a thing. If I can decide that Jane Eyre is sacred, that means it is the actions I take that will make it so. The decision to treat Jane as sacred is an important first step, surely, but that is all the decision was—one step. The ritual, the engagement with the thing, is what makes the thing sacred. . . . The text did not determine the sacredness; the actions and actors did, the questions you asked of the text and the way you returned to it.
That’s worth reading again. (Go ahead: I’ll wait for you.)
Ascribing sacredness to something is not from “on high” or only reserved for chosen texts, people, or even deities. Instead, our decisions, our choices, our actions and engagement are what make it so.
And because this is the case, it opens us up to profound levels of possibility and grace. When the sacred is not a “thing,” but something we do—not a noun, rather, a verb—then nearly anything can qualify. Yes, reading a text. But also walking in nature, baking cookies, playing with your kids, writing for self and/or others, rearranging furniture, meditating, doing water aerobics, even watching a movie.
I’ve re-watched You’ve Got Mail many, many times. But it represents so much more to me than just a movie now, because I’ve made it more meaningful. I have very specific rituals for when and how to watch (always alone, always with a tub of Pralines and Cream Häagen-Dazs ice cream). It’s not an “Oh, what shall we watch?” kind of movie; it’s an “I’m feeling lost and alone, and I need everything I’ve got to bring me out of this slump” kind of movie. Certain lines are inscribed on my heart, like mantras. Characters are totems of how I want to be—or not be—in the world. While for most people it’s just another rom-com, for me, You’ve Got Mail is sacred. ~ Casper Ter Kuile, The Power of Ritual: Turning Everyday Activities into Soulful Practices
In other words (and said yet again), we get to decide what we deem sacred, what we will read and ponder and reflect on again and again, where we will find meaning (and what ice cream flavor best compliments such), and the endless ways in which all of this and then some invites us to become a better person along the way; to get better at loving.
Honestly, I could write about this topic for a very long time (and, of course, in many ways, I have been). But for now, let me make one last point. Better said, let Vanessa Zoltan make one last point—again from Praying with Jane Eyre:
My thesis in this experiment was not that Jane Eyre was sacred in and of itself but that if I treated something as sacred, it could be sacred. My trust was in my ability to treat something as sacred and for it to teach me if I did so.
Mmmmm. This feels like perfect prayer and benediction, yes?
May we act and engage in ways that treat things (and certainly each other) as sacred, because they are.
Jun 17, 2023 | Spirituality
Last weekend I received an email that began with these words from John O’Donohue:
There is a place in you where you have never been wounded . . . where there’s a seamlessness in you, and where there is a confidence and tranquility in you.
The intention of prayer and spirituality and love is now and again to visit that inner kind of sanctuary.
Initially, all I did was breathe in the first portion: I am not wounded. I am seamless. I am confident and tranquil. But as the week has worn on, the last sentence has repeatedly taken my breath away: The intention of . . . spirituality . . . is now and again to visit that inner kind of sanctuary.
My paraphrase?
I totally get it. And I completely agree! It echoes the claim of “spiritual, but not religious.” It affirms the definition of spirituality itself: “noun: spirituality; the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.” [Oxford] I have no argument with any of this.
Here’s what’s taken me aback:
As I’ve sat with his words, mulled them over in pages of journaling, even found myself repeating them with clients in past days, I’ve felt an inner dissonance—a nagging (and surprising) tension between what O’Donohue affirms and what I was taught. I thought I’d gotten over all that! Despite my now-decades of deconstruction, the book I’ve written, the ongoing conversations I have about every bit of this, my unswerving belief in our sovereignty and agency and beauty and strength, there are, apparently, theological tender hooks that still have me in their grip.
Admittedly, this is WAY too simplistic (and more caustic/critical than I mean for it to be), but I grew up hearing, learning, and sadly incorporating that I am wounded. I am broken. And I do not, cannot, know wholeness or confidence or tranquility apart from God. That’s why I need God. I am NOT saying that it’s impossible to be healed and made whole through a belief in and commitment to God; that confidence and tranquility aren’t to be found in the divine. I AM saying and asserting how surprised I am that I am surprised (!) by the idea that I could be the very object of, location of, and intention of spirituality itself.
Again, I already KNOW this—intellectually and objectively. No matter my rational awareness, it does not negate the part of me, unbidden and unwanted, that argues, that resists, that whispers-if-not-shouts that spirituality can’t possibly be self-focused. It doesn’t matter that I don’t actually believe this to be true. The subconscious messaging persists. And it does matter: seeing and naming every bit of this.
“Centuries ago, the people mediating between supplicants and God were priests. Now, in our secular culture, we turn to parents, critics, partners, bosses, even strangers on Instagram. We are easy to shame, eager to prove our worthiness, to see validation from some power outside ourselves.” ~ Elise Loehnen, On Our Best Behavior: The Seven Deadly Sins and the Price Women Pay to Be Good
- It helps me understand, at least in part, why I have struggled to see myself as worthy, good, and sovereign; you and me both have ingested just the opposite, sometimes completely unawares.
- It helps me understand why, upon questioning-if-not-leaving the church and its doctrine/dogma, I struggle to find a way of believing-and-being that doesn’t feel like a slippery slope “backwards.”
- It helps me understand why I sometimes feel a sort-of magnetic pull toward the pursuit of something (or someone) outside of myself vs. an honoring of what’s within.
“We are so fixated on an authority ‘out there,’ we’re missing the miracles inside, all the moments that illuminate our connection to something bigger within ourselves.” ~ Elise Loehnen
- And it helps me understand why it seems that a window has been thrown open in a musty and dark room; I am breathing in the freshest air, gasping even, as I read these words yet again:
There is a place in you where you have never been wounded . . . where there’s a seamlessness in you, and where there is a confidence and tranquility in you.
The intention of prayer and spirituality and love is now and again to visit that inner kind of sanctuary.
My reason for writing about this is not to convince you of anything. Nor am I making a case for spirituality in and of itself. I am articulating, yet again, just how deeply we have been influenced by a system of beliefs that, by their very definition, require a god and in such, have the overwhelming tendency to lessen/weaken our sense of self. It is as though being strong, whole, and complete and having a relationship with the divine are mutually exclusive. *sigh*
The irony is not lost on me. I have been writing about and talking about all of this and then some for a very long time—retelling the ancient, sacred stories of women so they are (and we are) seen and honored as strong, whole, and complete; not made to blame for the downfall of humanity, silenced or shamed—whether by God, the over-culture, and/or most-certainly ourselves. Nor have I ever been confused: my endless passion for this reimagining and rewriting has always been on my own behalf; an expression of my need, my desire, my hope. It’s become my spirituality (sans God), in so many ways. And still, in spite of all this, I am acutely aware, especially this week, of the places and ways in which there is always more healing to know, more grace to inhale.
This is the way of things, isn’t it? We inevitably pursue and (hopefully) find what we most want, what we most need, what deep-within matters most.
One could say that this is God. I wouldn’t necessary disagree. But at least for now, I’m going to say that all of this is (and always has been) of my own, inherent inner sanctuary—calling me home to myself: whole, unbroken, strong, and at peace.
May it be so.