Evolutionary Christianity: UU Theology

My fellow Unitarian Universalists, are you stuck in a faith rut? Are you seeking a prophetic voice besides Krista Tippett? Well, I have found a goldmine for you! Look no further than Michael Dowd's latest project: Evolutionary Christianity.

Now, my mother has been hounding me for weeks to listen to one of these phenomenal conversations. The series is a collection of Michael Dowd's interviews with scientific and faith leaders working to construct a new and relevant story that marries scientific cosmology and Christian tradition in an very profound and not hodge-podgy sort of way. This isn't "Oh golly, we've got to stick the Big Bang in here somehow!" but rather, "These are the truths about humanity, existence and the mystery of God that science tells us, and that we have ritualized in so much of religious story, metaphor and sacrament, Christian and non-Christian."

Amazing. Sounds right up my alley, right? But as every twenty-something woman would do, I had stupidly shrugged it off - being my mother's idea and all. Well, thank God she cornered me tonight!

We listened with rapt attention to Michael Morwood's interview. So many ideas were brought up, I don't know where to begin. One of the most beautiful moments was when he was describing a new way of sharing and expanding the significance of the Eucharist. He tied it into the idea of the recycling of the elements and the way that life exists by eating and consuming other life. Sacrifice - giving and taking. I'm not doing this justice at all - I can only encourage you to listen to the interview and all the others!

God is so great and so mysterious. Live into that wonder. Then add the layer of Christianity - the message of Jesus which was to praise that wonder and then channel the gift of your life, the compilation of stardust that you are in this moment, and do good with it. Find meaning there.

My overarching thought is that the conversation going on in Evolutionary Christianity is the axis that Unitarian Universalism has been pivoting around for a long time. I realize that Michael Dowd and his wife have spoken at many a UU church, and yet none of these interviews are with UU theologians or intellectuals. My guess is that it's because we would have little of relevance to say - having abandoned Christianity as our common story.

Let's not forget that this - the reconstruction of Christianity - is our theological home. May we soon return to it, and join those who are building relevance and meaning there for the future.

Mary's Song: The First Advent Dwelt in Sisterhood

Ok, I can only blog so much regarding church stuff before I get tired and need to do some praising! And after this recent tear on polity/culture/leadership/committeeship I'm pretty much sick of myself and everyone else too! When I feel those tired old church grumpy pants start itching me - I know that it's time to get back to my God.

So where am I hearing God today? Brothers and sisters, I'm hearing God today in Mary's Song - one of the most ancient Christian hymns, also known as the Magnificat. I had the pleasure of hearing the Cobb Symphony Orchestra perform Bach's Magnificat a few weeks ago - but being the undereducated American that I am, I had not made the connection between Bach's Magnificat and Luke 1:46-55 - which is where the Magnificat is found in scripture. Now it's all coming clear...

Let's set the scene. Mary goes and visits Elizabeth, who is also pregnant with John the Baptist. When the two greet each other - they are aware of the holiness of their pregnancies. John the Baptists is leaping in Elizabeth's womb for joy at Mary's coming and Elizabeth calls out Mary's prophecy. Then Mary answers in song:

My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

It's beautiful. I'm giving the song to you in the King James Version to preserve the poetry as best I can. It's too bad that in our culture we tell the Christmas story beginning with the census and not with the pregnancy. We really seem to skip-over this visit between Mary and Elizabeth. And in Luke's tale Mary stays with Elizabeth for 3 months - an entire trimester of her pregnancy with Jesus!

What do we make of this? Why would Luke bother telling us that Mary stayed with Elizabeth for 3 months during her pregnancy? Surely one reason is to show the powerful bond between John the Baptist and Jesus - but there is more I think.

Maybe I've read too much Anita Diamant but I think that Mary's song and her stay with Elizabeth is really about the strong bonds among women - and the blessed and primary role that women play in preparing the way for God. We are told that in the original advent, God showed up in a blessed sisterhood.

That's enough for me now. May the image of strong women bonded together with God's children in their wombs, reminding each other of their own blessedness and singing - singing their praises to God, stay with you this Christmastide.

Thank God for these timeless stories!

Faith: When to Hold On and When to Let Go

"The Rabbi sets the mission. The Rabbi sets the vision of the congregation." Those were the words that I just heard 10 minutes ago at the closing of the premier of "The Calling," the fantastic 2-night documentary series that chronicled the good times and bad of 8 newly-minted faith leaders on Independent Lens. (I swear to God - I did not write the script!)

"The Calling" on PBS

This week I've very intentionally opened a large can of worms here on Deep River regarding congregational polity, and hope that it's been more helpful than not. Some of you out there think I'm misguided, others are clearly so enraged by my ideas that you have no idea where to begin with rebuking them. Many of you, like Dan Harper, have been right there with me - pushing the question further and into more interesting territory.

Good. That's exactly why I started writing this blog. Just like those seminary students I watched tonight, I'm young and idealistic. It's my role at this time in my life to question our assumptions and be naive. I'm only 25 years old - I have the rest of my life to be cautious and bitter. At the same time - if I'm going to be bold than I have to be willing to be wrong. And I'll admit now that I was wrong about some things.

I realize that I was wrong in my focus on polity rather than culture. Both our polity and our culture stem from the strict congregationalist history that I described, but Unitarian Universalism is not suffering for too much congregational polity - Unitarian Universalism is suffering from a culture that lacks trust and faith. We are unwillingly to let our leaders lead us. We are distrustful of clergy and any form of concentrated power.

My mother would say, "right on!" but to me this is just sad. Maybe Dough Muder was right in his UUWorld article about the generational differences between my parents generation and mine - I'm looking to follow the ringing of a prophetic voice, while my parents fought for the value that no voice should ever be heard above the collective murmur of the people.

Personally, I think this has a lot to do with our relationship with God.

You know, many UUs think we are the only church that says, "whoever you are, wherever you come from and whatever journey you are are - you are welcome here." This is pure ignorance, because most liberal congregations of faith in the US (Christan and Jewish in my experience) profess this. We are ALL on journeys of faith. It's only UUs who think that being on a journey of faith means always traveling solo.

Why must all our journeys be quiet walks in the woods and solemn reposes? What fear do you have in following a leader on a faith journey that will take you possibly further than you could have traveled alone? What fear do you have in submitting to God? If we are unable to recognize a power higher than ourselves - then we may never be able to cross into a faith deeper than our own self-satisfied shallows.

Love yourself. Love your neighbor. Trust God and trust whomever you choose as your faith leader. Learn when to hold on and when to let go.

Are you at risk of heart-ache and disappointment? Absolutely.

Does this mean we need stronger leaders in the UUA? Absolutely.

Is becoming a people who trusts leaders and recruiting leaders worthy of trust a chicken-and-egg problem? Yes, but we have to start somewhere:

So if you are a leader, if you are a prophetic voice or genius community organizer - lead! Organize! If you are a person of faith looking for a better life and better world - find a path, find a leader and find strength and power in discipleship.

This is all I've got right now. As always... more to come.

Congregational Question Cont'd: Who Decides Mission?

Taking the Free Market Faith conversation deeper, I have invited my sister, Gretchen Snoeyenbos, to guest post on Deep River. Being my sister, Gretchen has the gift of knowing, most of the time, what I'm trying to say even when I'm not saying it explicitly (for all those with siblings you know what a blessing and curse this can be). I'll be sharing my own follow-up post after this.

After reading Anna’s post and the comments that followed, I am convinced that we are conflating two sets of questions.  On the one hand, we have the choice between a diocesan method of governance and a congregational one.  It should be noted here that regardless of the choice made, the work of the church will primarily fall to the people of the church.  Ask any of the over-involved Catholic churchwomen that I grew up with how much work and process is involved in running a diocesan parish and get ready for an earful.  Moving away from a congregational model in terms of how we call pastors to long-standing congregations, who bears the responsibility for the budget, and most importantly whether the Church’s stance on theological issues will be decided by congregations for the denomination or by the denomination for congregations is simply moot.  We are congregational, legally and culturally. 

On the other hand, we have questions of how the vision and mission of the congregation will be decided and carried out.  These are the most critical questions to ask and reach deeply into culture and theology.  There are three basic questions:

1. Who will address the mundane, daily aspects involved in being a worldly organization? Will there be a committee set up to decide every question of church policy – to meet to decide when to call the plumber? This is where you get economies of scale and have the option to “hire out” the work.  I think we can all agree that these mundane matters are most ideally not foisted on the laity as they don’t serve the deeper mission of the church and, frankly, we all know how to call the plumber. 
   
2. How will we organize the missional work of the church? This is a slightly deeper question. Social justice work, fundraising activities, fellowship, etc., are activities that lend themselves to committee structure.  It trains leaders and allows for deepening commitment to the Church. This is also the work that can most drag a congregation down.  It always multiplies and seems to lead to committees for the sake of having committees and events that have come to exist only for the repetition.  The solution is simple, but hard.  Examine your committees and events.  Ask yourself if each event clearly and directly serves the mission of the church.  If yes, keep going.  If not, stop doing it – even if you have done it for the last 140 years. 
   
   Moving deeper into this question causes us to ask if topic-based committees are the best way to do this.  Many new church plants are experimenting with covenant groups that meet to undertake all the aspects of church mission together as an integrated body. This can encourage a more balanced approach to church life so that no one is forced to neglect worship, fellowship or service because the committee work for one has sucked up every available hour.  But, above all, whatever model you choose will fail if it is not missional. 
   
   
3. This leads us directly to the question of setting the mission.  And what I think is the most critical question implicit in Anna’s post. Will the direction of a congregation be determined by a committee, or by a pastor?  I believe that the mission and vision of a church are to be set by the head minister.  Our role as laity is to give our input to the minister as he develops the mission and to hold her accountable to that mission and serve the mission over the years of her ministry. Critical to this is the idea that a minister’s service will be long – on the order of decades – so that this process does not become a futile cycle of discernment every 5-10 years.  

Under this model, the church is not called to merely continue to exist in a locality. The Church will not continue if people are not inspired and challenged by the vision.  People will vote with their feet – as they already do.

Why does the mission need to be determined by a single person and not a committee?  Because a single person is best able to poke their head up over the hedgerows and see where the road leads.  Because a single person is more easily a prophetic voice able to call us back to right relation with God and each other.  And, most fundamentally, because this is what parish ministers are called to do. This is their job – their divinely called and temporally compensated line of work.  There are two ways to look at this and both lead to the same conclusion.  

1. Ministers are professionals who we hire to be CEOs of the church and report to the board (parish committee) or
2. Ministers are divinely called to be prophetic shepherds leading us on the spiritual paths we are walking.  

Regardless of what model you ascribe to, over-reliance on committees and polling will defeat the purpose of the job.

We in the liberal church have been poorly served by our ministers in this regard over the last however many decades.  We have, in a fit of overdeveloped love of process asked them to hand over their role to us and they have.  By handing this crucial aspect of their work over to the laity, ministers cut themselves off at the ankles and became mere employees working long hours attending irritating committee meetings and constantly called to account by multitudes of ever narrower interest groups. No wonder the best and the brightest do not go into the ministry in the liberal tradition.  Leaders, and that is what ministers are, should lead.  And we laity – whatever leadership skills we may possess – are not the leaders of our churches.  We are followers.  Those of us who lead most profoundly in the secular world may find the most rest in following.

How are we to guard against mere consumerism?  Expect ever deepening commitment from the laity – but not to futile cycling of outdated and directionless committee work.  Ask for ever deepening commitment to the mission of the Church and people will seek out this sustaining commitment.

Free Market Faith: Why Congregationalism Is Holding Us Back

Hold-on to your pews sisters and brothers- this is going to be a bumpy ride. If there is one thing that all liberal denominations like Unitarian Universalism agree on, it's congregational church polity. Now I'm going to tell you why I think holding on to that structure will ensure that liberal denominations go the way of the dinosaurs.

First, a little historical context. Back in the day, Americans were far less mobile. During the time our ancestral churches were founded (17th and 18th centuries) in New England, most people lived their entire lives within a shockingly small radius from their home. There was no separation of church and state and getting along with the government and your neighbors meant showing up for church on Sunday. You don't like the preacher? Tough luck.

For example, here's the history of First Parish Kingston (my childhood church) on their website:

In the early history of the Plymouth Colony, the town and parish were one, and were a part of the Plymouth Parish. As time went on different parts of the original territorial parish were set off as separate precincts and parishes. Kingston, being the fifth such, set off under the name of the Jones River Parish in 1717, and continued under this name until 1726 when it became the Town of Kingston. In 1802 the first secession from the parish in Kingston was made, and in order to distinguish the old parish from the new, it became the First Parish. This congregation, as did most colonial churches, adopted the Unitarian faith between 1825 and 1845.

Did you catch that? The Town of Kingston was actually founded from the parish. And it took 85 years before anyone created religious competition in the area.

You are probably beginning to see where I'm going with this - congregationalism was crucially important for Americans seeking to live in freedom and harmony. To over-simplify, here was the situation:

1. You had limited mobility
2. Your society mandated that you go to church in order to participate in civic and social life
3. There was only one church in town
4. ...you were ecclesiastically stuck 

So what how did our ancestors make lemonade out of this problem? How did they make their church work for their community? How did they ensure that the church was meeting the needs of its parish? Over time, our founding fathers learned that the best answer for both church and state was...democracy!

Democracy is beautiful. Democracy is the best way for communities, cities, towns, states and countries to govern their citizens. Democracy works hard trying to ensure that justice and fairness reign over the people who are subjected to its laws.

But in today's world - we are not living in parishes. We are not subject to follow the teachings of one local minister or even attend our local church. We have so many religious choices! Because our government is free and democratic - we do not need our churches to be.

If I don't like what Rick Warren is preaching - I don't have to go to his church. If I don't like what Jeremiah Wright is preaching - I don't have to go to his church. If I don't like any of the churches in my town - I can watch one online or on TV every Sunday. In today's world there is an unprecedented amount of religious diversity and accessibility.

Yes, you may be saying, there is a lot of choice. But many people will choose to attend a congregational church because they want their voice to be validated by the congregation they are in covenant with. That is true. There are some people for whom that is of primary importance. Unfortunately - there aren't enough of those people. Why? Because congregationalism is challenging, time-consuming, and for my generation - looks like an increasingly unnecessary distraction from doing the real work of binding up the broken and healing our world.

My parent's generation was willing to put-in the work of keeping their churches going. I'm not convinced that my generation is. I know that personally - the last thing I want to do is spend hours of my time worrying over bylaws, nomination commitees, "vision-planning" committees etc. when I could be spending my time in prayer, fellowship and service to others. Remember, we're the generation that is more spiritual than previous generations, but less religious.

For boomers, this looks like laziness shrouded in idealism. For my generation, we feel that spending more time on polity and governance than on building the kingdom is navel-gazing and uninspiring. Can we agree to disagree? Sure, but that just means congregational churches will continue to age with each year.

So while congregationalism was once tied to the hope of democracy in America, the original problem that it solved is now obsolete. Increased mobility and increased religious freedom has left us with more choices for faith communities than we know what to do with. Those communities that ask my generation to serve the world will thrive - those communities that ask my generation to serve themselves will not.

I would love to hear your feedback!

"The Calling" Next Week on PBS

Paul heard his calling loud and clear on the road to Damascus. Most of us aren't so lucky. Hearing God's call is similar (and probably linked) to finding one's faith - it's a journey rather than a destination.

Knowing this, I'm excited to watch Independent Lens' latest documentary, The Calling. Described as, "a four-hour documentary series that follows seven Muslims, Catholics, Evangelical Christians, and Jews on a dramatic journey as they train to become professional clergy," The Calling will air next Monday, Dec. 20 and Tuesday, Dec. 21. I hope you will join me in watching! Thanks to my new favorite source of faith news, Sojourners, for the heads-up.

Watch the full episode. See more Independent Lens.

Prayers of Peace to Iraq

Today I'm praying for peace in Iraq. I feel sadness and shame at the danger my country has created for the Christians, Yazidis, Sabians, Jews and all other religious minorities who are threatened for worshiping there. May God show us a way to right our wrongs and help the Iraqi people create the peaceful country that they deserve. I am also praying for the safety of the men and women who are currently serving there in our name.

An Inconvenient Faith

Right now, I'm watching Joel Osteen's message on TV because I'm fighting a head cold and missed church this morning. At the same time, I've had the pleasure of reading Dan Harper's latest post, Why so many Americans think religion is stupid. Whoa! - polar opposite ideas running through my head at the same time!

Thank you, Dan, for such a great post. Religion is meant to be life-transforming and thus world-transforming. It's not meant to be a self-help consumerist crutch. Jesus was a radical teacher who exemplified complete sacrifice. While not all of us can, or should, expect to be tortured and killed for our faith - it's true that if our faith is not changing the way we live, then we probably aren't invested in it enough.

Ok, so not enough of us are there yet - myself included! I'm still way too comfortable sitting in my bathrobe on the couch watching Joel Osteen tell me that God will protect me in my middle-American bubble if I am grateful enough. But my goal is to every day, little-by-little, put myself more on the path that Jesus would want me to be on. It's not easy - but the good things in life never are.

Universalism: Loaded Gun or Moot Point?

Why center yourself around Universalism, when most liberal Christians today are walking the walk of universalists already?

That's a question that I have asked myself plenty of times, and it's a question that has come up again this week. Rev. David Malone, a retired Christian minister who is also one of the founders of the Bolton Street Synagogue in Baltimore (can you say, walking the walk?), sent me these comments last night in response to my blog:

• The Unitarians really destroyed the wonderful old Universalist Church in their merger: they 'bought and retired the brand', so to speak.
• But, the reason the Universalists were diminished is that their message so resonated in New England that other churches adopted it, essentially displacing the Calvinist view of election that had led Hosea Ballou, Starr King, and others to nourish the Universalist movement. [Especially for Ballou, it was a populist movement of the common folk against the cultured elite.]  
• The formal religion of New England across all Christian lines, Roman Catholic to Evangelical to Mainline, is now congregational and universalist, with small first letters. Essentially, the Universalists were so successful that they were no longer necessary - but it is still too bad to see what happened to them.

I had a couple reactions:
#1 Wow! Rev. Malone knows more about Universalist history than most Unitarian Universalists do!
#2 He is 100% right about all this (see Universalism 101) but for me, claiming the name 'Universalist' is still relevant. Here's why: 

It all depends on who you want to talk to. The words we use, the titles we choose and the language we speak all define who we will engage with and how.

For liberal Christians, and liberal believers in all faiths, little 'u' universalism has been folded into their theology in a no-big-deal kind of way. It's why we have interfaith councils, groups like Daughters of Abraham (thank you Rev. Malone for referring me to them), and radically welcoming churches. None of this would be possible if there wasn't some baseline understanding that we are all God's beloved children and should treat each other as such. Universalism just isn't an interesting theology in those circles. It doesn't look all that different from what they already practice.

For other groups - universalism is much more polarizing. People coming from an evangelical background, like my new friend Jonathan Brink, tell me that universalism is a heavily loaded word. Universal salvation is not an antiquated debate - it's very real and very serious. In fact, universalism is so electric an idea that just breathing the word can bring up so many old ghosts that it will erode meaningful dialogue. This is what he wrote in response to my calling his message universalist yesterday. So much truth in there about the power of words and the nature of dialogue.

Similarly, I have found universalism to be a polarizing concept in Unitarian Universalist circles. In a religion that has tried so hard to reject its Christian foundation, invoking a theology that hinges on words like "God," "Love," "Salvation," and "Christ" is provoking to say the least. Univeralism is loaded for UUs too.

In short, the reason that I am not joining the leagues of natural soft universalists, and am instead writing a blog under the banner "Faith in the Universal Love of God" is because I'm interested in positioning my beliefs in faith dialogues where universalism is still an interesting theology. In other words, it's all about who I want to talk to.

I want to engage Unitarian Universalists, a people with whom I am inseparably entwined, with our own Christian theological heritage. I want to engage with the exciting emergent movement going on in Christianity as they grapple with postmodernism, universalism and all the ways that God's grace supports our world. I want to be an example or resource for people who have been taught that universalism is a dirty word - so that they know there are folks out there proudly embracing it.

So while I know that universalism is a moot point to some - I'm more interested in working with the folks for whom it's still a loaded gun. In those circles, universalism is incredibly relevant.

Universalism - On the Rise in Emergent Christianity

Can you do something to make God stop loving you? That's the central question that Universalism answers. And it's the question that Jonathan Brink, a leader in the Emergent movement, is embracing in his new book Discovering The God Imagination: Reconstructing A Whole New Christianity. I plan on reading this book, and encourage you to do the same.

It's become more apparent to me that universalism, as a pure theology, is reinventing itself through the emerging church as it continues to unfold and mature today.

Isn't it interesting how good ideas never die? I hope that as Unitarian Universalists - the current namesakes of this theological heritage - we work to build bridges with today's leaders who are moving this good news forward, and making universalism once again relevant to American Christians. I think Hosea Ballou would be jumping for joy - don't you?

Disclaimer: You will not agree with everything that Emergent church leaders say - that's the point.

The Justice Conference 2011- Are We Going?

Opportunity to join in the global conversation of justice-oriented faith communities - The Justice Conference 2011 is coming to Bend, Oregon! Does anyone know if the UUA is sending a delegation? I'm feeling inspired to attend. Check it out and maybe you'll join me!


Everyday Justice from World Relief on Vimeo.

Why Am I Cringing at "Chalica"?

I have to admit, I am having an visceral reaction against "Chalica." If you are completely confused by what I'm talking about, you are not alone. Chalica is a new UU holiday made-up on the fly by a seminary student in 2005. I just heard about it yesterday. Apparently it has already begun and we are all supposed to be celebrating the 7 principles in a Chanukah-like way, lighting our chalices each night for 7 nights - one for each principle. It's OK if you feel like poking your eye out right now - that was my first reaction too.

But I can't precisely name why this made-up holiday is making me groan in such a profound way. So I'm having to back-peddle a bit on these gut feelings to find out where this reaction is stemming from. Here are some thoughts:

Adam Sandler performing his parody Chanukah Song

1. Is it serious or is it a joke? There are many UU parents earnestly latching on to Chalica as a way to practice UU faith values with their children. At the same time, the holiday originally gained attention via a song that riffs on the Adam Sandler Chanukah Song parody. So is Chalica primarily a holiday that we are being reverent about? Or is it meant to be a joke? The fact that the holiday has such an inconsistent tone makes it ring very false to me.
2. I feel sorry for the kids. I haven't really blogged much in detail about being raised UU yet, but let me just tell you that it's hard enough already. Now you are asking us to make sense of Chalica too? Couple that with #1 and you've created a real confusing situation for your kids to muddle through. The sad thing is that parents are really doing this for their kids. Thanks but no thanks, Mom and Dad!
3. The 7 principles don't have enough soul for a holiday. I stand for the 7 principles - who doesn't? But the 7 principles read like board meeting minutes, because that's what they are. Committee-speak does not stir my soul. Confusing denominational bylaws with sacramental narrative is spiritually immature.

I guess it's all of these things combined and more that make me ashamed of Chalica. The last point there about spiritual maturity/immaturity is really the crux of it. To me, the existence of this holiday just reminds me that we as a faith community still have so much farther to go...

The Nativity: Re-imagine the Spirit of Life

The Rev. Ron Robinson, who leads the UU Christian Fellowship, is getting me thinking about the symbolic truth of the Christmas story. Every week of advent this year he is posting excepts from Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan's book The First Christmas on his blog The Christian Year.

The first installment of Rev. Robinson's Borg excerpts deals with the issue of reading the nativity story both politically and personally. I am really interested in learning more about how the Christmas stories are interpreted politically. Borg gives us a taste of the big picture here - reminding us of the radicalism of naming a tiny Jewish baby born in a stable the Kings of the Jews and the Prince of Peace because it flew in the face of Herod and Caesar, who claimed these titles respectively through Roman imperial theology. It's fascinating to learn this and puts everything into context. Jesus was not the first Prince of Peace - rather he was reclaiming that title in a way that radically, radically shifted the paradigm.

But the way that most of us lay people living in the modern age can engage with the Christmas story is personally, not politically. I haven't been to seminary, so while I'm fascinated to hear these contextual interpretations - I can't as easily engage with them myself. I just don't have the knowledge yet.

So personally, I read the nativity stories and become filled with awe at the symbolic truth in them. I listen deeply to these stories about God, the source of all creation, taking the form of human life. That God chose Mary, an unmarried teenager living under oppression, to nurture the life of his son. To me, this is all about God's presence in the fragility of life. That's where I dwell - in the holiness of each fragile life. Reminding myself that God is with us there.

How does the nativity speak to you? Listen deeply this year. Let the pageantry wash over you. Dwell in the details: God becoming man. God's profound love for humankind taking action. Pray to a God who treasures human life so completely that he would humble himself to take the form of a tiny baby - reliant upon its mother for milk, protection and love. How does this change your image of God?

Are you willing to re-imagine the Spirit of Life this Christmas?