Thursday, July 17, 2008

The Seven-Year Itch


I arrived in Los Angeles yesterday on exactly the same date - and almost time - that I left it fifteen years ago.    The fact that I have come looking at the possibility of returning makes it all the more strange. It's often bandied about by ex-pats that the desire or opportunity to return 'home' comes in cycles of about seven years, so I am right on target I suppose.  As I sat through the flight, I wondered what living in the States again would mean practically. It's one thing to be nostalgic about 'home' when you are going for a visit, but quite another to be realistic about it when going with the possibility of actually returning.

Some of the thoughts that ran through my mind on the eleven hour plane ride seemed petty, and yet incredibly basic at that same time.  Perhaps surprisingly (or not so surprisingly), language figures large in my fears as I contemplate a move. For example (the glottal stop, notwithstanding), I have liked pronouncing my T's; so will I simply sink back to saying 'waded' for 'waited', and 'seeded' for 'seated'. Other pronunciations begged similar questions:  will 'I-say-ah' once again replace 'Isaiah' and 'shone' replace 'shawn'?  Still other questions loomed more profound.  In England there has always lingered for me the sense of being a stranger in a strange in a strange land.  Will that same feeling now continue (albeit in a different context) as I come back to the place where I was raised, but do not now fully understand.  For all my moaning about Britain (my friends there can witness to it), I recognise the extent to which Britain has shaped my present mind-set and world-view.  I recognise the extent to which I have become British.  In fact, my moaning itself is a sign of that (we Brits know it's one of our national pastimes).

The ex-pat 'seven year itch' is ultimately about nostalgia and about the fantasy that you can 'go back home'.  The truth is that going 'back home' is a physical and temporal impossibility.  Both you and home have changed, and 'going back home' in the way we usually think about it would not merely require air travel but time travel.  There is no going back home.  I am not the person I was fifteen years ago, and the US is not the country it was fifteen years - both for good and bad.  If I moved to the US now I would have to accept that it would not be substantially different than when I first moved to the UK.  It would simply begin the next chapter of my life, and I would have to begin that chapter from where I am right now: this odd conglomeration of cultures and pronunciations.  I would not be going back, I would be going on; and that is all that any of us can ever do.  Indeed, all we do is go on as life challenges and offers, and as we make our responses. Sometimes going on entails making responses with more dramatic repercussions; but whether dramatic or not, none of us can ever really stand still.  I find that an odd and exciting sort of comfort. 

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

'That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived'

The biggest problem I have with evangelical fundamentalism is that the image of God it presents and preaches is - quite simply - not a god worthy of human worship.  In fact, I can think of many, many very fallible and broken people who would demonstrate more kindness, more inclusivity and more compassion than a god who demands human sacrifice so that 'his' anger can be appeased, or who would send people to eternal punishment because they could not bring themselves to believe in 'him'.  A god who in Jesus teaches that I should forgive freely, but then demands that I jump through hoops so 'he' can bring 'himself' to forgive me is not only inconsistent, but hypocritical and  cruel. 

But then, evangelical fundamentalism rarely has the insight of the ages. Were its adherents more familiar with Christianity's great tradition they might have come across St Anselm (1039-1109) and his definition of God: 'That than which nothing greater can be conceived.'  In my narrow-minded limitedness I can conceive of a god more loving and more accepting - in effect greater - than that of evangelical fundamentalism, and so by definition their 'god' cannot be GOD; and I don't think that we should be afraid to say it.  If God needs defending it is from concepts and definitions unworthy of him/her.  Over 600 years after Anselm, Francis Bacon (1561-1626) wrote:  'It is better to have no opinion of God at all than such an one that is unworthy of him [sic]: for the one is unbelief, the other is contumely'* How often do we make statements of God which are actually unworthy of God?  How often to we dare to speak in God's name when what is really called for is silence, reflection and awe?
There is a spiritual arrogance in believing that we can possess - or worse still that we do possess - the whole truth of God; but arrogance is not the worst of it, rather the violence we can wreak on each other when we believe ourselves certain of the divine 'will'.  Our approach to God, I think, has always to be one of humility; one of 'faith seeking understanding' (to quote Anslem again).  I wonder how long it will take until we can stand before God in complete humility, and before the world in complete compassion? 

*I have to admit that I had to look up this word - contumely - and it means 'insolent or insulting language or treatment'; pretty powerful stuff.