The New Kosher

Kosher food is prepared in a certain way and it's blessed a certain way and all of this needs to be certified for us to know that it's Kosher.  The people who keep Kosher are serious about it, and when they're away from home, they need to carefully examine their food to know if it's okay for them to eat.  They are being obedient to their religion's interpretation of God's laws.

Lately it has been striking me that a larger and larger number of people have a new Kosher, only they call it organic, non GMO, local, vegan, raw, paleo, gluten free, whatever it is. ( I myself avoid wheat, dairy, meat and sugar so I'm part of this trend).

I live in a community of 25 households where we occasionally share meals.  Some of the people who cook here are happy to accommodate all sorts of diets.  Some are less happy.  In general, the people who eat mainstream appear less happy to accommodate than the people who eat in these newer ways.

But what is mainstream?  Increasingly, there have been so many vegetarian meals served in our community that some are feeling that their diets of needing more meat or protein and less raw vegetables, are being marginalized.  And sometimes the vegetarian cooks draw the line at providing meat. Where does it stop?

Whether or not we want to take the time to accommodate all diets, it is now indisputable that what we believe about the properties of what we eat affects us.  As I posted in Mind Over Milkshake, it is now scientifically verifiable that the body physically reacts to labels on food differently depending on what's on the label not just what's in the food.

So when my neighbor says, "I don't believe in gluten free," that's highly relevant--for them, but maybe not for me.  I do believe that when I eat less wheat gluten, I feel better.  The fact that I believer this, means it will be true.    The fact that they don't, means they probably shouldn't bother.

There seem to be so many people that like to complain about and belittle gluten free, or organic or paleo, many of them in the mainstream American media.

Meanwhile, The New York Times recently reported that not only is gluten free dining prevalent in pasta-laden Italy, but specialized products for people with gluten intolerance are subsidized by the government! -- see Gluten Free Dining in Italy.

Even if we're not ready to subsidize it, maybe it's time for all the backlashes and the backlashes against the backlashes (is there a nonviolent way to say "backlash"?) where we all pooh pooh each other's choice to stop and for us to move towards a genuinely tolerant society where we respect each other's beliefs about food, much as we might at least try to respect each other's beliefs about religion.

More about Einstein Time

For months I have been praying to be shown how the principle of abundance applies to time.  I know it must, because I know that it works with money and love and all things, but I just haven't experienced this, so I needed help.

I also spent the past 5 1/2 years studying, among other things, how the principles of quantum physics apply to spirituality.  I learned that at the quantum level, there is no time.   You've heard of quantum leaps?  Well a quantum leap is what happens when photon (smallest known unit of light and energy) communicates with another photon across space and time, instantaneously.  Or maybe something just happens to both of them at once because they're really the same object only they're in two different places.  Or maybe Schrodinger's cat eats one of them and someone else's cat swallows the other--as you can see, the possibilities are endless.

The point is that an answer to prayer came the other day in the form of a chapter called "Living in Einstein Time" in The Big Leap by Gay Hendricks.  Hendricks reminded me that quite literally, we can make time.  Our entire experience of time is in our head.

He cites Einstein's explanation of relativity, where 2 hours with your beloved feels like 1 minute and 1 minute on a hot stove feels like 2 hours (and in Einstein's day, hot stoves were HOT STOVES!).  How can this be?

The idea of time marching on and moving in measurable fixed increments is actually not scientific.  It's a convenient fiction more compatible with debunked Newtonian principles than quantum principles.

Hendricks says that we are quite literally in control of our experience of time.  He says that now that he lives in Einstein time, he gets twice as much done in half the time.  My main experience of this difference is when sometimes I'm sitting at my desk and it seems like I've gotten tons done and only 30 minutes has passed and another day, I look up and it's lunch time and I've gotten nothing done.

I told you one trick for living in Einstein time yesterday (you'll have to go back and read that post, it's a doozy).  Today's hint is simply to focus on making time.  When you are rushing, slow down and say to yourself, "I have time.  I can make time.  I have plenty of time" and see what happens.

More to come, I'm digging this!

Living in "Einstein Time"

I'm finally reading The Big Leap by Gay Hendricks about how people can make the leap out of the their zone of competence or zone of excellence into their zone of genius.  Everyone in my church has been reading it for the past year and now that I have time to read it, it's completely turned me upside down.

I'll talk more about that another time, but one of the many many useful tools that Hendricks has for getting us out of the zone of excellence and into the zone of genius, is living in "Einstein time."  "Einstein time" for the uninitiated is unlimited, quantum time abundance rather than Newtonian limited time thinking.

One of the ways to live in Einstein time is to immediately cease being a victim of time.  To stop using time as an excuse, stop saying "I don't have time for that"  "I'm out of time," "I ran out of time."  Any reference to time as a limiting factor is banned.  If I'm going to limit myself, I have to admit to them, own up to them.

For example, today, someone wanted me to go to a store with them, when I wanted to go home and get some other things done before another appointment.  Before Einstein time, I might have said, "I'd love to, but I don't have time."  Today, I told the truth, "thanks for asking, but there are some other things I really want to do today before my next appointment."

The truth is, I always do have time, I just don't always choose to use my time a certain way and when I blame time, make time the bad guy, I'm both lying and I'm using time as a limiting factor.  If I can be honest about what I want to do with the time I have, it's a start towards making friends with time.

Stay tuned for more on Einstein time and The Big Leap.

The power of coincidences

One of my favorite books by Deepak Choprah (I really love them all but…) is The Spontaneous Fulfillment of Desire: harnessing the infinite power of coincidence. 

In it, he tells his life story and some other people's stories and walks through how paying attention to coincidence has greatly enhanced how quickly he and others get to where they most want to go in life.

My main takeaway from that book is this:  what is important about a coincidence is that YOU noticed it.  A coincidence is not about an unseen hand arranging events for your benefit.  At any given moment, there are literally 100s if not thousands of things that I could pay attention to in my field of vision.  Many of them, could coincide with something else that I'm thinking or feeling.  What makes a coincidence is important is that it is a clue to what my "nonlocal intelligence" is paying attention to.

If I  think it's important, it's important because it's only about what is mine.  You see there is a part of me that has access to more information than my normal mind does.  That part of me is what is attaching significance to an event.

For example, I have been thinking about irreverence lately, and pondering whether i could be an irreverent minister.  On Friday, I happened to run into two of the most irreverent ministers I know walking out together in the Oakland airport.

I don't live in Oakland and I've never been to the Oakland airport before.  Not only are they there, but their ride is not and the person I'm waiting for did not get off the plane.  This gave us an opportunity to chat for a while.

Choprah would say "that breaks the probability amplitude."  If a coincidence is improbable, that means we need to pay special attention to it.  We write it down in our journal and circle it and put exclamation points.  And then we wait and we remember.  More will be revealed.

A Voice of Irreverence

Many years ago, in close succession, more than one person told me that I had a unique writer’s “voice.”  Two of those people I strongly respected as writers.  One was a fellow legislative worker bee who dabbled in the occasional op ed or glorious rant to an editor—he was no slouch himself in the writing department.  The other was the editor of a major daily newspaper, the winner of journalistic awards.

In both cases, their pronouncements terrified me.   What did they mean, “voice”?  I asked.  Both said by way of explanation something like, “you know, a voice.  You have a distinctive way of writing that is you. It is recognizable.  If I didn’t know it was you, I’d know it was you.  [Note to JK Rawling, you might not want to bother with the pseudonyms any more].

“Well, what is my voice, I whined?”  I particularly whined when one of them reviewed some prospective op eds I wrote and said, “where’d you go?  Your voice is gone.”  How was I supposed to find my voice again if I didn’t know what it was was?

Finally, they both came out with the same adjective to describe my voice..."snarky."

Fast forward six years, long enough for our kids to grow up and for me to graduate from ministerial school.  In that interval, I have written very little.  I'm afraid to be snarky and afraid to be snarkless (and therefore voiceless).  Both options seemed impossible. Now I return to writing.  It seems to be something Spirit wants of me, therefore, what can I do but comply?

Websters defines “snarky” as “crotchety, snappish, sarcastic, impertinent, irreverent, in tone or manner.”  How on earth can a reverend be irreverent, isn’t that a contradiction in terms? Yet, a few years ago, in a ministerial school retreat, the adjective I used to describe myself was "irreverent."

The truth is that I belong to an order that is inherently irreverent--we teach people how to change their thinking to change their life.  In order to change my thinking, I need to challenge every belief that I think I have.  I need to be willing to play with my thoughts, rock them back and forth like a car stuck in the mud to see if they'll suddenly break free.  

And I teach everyone that they have their own authentic voice and that when they find it, they should celebrate.  So when I put it that way, if I have a snarky voice, so be it.  Spirit has made me snarky and Spirit has made a minister.  There must be some way for the two to coexist.

There's tribute bands and then there's tribute bands at Swabbie's On the River

Last night I celebrated a friend's birthday by going to one of Swabbie's infamous "fish taco" tribute band friday nights.  If you haven't ever experienced the Swabbie-ness, it's a pretty fabulous summer scene--people of all ages, dancing and dining outdoors right on the Sacramento river.  The calendar of events is here:  Swabbies On the River.

The only thing to be careful of is the tribute bands.  The third Friday of the month is reggae night, and I think that's pretty reliably good but the other Friday night bands tend to be "tribute" bands which choose to play only covers of one particular band.  So it goes without saying that you have to like that band.

A couple of summers ago, I experienced a pretty unfortunate swamp rock tribute band ("Creedence Saltwater Revival?"  -- or is that all seal band at Sea World, I may be getting them mixed up.

Anyway, the music was WORSE than the sea lion band--and I LOVE CCR.  So that put me off tribute bands for a while.

Last night was "Stealin' Dan" (if you can't figure out who they're tributizing, God help you) and it was a whole different matter.  I guess if you're into Steely Dan you really need to be real musicians--these guys had a phenomenal  sound and fabulous backup singers and a brass section and the whole bit.  Now I'm re-in love with Swabbie's and tribute bands.

3 Enthusiastic Snouts up for "Tammy"

(:)(:)(:) for Tammy starring Melissa McCarthy, Susan Sarandon, Kathy Bates and Mark Duplass (with small parts for Allison Janey and Dan Akroyd), Directed by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaid) and written by Ben Falcone and Melissa McCarthy.

From the reviews, I was expecting this movie to be terrible, just awful.  25% on Rotten Tomatoes?  Come on!  Pigs in the Attic 5 woudn't get 25% on Rotten Tomatoes!

Nonetheless, three of us women who maybe identify a little bit with some aspects of Melissa McCarthy, reluctantly chose it as our desperate mid summer chick flick and as my friend said, apparently we are in the 25 percent.

While no one could call this a great movie, it is fun, and it ventures into some seldom plowed territory--this is Thelma and Louise meets Bridesmaid--Melissa McCarthy and her (vaguely credible as a) alcoholic grandma Susan Sarandon head off on a road trip and get into misadventures.  How often do we see a 70 plus woman (Sarandon) engaging in inappropriate sex?  how often has armed robbery involved cocked fingers and warm apple pies?  How often has gay CEO (Kathy Bates) entertained us and all her lesbian friends (and these more real lesbians than Orange is the New Black, I'm completely playing for heterosexual salacious males lesbians) at a 4th of July bash and her magnificent Louisville spread? How often is the lead female of a movie obese, without a) us having to hear about how she is obese? b) watching her eat a lot? (she eats some, but not enough to get fat) or c) having Jack Black think she really looks like Gwyneth Paltrow?

All and all, it's predictable in a sort of is buddy road movie type of way, but its laugh out loud funny and all of the above.

Rick Steves, the unwelcome guest in our household

Rick Steves, the international travel pro, has been living in our household for the past few weeks disguised as a guidebook to Italy.

We love him and our kids hate him.  We love him because he tells us what we need to know, suggests great hotels and restaurants, gives us handy phrases, negotiates discounts on our behalf, gives us tips on how to get the best, the cheapest, the easiest.

Our 17 and 19 year olds hate him because he's in a book, not the web.  We've pointed out that actually he exists in many media, web, tv, radio, thinking that make make him more appealing.  They roll their eyes and say, "he's named Rick Steves.  Come on, the guy should get a last name if he wants us to take him seriously."

They are leaving for Italy Saturday (their high school graduation gift).  They haven't researched the trip the way I would.  They haven't consulted Rick.  They don't even want to meet him.  As a result, they might go into a cathedral in shorts, pay 5 euros for a cup of coffee or stand in the wrong line.  And there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that I can do about it.

Rick, if you're reading this, I'm sorry.  I know you've tried your best.  I invited you into our home for a reason.  But, if there's one thing I've learned over the years, you can lead a horse to Rick Steves, but you can't make it know the difference between primo and secondi plati.

"Mind Over Milkshake" -- Scientifically, our thoughts literally, demonstrably alter our physiology

I'm a religious scientist.  In 1927, Ernest Holmes, our founder, established this philosophy (now called a religion) which has as its principle belief, "change your thinking, change your life."  He taught and wrote (and wrote) that we could use our thoughts and our mind to create health, wealth, change anything about our lives.  Today the centers that practice this religion are collectively called the Centers for Spiritual Living--you can find a center near you here: Centers for Spiritual Living Website

Over the course of the 87 years since Holmes started talking about this, the science has more and more caught up with the theory.  I have come to the conclusion that as a burgeoning religious science minister, it will be part of my job to keep up with and be somewhat conversant with some of the many places that science proves our philosophy right.

Recently, NPR presented an example of this in a story called "Mind Over Milkshake"--here is a video (not just audio) of an amazing, and very vivid must watch story showing that quite literally, what we believe about food affects how our body digests it.

What is my next meditation?

For years I have meditated pretty much every day, sometimes more than once a day, but I tend to switch it up over the years.  Usually, the process of switching from one meditation style to another is very organic.  I am doing one style for a while (30 days, 6 months, whatever) and another presents itself to me and is so obviously my next meditation.

For a long while, it was listening to and chanting om nema shivaya.

After a weekend long Zen Buddhist retreat, for years it was sitting Zazen.

Then it was running energy and connecting with the earth.

Sometimes it is the John Randolph Pierce 40 day abundance series.

One year it was the Course in Miracles every day.

Then it was another chant and lying on an exercise ball.

For a while it was the Abraham Hicks into the Vortex meditations (which come on a handy app).

Lately, I seem to do a different style every day.  Zazen, then running energy, then Hicks.  This is weird for me.  I usually like to have a goal or a number of days, now I'm just feeling it.  What type of meditation does my body want today?

A friend gave me a Deepak Choprah/Oprah meditation series recently.  I should probably do that, but it needs to make itself known to me.  It needs to declare its interest in my meditating on it.

Show me, Lord, my next meditation.