Take a photo of a barcode or cover
alisarae's Reviews (1.65k)
I have three things to say:
1. American politics really be like:
2. It turns out that I had bought into the media hype that Obama was left-wing at heart and only congress held him back from his full potential. According to him, he accomplished pretty much everything he wanted with few concessions. Only in myopic America can he be called left-wing and I'm disappointed in myself for not seeing that very clearly earlier.
3. I think Obama is a great leader and an honest man. But I like Michelle better.
Food Pairing: I was torn between Hawaii and Chicago, but there's a lot more time spent in Chicago here. So I'd say go with a Chicago dog: top your frankfurter with mustard, relish, tomatoes, onions, and pepperoncini slices. Serve with a dill spear and remember, NO KETCHUP.
1. American politics really be like:
2. It turns out that I had bought into the media hype that Obama was left-wing at heart and only congress held him back from his full potential. According to him, he accomplished pretty much everything he wanted with few concessions. Only in myopic America can he be called left-wing and I'm disappointed in myself for not seeing that very clearly earlier.
3. I think Obama is a great leader and an honest man. But I like Michelle better.
Food Pairing: I was torn between Hawaii and Chicago, but there's a lot more time spent in Chicago here. So I'd say go with a Chicago dog: top your frankfurter with mustard, relish, tomatoes, onions, and pepperoncini slices. Serve with a dill spear and remember, NO KETCHUP.
I'm trying very hard not to sound like a spoiled Tudor, ENTERTAIN ME BETTER JESTER, but I was kind of disappointed.
Brosh has had a lot of awful stuff happen to her since we last saw her, and her worldview has taken a nosedive down the pit of nihilism. I do not share this worldview (admitedly, I've never had a single awful thing happen to me), so I didn't find that flavor of humor funny.
Also, I read a recent interview with her and she's a frequent drug user. I really don't care about that. However, I do want to address the existence of an extended essay about an intentionally bad acid trip. Brosh isn't the first user who's thought that what they experienced is profound/funny/enlightening and felt compelled to share that in some way (See: Beat Poets, all). I went to art school, and after a couple semesters of critiques it becomes painfully obvious who thinks their work is profound based on the trip they had while making it, and who sat down and made good work that people can appreciate while sober. The acid trip essay is a key to understanding why the entire book falls flat. To clarify, I do not think drugs turn you into a lazy bum, but I have seen time and again how weed and acid rob people of their creative potential by giving them the false idea that they have reached a creative peak when it is clear to everyone else in the room that they, in fact, have not.
In terms of illustration content, I kind of want to reread Hyperbole and a Half because I remember there being a lot of punch in the panel sequencing. Like part of the joke was because of the timing of the panels. In this book there were many times that the panels did nothing to move the narrative forward, to make a punch line, or to set up a joke. Several times there is a sequence of what is functionally the exact same panel. This happened in some of the more serious essays. If the panels weren't there to make a joke, and they weren't even carrying the narrative because the essay is quite understandable without any illustration, then why are they there at all and why are there so many of them? Unfortunately I noticed this quite early on in the 500+ page book and then I couldn't unsee it. I started thinking that Brosh felt like her readers expect her to follow a certain format (we do) and we will give up reading the book and hate her forever if she doesn't stick to the formula (we won't). In fact, you might say that the formula backfired: based on the format, we expect comedy. When there is no comedy, we feel bad for expecting that. "SORRY I WANTED YOUR LIFE'S TRAGEDIES TO MAKE ME LAUGH, JESTER." But actually it's not our fault: Brosh gave us a dish that had FUNNY written on the plate but the food served was actually SAD SANDWICH. From a functional perspective, it would have been better to break the format to let us know we need to change our expectations. For example, there are a couple times where she breaks from her characteristic MS Paint style and gives us an illustration that is profoundly beautiful and gesturely expressive. In that interview I read, she said that she has been studying a certain artist and grown a lot in her technical skills... we can catch a glimpse of this in an illustration of a fish and another in a full page of a rural road. So why not give us 1-2 illustrations in that style to accompany a heavier story, and ditch the pink stick girl altogether? We'd be on the same page from the get-go and we could see more dimensions of Allie Brosh the artist as well as learn more about Allie Brosh the profound thinker whom we love and will follow down whatever tangent her heart desires.
I have not given up on Allie Brosh. I think this book is worth reading and it will make you laugh at least once. But I see something deeper in her and I sincerely hope that she has the courage to let it out.
Food Pairing: PB&J, toasted to make it fancy.
Brosh has had a lot of awful stuff happen to her since we last saw her, and her worldview has taken a nosedive down the pit of nihilism. I do not share this worldview (admitedly, I've never had a single awful thing happen to me), so I didn't find that flavor of humor funny.
Also, I read a recent interview with her and she's a frequent drug user. I really don't care about that. However, I do want to address the existence of an extended essay about an intentionally bad acid trip. Brosh isn't the first user who's thought that what they experienced is profound/funny/enlightening and felt compelled to share that in some way (See: Beat Poets, all). I went to art school, and after a couple semesters of critiques it becomes painfully obvious who thinks their work is profound based on the trip they had while making it, and who sat down and made good work that people can appreciate while sober. The acid trip essay is a key to understanding why the entire book falls flat. To clarify, I do not think drugs turn you into a lazy bum, but I have seen time and again how weed and acid rob people of their creative potential by giving them the false idea that they have reached a creative peak when it is clear to everyone else in the room that they, in fact, have not.
In terms of illustration content, I kind of want to reread Hyperbole and a Half because I remember there being a lot of punch in the panel sequencing. Like part of the joke was because of the timing of the panels. In this book there were many times that the panels did nothing to move the narrative forward, to make a punch line, or to set up a joke. Several times there is a sequence of what is functionally the exact same panel. This happened in some of the more serious essays. If the panels weren't there to make a joke, and they weren't even carrying the narrative because the essay is quite understandable without any illustration, then why are they there at all and why are there so many of them? Unfortunately I noticed this quite early on in the 500+ page book and then I couldn't unsee it. I started thinking that Brosh felt like her readers expect her to follow a certain format (we do) and we will give up reading the book and hate her forever if she doesn't stick to the formula (we won't). In fact, you might say that the formula backfired: based on the format, we expect comedy. When there is no comedy, we feel bad for expecting that. "SORRY I WANTED YOUR LIFE'S TRAGEDIES TO MAKE ME LAUGH, JESTER." But actually it's not our fault: Brosh gave us a dish that had FUNNY written on the plate but the food served was actually SAD SANDWICH. From a functional perspective, it would have been better to break the format to let us know we need to change our expectations. For example, there are a couple times where she breaks from her characteristic MS Paint style and gives us an illustration that is profoundly beautiful and gesturely expressive. In that interview I read, she said that she has been studying a certain artist and grown a lot in her technical skills... we can catch a glimpse of this in an illustration of a fish and another in a full page of a rural road. So why not give us 1-2 illustrations in that style to accompany a heavier story, and ditch the pink stick girl altogether? We'd be on the same page from the get-go and we could see more dimensions of Allie Brosh the artist as well as learn more about Allie Brosh the profound thinker whom we love and will follow down whatever tangent her heart desires.
I have not given up on Allie Brosh. I think this book is worth reading and it will make you laugh at least once. But I see something deeper in her and I sincerely hope that she has the courage to let it out.
Food Pairing: PB&J, toasted to make it fancy.
This story is a protracted family drama set in a small town in the Northeast where everyone knows everyone's business... And if you make it to the end of the book, so will you. Though I liked the characters and the theme (we're all just trying the best we can), the author's approach of driving plot points from characters' sexuality was kind of a snore.
There are different methods to story telling, my favorite being the Southpark creators' famed distillation: this happened, and because of that this happened, and because of that... There is also the lazier: this happened and then this happened and then... But this book's structure is more like: character's misunderstood sexuality motivated this, and a different character's misunderstood sexuality motivated this other thing, and a different character's.... Etc. There are like 20 characters and all of their tenuously-connected plot points overlap only because they happen to be in the same town. That's it. There's no action-consequence dynamic. No match-strike, barn-burn. Methinks the author was trying to write realism and did it so well that she forgot to tell us an interesting story.
Food Pairing: A full chicken salad with honey mustard dressing.
There are different methods to story telling, my favorite being the Southpark creators' famed distillation: this happened, and because of that this happened, and because of that... There is also the lazier: this happened and then this happened and then... But this book's structure is more like: character's misunderstood sexuality motivated this, and a different character's misunderstood sexuality motivated this other thing, and a different character's.... Etc. There are like 20 characters and all of their tenuously-connected plot points overlap only because they happen to be in the same town. That's it. There's no action-consequence dynamic. No match-strike, barn-burn. Methinks the author was trying to write realism and did it so well that she forgot to tell us an interesting story.
Food Pairing: A full chicken salad with honey mustard dressing.
Author Steven Hassan is an experienced cult de-programmer and I have seen his other books cited by people who needed de-programming for themselves or their loved ones. Hassan has first-hand experience with cults: he was once a high-ranking member of the Sun Myung Moon cult (Unification Church, members are known as Moonies) and his father helped de-program him.
This book is very straightfoward and full of citations. Each chapter is well organized and could stand alone. When describing characteristics of cults, leaders, and followers, Hassan gives numerous examples from well known and infamous cults, as well as documented examples from Trump.
I was less interested in this book for the political aspects, and more interested in the descriptions of cults in general. I love reading about cults. Of course there are different kinds: religious, personality, political, psychotherapy/educational, and commercial. But "ultimately it's not a group's content or ideology but rather its pattern of behavior that generally defines it as a destructive cult."
Cult behavior exists on a continuum. Hassan uses the BITE model (behavior control, information control, thought control, and emotional control) to assess cult activity.
I have personally witnessed 47/58 BITE characteristics that Hassan lists in various American Evangelical situations. Though most may have had good intentions and perhaps unwittingly stumbled upon control techniques, the fact is that many of the churches and Christian organizations I have been a part of in the US consider this sort of thing normal. I have also been a part of Christian churches and orgs outside of US influence that were able to exist without using any of these techniques. I am thankful for Reverend Canon Stephen Wright demonstrating that this was possible, otherwise I would shrug off these brainwashing techniques as "necessary for group identity." Christians, if your faith involves using strategies employed by the CIA, Scientology, Jonestown, and ISIS, you have a small god.
Another very good part of the book is a question that many of us concerned citizens have: How do you go about de-programming half a nation's worth of people?
First of all, you really have to believe that "respect, trust-building and love are stronger than fear, hate, and mind control." This will be your guiding light. You will never be able to win someone over with rational arguments. Love and care win people over.
1. Get prepared with knowledge. Double check your own beliefs. Really find out what other people are saying and critiquing about your own beliefs—are they valid points? Read the whole article and double check before you repost anything. Be critical of special interest groups that might be influencing your news sources. And do the homework on what your loved one believes. Watch/read what they are consuming and take notes. This will allow you to have genuine conversations.
2. Do not attack, belittle, demean their beliefs, mention they are showing signs of being in a cult, etc. This reinforces indoctrination by raising their defenses and triggering the "us vs them" mentality that cults depend on to succeed. You don't need to be critical of their leader, group, or doctrine to de-program. No one likes feeling stupid or admitting (even to themselves) they might have been wrong. If you feel yourself losing control over your emotions, the conversation is not going in the right direction.
3. Act with respect, warmth, and integrity. Genuine care, genuine curiosity about how they formed their beliefs and why they like what they believe, deep questions and long pauses are all good. Cults seek to replace the authentic self with a "cult self." Genuine care seeks to find the authentic self that is buried inside. Remind loved ones of good times and past experiences together.
4. Important conversations:
- Apologize if you have said mean things about their politics in the past. Build up old relationships that have broken down. Positive social relationships are essential to getting out of controlling groups.
- Invite a role play convo where you try to learn about their beliefs so well you can explain it just as they would, and ask them to correct you until you get it right. Then invite them to do the same. "I want to get your feedback and perspective." See Sarah Silverman's show "I Love You America" for good examples of experience sharing.
- Share knowledge about other cults and authoritarian governments and techniques they use. People can connect the dots on their own.
5. Help undo phobias. "Phobia indoctrination is the single most powerful technique for keeping people dependent and obedient. I have encountered many people who had long ago stopped believing in the leader but are psychologically paralyzed with deliberately implanted phobias, which are often unconscious." If you have a phobia, try these techniques on yourself first. Then you'll be able to use your experience to help others. (I'm going to try this out on my own irrational fear: needles).
- Learn the difference between an irrational fear and rational, legitimate fears.
- Phobias generally provoke physiological responses like tight chest, holding breath, etc. Visualize yourself in that fear-causing situation and practice using breathing or self-talk to calm yourself down. Practice this over and over.
- Systemic desensitization is the final step. This involves putting yourself into the real fear-causing situation and using the calming techniques you practiced.
- Explain how people deliberately use phobias to control others. This can be cults, abusive domestic relationships, etc.
- Try to connect the dots between positive visualizations and the fact that people use phobias for control. "Phobias can be deliberately implanted but they can also be removed and cured."
6. Finally, seek out personal stories of other people who have left cults. They have lifesaving stories to tell. People can be reluctant to talk about their own cult experiences even if they recognize them for what they are (it might be embarrassing). But they might be more willing to open up when they hear others openly discussing their own past beliefs. For example, former senior Trump advisor Omarosa Manigault Newman wrote a book about her experiences. Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen said, "Sitting here today, it seems unbelievable that I was so mesmerized by Donald Trump that I was willing to do things for him that I knew were absolutely wrong," and that his relationship with Trump was "something akin to a cult."
------
"Beliefs should never be held as if they are the truth. The more strongly someone claims to have the truth, the more evidence we need to accept it. Certitude is not evidence of truth. Nor does repetition make it true. If anything, repetition should make you suspicious. Truth always stands up to scrutiny on its merits."
This book is very straightfoward and full of citations. Each chapter is well organized and could stand alone. When describing characteristics of cults, leaders, and followers, Hassan gives numerous examples from well known and infamous cults, as well as documented examples from Trump.
I was less interested in this book for the political aspects, and more interested in the descriptions of cults in general. I love reading about cults. Of course there are different kinds: religious, personality, political, psychotherapy/educational, and commercial. But "ultimately it's not a group's content or ideology but rather its pattern of behavior that generally defines it as a destructive cult."
Cult behavior exists on a continuum. Hassan uses the BITE model (behavior control, information control, thought control, and emotional control) to assess cult activity.
I have personally witnessed 47/58 BITE characteristics that Hassan lists in various American Evangelical situations. Though most may have had good intentions and perhaps unwittingly stumbled upon control techniques, the fact is that many of the churches and Christian organizations I have been a part of in the US consider this sort of thing normal. I have also been a part of Christian churches and orgs outside of US influence that were able to exist without using any of these techniques. I am thankful for Reverend Canon Stephen Wright demonstrating that this was possible, otherwise I would shrug off these brainwashing techniques as "necessary for group identity." Christians, if your faith involves using strategies employed by the CIA, Scientology, Jonestown, and ISIS, you have a small god.
Another very good part of the book is a question that many of us concerned citizens have: How do you go about de-programming half a nation's worth of people?
First of all, you really have to believe that "respect, trust-building and love are stronger than fear, hate, and mind control." This will be your guiding light. You will never be able to win someone over with rational arguments. Love and care win people over.
1. Get prepared with knowledge. Double check your own beliefs. Really find out what other people are saying and critiquing about your own beliefs—are they valid points? Read the whole article and double check before you repost anything. Be critical of special interest groups that might be influencing your news sources. And do the homework on what your loved one believes. Watch/read what they are consuming and take notes. This will allow you to have genuine conversations.
2. Do not attack, belittle, demean their beliefs, mention they are showing signs of being in a cult, etc. This reinforces indoctrination by raising their defenses and triggering the "us vs them" mentality that cults depend on to succeed. You don't need to be critical of their leader, group, or doctrine to de-program. No one likes feeling stupid or admitting (even to themselves) they might have been wrong. If you feel yourself losing control over your emotions, the conversation is not going in the right direction.
3. Act with respect, warmth, and integrity. Genuine care, genuine curiosity about how they formed their beliefs and why they like what they believe, deep questions and long pauses are all good. Cults seek to replace the authentic self with a "cult self." Genuine care seeks to find the authentic self that is buried inside. Remind loved ones of good times and past experiences together.
4. Important conversations:
- Apologize if you have said mean things about their politics in the past. Build up old relationships that have broken down. Positive social relationships are essential to getting out of controlling groups.
- Invite a role play convo where you try to learn about their beliefs so well you can explain it just as they would, and ask them to correct you until you get it right. Then invite them to do the same. "I want to get your feedback and perspective." See Sarah Silverman's show "I Love You America" for good examples of experience sharing.
- Share knowledge about other cults and authoritarian governments and techniques they use. People can connect the dots on their own.
5. Help undo phobias. "Phobia indoctrination is the single most powerful technique for keeping people dependent and obedient. I have encountered many people who had long ago stopped believing in the leader but are psychologically paralyzed with deliberately implanted phobias, which are often unconscious." If you have a phobia, try these techniques on yourself first. Then you'll be able to use your experience to help others. (I'm going to try this out on my own irrational fear: needles).
- Learn the difference between an irrational fear and rational, legitimate fears.
- Phobias generally provoke physiological responses like tight chest, holding breath, etc. Visualize yourself in that fear-causing situation and practice using breathing or self-talk to calm yourself down. Practice this over and over.
- Systemic desensitization is the final step. This involves putting yourself into the real fear-causing situation and using the calming techniques you practiced.
- Explain how people deliberately use phobias to control others. This can be cults, abusive domestic relationships, etc.
- Try to connect the dots between positive visualizations and the fact that people use phobias for control. "Phobias can be deliberately implanted but they can also be removed and cured."
6. Finally, seek out personal stories of other people who have left cults. They have lifesaving stories to tell. People can be reluctant to talk about their own cult experiences even if they recognize them for what they are (it might be embarrassing). But they might be more willing to open up when they hear others openly discussing their own past beliefs. For example, former senior Trump advisor Omarosa Manigault Newman wrote a book about her experiences. Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen said, "Sitting here today, it seems unbelievable that I was so mesmerized by Donald Trump that I was willing to do things for him that I knew were absolutely wrong," and that his relationship with Trump was "something akin to a cult."
------
"Beliefs should never be held as if they are the truth. The more strongly someone claims to have the truth, the more evidence we need to accept it. Certitude is not evidence of truth. Nor does repetition make it true. If anything, repetition should make you suspicious. Truth always stands up to scrutiny on its merits."
This is very short, like a pocket catechism of the New Testament. I wonder why it wasn't included in the canon?
Edit:
The good folks at Quora have answered.
- It was a 2nd gen document, not written by one of the 12+Paul apostles.
- It doesn't "proclaim Christ" because it is focused on behavior and conduct
Edit:
The good folks at Quora have answered.
- It was a 2nd gen document, not written by one of the 12+Paul apostles.
- It doesn't "proclaim Christ" because it is focused on behavior and conduct
Angie Thomas forever!!! I loved the perspective of a Black teen dad trying to navigate all the stresses of life. And the banter is so good too. I'm glad this book can stand completely on its own, though knowing Starr's story makes it more fun.
Food pairing: BBQ ribs (I'm a St. Louis BBQ girl myself), fries, and coleslaw (Lazarus Lynch's slaw recipe that appears in [b:Son of a Southern Chef: Cook with Soul|43231102|Son of a Southern Chef Cook with Soul|Lazarus Lynch|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1554280114l/43231102._SX50_.jpg|67079882] is *the best* and I'll never make any other kind of mayo slaw ever again)
Food pairing: BBQ ribs (I'm a St. Louis BBQ girl myself), fries, and coleslaw (Lazarus Lynch's slaw recipe that appears in [b:Son of a Southern Chef: Cook with Soul|43231102|Son of a Southern Chef Cook with Soul|Lazarus Lynch|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1554280114l/43231102._SX50_.jpg|67079882] is *the best* and I'll never make any other kind of mayo slaw ever again)
So many emotions!!! And so fluffy and cute. I think this really captures how it feels to be a teen in love.
Food pairing: hot cocoa with lots of mini marshmallows <3
Food pairing: hot cocoa with lots of mini marshmallows <3
This book helped me sort out the different views of heaven and hell as they pertain to Christianity (incl Jewish, Greek, and some Near Eastern cultures). Oftentimes growing up, questions, oddities, and apparent contradictions in the Bible were glossed over, ignored, or combined in some kind of mismatch frankenstein explanation of how things supposedly work after death. This book separates and clarifies those things. It is not perfect, but I learned a lot about the plurality of voices in the Bible.
As Rabbi Lawrence Kushner quipped: ask a room of 10 Jews a question and you'll get 13 different answers.
Food pairing: Norwegian crisp bread and chamomile if you believe in beating the body into submission; garlic bread with extra butter and red wine if you don't. lol.
As Rabbi Lawrence Kushner quipped: ask a room of 10 Jews a question and you'll get 13 different answers.
Food pairing: Norwegian crisp bread and chamomile if you believe in beating the body into submission; garlic bread with extra butter and red wine if you don't. lol.
When I said to myself, "This is the year that I'm going to get really good at praying," I certainly didn't have this response in mind. This book came at the perfect moment for me and helped distill and clarify several other spiritual books I am in the middle of.
Centering prayer is a Christian form of meditation developed by Benedictine monks in the 1970s as a direct response to the hoards of young people who were flocking to the new-to-the-West zen Buddhism. These monks knew that Christianity had a very old tradition of meditation, but the teachings on it were obscure, underexplored, and certainly not taught to parishioners. Teresa de Avila, The Cloud of Unknowing, Symeon the New Theologian, and the Desert Fathers and Mothers (who in turn influenced Sufi mystics), as well as the Benedictine practice of lectio divina all describe experiencing this type of prayer—but no one in modern times had synthesized these ancient writings and taught them to the spiritually hungry.
Centering prayer, then, recovers these ancient roots and incorporates vocabulary borrowed from modern psychoanalysis to sculpt and define what it is and what it is not. Most types of meditation that we see today (in apps, podcasts, psychology tools, mindfulness seminars) are variations on taming and controlling the ego/superego/id trifecta through focusing our attention, "noticing," visualizing, etc. So they are inherently about the physical body. Centering prayer aims to drop completely beneath those layers and work directly with the divine spirit "with groans too deep for words." The fruit of this work is not increased attention span, productivity, decreased anxiety, or mental clarity; the purpose is to strengthen the internal connection we have with God that we can draw from as we go about our normal day, interrupting the pattern of falling into old cycles of protecting the false self/ego/flesh (it has many names depending on the tradition), not to control it (with an overbearing superego) but to surrender use of the body as a conduit for the fruit of the spirit, the mind of Christ, and the Kingdom of God in our physical lives. At least, that's how I understand it right now.
Practicing the centering prayer doesn't really have a downside, and it's not possible to have a "bad day." It's very freeing in that sense—have you ever sat down to meditate and afterwards realized that your mind was wandering and then felt bad that you wasted your time? There's no such thing as wasted time with this practice: God is a god who wastes nothing. And it obviously doesn't exclude other types of prayer, if you enjoy doing that.
I am motivated to incorporate this practice into my daily life and excited to see where it takes me. I believe that the future of North American Christianity is in this direction. Teachers as diverse as Chögyam Trungpa, bell hooks, and Steven Hassan (all of whom I've been reading recently) recognize that Americans are incredibly spiritually hungry; I would even venture to say that is one of the defining characteristics of American culture. Why else are cults [religious and otherwise *cough* Apple *cough*] so - freaking - successful in the US? I don't believe for a second, and I never have, that millennials are spiritually dead and this is why we are leaving the church. I believe millennials are so spiritually starving that we are going literally anywhere else to try to find food of substance. Myopic leadership in the evangelical church has failed to recognize, for several decades now, that practices they have held up as "universally true Christianity" have never been anything close to universal. While those practices may have been helpful and good for some people at some time, it is time for the American church to humble itself and recognize that different cultural expressions are 100% valid in God's sight. Indeed, it is necessary to recognize them as valid in our human sight as well if we want to live out this universal siblinghood on earth.
Centering prayer is a Christian form of meditation developed by Benedictine monks in the 1970s as a direct response to the hoards of young people who were flocking to the new-to-the-West zen Buddhism. These monks knew that Christianity had a very old tradition of meditation, but the teachings on it were obscure, underexplored, and certainly not taught to parishioners. Teresa de Avila, The Cloud of Unknowing, Symeon the New Theologian, and the Desert Fathers and Mothers (who in turn influenced Sufi mystics), as well as the Benedictine practice of lectio divina all describe experiencing this type of prayer—but no one in modern times had synthesized these ancient writings and taught them to the spiritually hungry.
Centering prayer, then, recovers these ancient roots and incorporates vocabulary borrowed from modern psychoanalysis to sculpt and define what it is and what it is not. Most types of meditation that we see today (in apps, podcasts, psychology tools, mindfulness seminars) are variations on taming and controlling the ego/superego/id trifecta through focusing our attention, "noticing," visualizing, etc. So they are inherently about the physical body. Centering prayer aims to drop completely beneath those layers and work directly with the divine spirit "with groans too deep for words." The fruit of this work is not increased attention span, productivity, decreased anxiety, or mental clarity; the purpose is to strengthen the internal connection we have with God that we can draw from as we go about our normal day, interrupting the pattern of falling into old cycles of protecting the false self/ego/flesh (it has many names depending on the tradition), not to control it (with an overbearing superego) but to surrender use of the body as a conduit for the fruit of the spirit, the mind of Christ, and the Kingdom of God in our physical lives. At least, that's how I understand it right now.
Practicing the centering prayer doesn't really have a downside, and it's not possible to have a "bad day." It's very freeing in that sense—have you ever sat down to meditate and afterwards realized that your mind was wandering and then felt bad that you wasted your time? There's no such thing as wasted time with this practice: God is a god who wastes nothing. And it obviously doesn't exclude other types of prayer, if you enjoy doing that.
I am motivated to incorporate this practice into my daily life and excited to see where it takes me. I believe that the future of North American Christianity is in this direction. Teachers as diverse as Chögyam Trungpa, bell hooks, and Steven Hassan (all of whom I've been reading recently) recognize that Americans are incredibly spiritually hungry; I would even venture to say that is one of the defining characteristics of American culture. Why else are cults [religious and otherwise *cough* Apple *cough*] so - freaking - successful in the US? I don't believe for a second, and I never have, that millennials are spiritually dead and this is why we are leaving the church. I believe millennials are so spiritually starving that we are going literally anywhere else to try to find food of substance. Myopic leadership in the evangelical church has failed to recognize, for several decades now, that practices they have held up as "universally true Christianity" have never been anything close to universal. While those practices may have been helpful and good for some people at some time, it is time for the American church to humble itself and recognize that different cultural expressions are 100% valid in God's sight. Indeed, it is necessary to recognize them as valid in our human sight as well if we want to live out this universal siblinghood on earth.
This is the quirkiest book I have ever read. Describing it--hive mind narration by the 1989 varsity women's field hockey team in Danvers, Mass, as they play with witchcraft to boost their odds towards state championships--does not begin to harness the experience of reading it. Non-stop 80s references and the prose never takes a breath. It's like The Breakfast Club but faster and richer. Somehow the 10+ characters are all so uniquely voiced (written and in the audio as well) that I never forgot who was who. And that sisterhood-friendship made me want to be part of the team so bad.