Author: Elizabeth Jarrett Andrew

  • Changing Church

    Ages ago, when I was in the messy middle of coming out bisexual (I felt raw and unformed because I was not the person others had thought me to be; I railed against God for making this world such a difficult place to be honest in) I read a passage my spiritual director Cil Braun had written in a newsletter:  “God is not static.  God is in constant creation, constantly being created.  We are not static, either.  We are in constant creation.”  Yes, I thought; I am being created.  At the time it felt wretched.  Looking back I know coming out was gloriously, divinely formative. 

    “Discomfort is the nerve ending of growth,” Jonathan Rowe writes.  Kids know this viscerally when growing pains wrench their legs; they know it emotionally when cascading new experiences—getting dressed themselves, suddenly drawing figures—send them scurrying back to babyhood.  Sometimes Gwyn crawls into my lap and pretends to nurse as though her perpetually changing life is just too much to bear. The writers I work with learn to tolerate terrible discomfort as they take their pieces through revision; they, too, throw occasional tantrums.  Change hurts.

    So when the facilitator of the Healthy Small Church Initiative challenged our congregation to change significantly, I thought, Ut-oh!  Individuals may kick and scream their way through growth, but organizations are worse; they dig in their heels.  Prospect Park UMC has been given some provocative statistics, though.  We’re on the decline.  Other churches with worship experiences and communities and ministries much like ours don’t make it.  The facilitator’s message:  Change now or die.

    Dire?  Grim?  Perhaps, but I keep coming back to Cil’s words—God is in constant creation.  Staying the same slowly shuts out God’s work.  Changing—consciously, willingly, actively—is one sure way to participate in God’s realm.  Many of the facilitator’s suggestions were exciting:  Talk to the neighborhood, find out what is needed.  Create a vision for ministry.  Shift the church culture to be more inviting and inclusive.  Worship in a way that meets the spiritual needs of those who have yet to come as well as those who are here.  Good stuff.

    But getting there is going to hurt.  Can we learn to tolerate this terrible discomfort together?  “My yoke is easy and my burden is light.”      –Elizabeth Jarrett Andrew 

  • The VIDA Count and Spiritual Writing

    Recently, while reading yet another volume of Philip Zaleski’s Best Spiritual Writing, I grew increasingly annoyed at essay after essay of heady language about grandiose meditations and abstract ethical conundrums.  My spiritual life, lived out as I potty-train my daughter, lift canned tomatoes from a boiling bath, struggle to remain a loving member of my bickering church community—in other words, lived out in details and increments—was absent from this collection.  I thought of the hundreds of times I’ve folded my daughter’s trainer undies, printed with delicate pink roses; I hold their warm cotton to my cheek, imagine them snug on her sweet behind, and my knees go weak with adoration for this life.  Underwear can be holy, too! I wanted to shout at Zaleski.

    Fortunately I’d also recently read the 2011 VIDA count (http://www.vidaweb.org/the-2011-count).  VIDA, an online organization serving women in the literary arts, takes an annual survey of how often women are published in our country’s most respected literary journals.  The statistics are not good; women simply aren’t published as much as men.  In Zaleski’s anthologies and the journals they cull from, women’s writing is downright rare.  The major literary journals that publish spiritual writing—Image Magazine, Portland Magazine, The Sun, St. Katherine Review, Riverteeth, The Other Journal—are all edited by men.  Good men, men I admire for their dedication to fine writing about the Spirit, but men with enormous blind spots nonetheless.

    No wonder my spiritual life seems underrepresented.  Women’s particular experiences of holiness, shaped by bleeding and childbirth and multitasking and friendship, don’t make it into print.

    This fact makes me doubly mad when I consider the population I teach.  I’ve offered spiritual memoir writing classes for almost twenty years now, and the overwhelming majority of my students have been women—eighteen women for every man, I’d estimate.  Men certainly publish work with spiritual content, so I suspect they simply don’t take classes or hire coaches.  Fine.  But what’s happening to the work by all these women?  Do women lack the resolve to push their creations beyond the private sphere?  Do they lack the time it takes to develop their skills or see a project to completion?  Or are all these women banging their heads on a glass ceiling?  Perhaps women face the double-whammy of having their literary sensibilities under-appreciated and their theological insights dismissed.

    All this stewing gives fresh direction to my work.  I’m committed to supporting writers in their exploration of the sacred, whatever their gender, but now I feel fresh urgency in my support of underrepresented populations.  When our literature limits holiness to mountain-top experiences or intellectual exercises, we forget the pervasive, earthy, utterly present and thoroughly absent mystery which is God.  We need many voices to name what’s holy and sing its praise.

    We need your voice.

  • Write–Or Be Written.

    This past weekend my sister married the man she loves in a sunny meadow.  Because this was her second marriage, she had resisted it mightily—“marriage” is a story the culture imposes on couples, and it doesn’t necessarily work.  You have to understand—Marcy is a woman who, on her own, adopted two boys from Guatemala; she started a community farm and has midwifed countless babies into the world.  Her performance artist sweetie moved in two years ago; the boys already call him Dad.  Why bother with marriage?

    Eventually Marcy conceded that a wedding would give them a communal and sacred blessing.  The couple created a “family union” ceremony with their Lakotan spiritual leader that involved the guests hiking across a canyon, drumming, washing in a stream, and making vows to one another and the boys.  The guests cried and danced.

    What made my sister’s wedding powerful?  It was faithful to tradition and it arose from the particulars of her family’s story.  She and her partner stayed true to their tradition’s form of a wedding but recreated it to reflect their personalities, their history, their community, their needs.  This union resulted from years of hard work.

    It reminded me, strangely enough, of writing a book.

    “Write or be written,” the author Elissa Raffa signs her books.  “If we refuse to do the work of creating this personal version of the past,” Patricia Hampl writes of memoir, “someone else will do it for us.”  When I think of all the thoughtless, formulaic weddings I’ve attended—ceremonies that follow prescriptions of tradition or culture, which provide a shallow form for the couple to conform to—I realize the transformative power of creating from the inside out.  Form plays an important role, but we must fill form intentionally, with the essence of our being.  In this way we become authors—of our lives and of our creations.

    Because my circle of friends is comprised almost entirely of people working for social change—advocating for the environment, promoting rights for GLBT folks, strengthening communities, finding nonviolent solutions to conflicts—I sometimes question the value of my work as a writer and writing teacher.  Given the pressing needs of our times, why do I help writers dedicate years to crafting their personal stories?  But moments like my sister’s wedding remind me that the most powerful forces in our world are clear and honest hearts, and real change in our culture, as in our relationships, always begins with genuine stories.  When we tell our own version of our story with great integrity, we step out into society hand-in-hand with our essential truth.  And that’s when the tears and dancing begin.    –Elizabeth Jarrett Andrew

  • The God of Dreams

    “God lives in your dreams.”

    So says a line in one of Gwyn’s children’s books.  Our congregation is beginning to dream again, and I’m curious how this dreaming can invite God more fully into our midst.

    When I’ve dreamed dreams for my future, those dreams that tug me with longing are born of both me (my talents, my interests, my personality) and God.  How do I know God’s in the mix?  Usually some mystery is involved—where did this longing originate?  Where is it taking me?—with no logical explanation.  Usually the essence of my being is stirred when I work with the dream.  Usually the dream pulls me into my best self while also serving some pressing need evident in the world.  Almost always the dream seems impossible or stupid; it rarely comes with cultural affirmation and almost never with money.  By following the dream, the world becomes a better place, but in a sly, backwards way that few people recognize.

    The God of dreams asks us to co-create.  We don’t need to wrangle our dreams into fruition using sheer will power.  Nor does God wave a magic wand and grant our wishes.  Instead, God joins us as we listen to our heart’s longings, as we write them down, as we sweat and argue and problem-solve in our efforts to manifest dreams.  God surprises us with unexpected challenges and with tiny moments of grace.  We must be active players in bringing about our dream, and we must humbly accept God’s participation.  The process of heeding our dreams is so rich, it often outshines the final result.

    Surely God lives in the dreams of groups of people as well.  God—creative energy, the unfolding of justice, the great pulsing love at the center of the universe—wants nothing more than to come alive.  May God use our dreaming and scheming to bring this about.                  –Elizabeth Jarrett Andrew

  • You Are What You Write

    When I teach, I often ask the question, “What’s at stake for you in this story?”  I’m not alone; it’s a common question in the world of writing.  Students are puzzled by it, however, and usually ask me to explain.

    Really I’m looking for the intersection between the writer’s heart and the words on the page.  How does this subject terrify you, compel you, wrap its sweaty hands around your longing and jerk you into unexplored territory?  When a story nags, it always shares some fundamental passion with the writer.  It always taunts the writer with the promise of discoveries that cannot be made in any other way.  How does this project set you on edge?  What’s the rabbit hole you’ve been skirting?  Your writing will take you down.

    For people who keep journals and new writers, writing is a natural extension of the self.  We don’t recognize any separation between the passion thumping in our chests and those black marks on paper.  The more we write and the more we learn the craft of writing, we find that our work isn’t us; it is a creation, it’s separate from us.  This is a good thing.  Only as we gain mastery over language and our ideas do we learn to craft our writing, shaping it to interact with audiences beyond our control.  We need a healthy detachment from our work for it to stand on its own two legs.

    That said, I’m beginning to realize (through my own writing and my coaching of others) how easily we lose our initial, passionate, full-throttle, full-stakes relationship with writing.  Concern for how our work will satisfy an audience sucks the life out of our creative energy.  We forget our stake.

    Recently I found this passage in Ray Bradbury’s Zen in the Art of Writing:

    The core of your creativity should be the same as the core of your story and of the main character in your story.  What does your character want, what is his dream, what shape has it, and how expressed?  Given expression, this is the dynamo of his life, and your life, then, as Creator.  (43)

    Oh, yes!  We don’t want our writing to flirt with our life, we don’t want casual dating, we want head-over-heels love leading to a life-long marriage.  So the question, “What’s at stake?” isn’t strong enough.  “How does your life depend on this piece of writing?” is more apt.  Answer that question and you’ve got it made.  –Elizabeth Jarrett Andrew

  • Humility

    It’s gone out of fashion.  Even in Christian circles we associate humility with the mothballed faith of our grandmothers.  These days we have more hip spiritual practices, like living in the present moment and doing yoga and advocating for GLBTQA rights.  Why bother groveling?  With anything that might undermine our pride?  Spirituality’s supposed to make us feel good, right?

    Lately I’ve been reading some Benedictine spirituality.  Joan Chittister believes the Rule of Saint Benedict is a relevant and alive document, one that speaks directly to the contemporary consciousness.  In my skepticism, I came across this question in the Rule—“Who will dwell in your tent, O God?”—and Benedict’s answer:  “These people reverence God, and do not become elated over their good deeds; they judge it is God’s strength, not their own, that brings about the good in them.  They praise the Holy One working in them, and say with the prophet:  “Not to us, O God, not to us give the glory, but to your name alone” (Ps. 115:1).

    The rare times I’ve taken humility seriously, I’ve worked to think less of myself in favor of some other.  Down with the ego!  But to Benedict, the practice of humility says nothing about us and everything about God.  God is goodness and strength working through us.  Say I’m a lamp.  I can feel awfully proud of my bright flame, and then practice humility the old way by saying, “Bad lamp!  Your flame’s not so great.”  Or I can follow Benedict’s suggestion and say, “Divinity is burning here, too.  Praise be!”

    I love this, for two reasons.  God is not some abstract, absent being but goodness working through me—near, daily, tangible, real.  And by remembering this, repeatedly, I place myself in a dynamic relationship with God, that is, with the strength and goodness that makes the world go ‘round.  The glory is with God.  Isn’t that marvelous?

    –Elizabeth Jarrett Andrew

  • Dismissing, Then Welcoming the Audience

    You must sympathize with the reader’s plight (most readers are in trouble about half the time) but never seek to know the reader’s wants.  Your whole duty as a writer is to please and satisfy yourself, and the true writer always plays to an audience of one.

    When I came upon these words in Strunk and White’s classic writing handbook, Elements of Style, I felt pleased as punch.  For years I’ve tried to convince writing students to surround themselves with a safe, protective bubble as they draft projects and begin revising.  We all know how concern for our audience can loom over our shoulders, pestering us with questions like “What will your mother think?” and “Who will give a rat’s ass about that?” and judging our language or ideas as inadequate.  As soon as we allow that dreaded entity, “the reader,” into our writing room, we begin censoring and performing.  We deny our brilliant but quirky inner voice the freedom to emerge.

    “A careful first draft is a failed first draft,” Patricia Hampl writes.  What happens if you give yourself permission in a first draft to be messy, heretical, revolutionary, stupid, and otherwise embarrassing?  Your inclination may be to approach your second draft like Stephen King does: “Write with the door closed, rewrite with the door open.”  And while I agree in principle, I’ve found that even the initial stages of revision benefit from a general disregard of audience.  How else can we ask the probing questions that will churn up more risky material?  How else will we feel safe enough to identify that pulsing heartbeat?  Often our real motivations for writing emerge after our material is on the page, and we need the freedom to be honest with ourselves without concern for our readers’ pleasure.

    As every writer knows, it takes real will-power to set the future reader aside and “play to an audience of one.”  Whether at the beginning of a project or well into revision, this practice is about peeling away layers of deception to arrive at a core reality—one that comforts the disturbed and disturbs the comforted, as Mark Twain is reported to have said.  Our work needs us to be fully present, not distracted by what others will think.  This is what gives the process of writing the quality of serious spiritual listening, and what invites us into our better selves.

    The corollary to this intense privacy is equally valuable–for writing to flourish we must at some point welcome the audience.  If a writer only considers the self the primary audience, the work becomes solipsistic and sloppy.  Our own minds, however bright, are only so big; our own lives, however expansive, are inevitably limited.  When we write solely for ourselves, as we do in a private journal, we human beings have a propensity to navel-gaze and obsess.  Unedited journals almost never get published for this reason; there’s simply too much shlock for most readers.

    If we never consider an audience as we write, our work’s growth remains stunted.  The discipline of considering the reader is absolutely necessary to the development of creative work.  All art is essentially dialogue—between the artist and the viewer, between the artist and all artists who have come before, and between the artist and society.  The artist’s awareness of this conversation is what launches a work from the private realm into the public.  In literature, it’s this awareness that helps a writer identify the universal elements in the particulars of his or her narrative.  By setting our work in the context of history, social movements, religious thought, psychological explorations, and other external forces, we link the smallness of our memories (or imagined world) to that web of commonality that connects us as humans.  We remove ourselves from isolation and participate in community.

    I believe the best time to welcome the audience into our writing process is after the first or second draft, after we’ve searched for the heart of our work and risked exposing some truth.  Gradually, as we move through the drafts, we can begin to ask questions that might open our story to external readers:  Have I introduced my characters, my setting, my questions thoroughly?  Why might an anonymous reader be interested in this work?  How might I capture his or her attention and raise the stakes?  How might I make my experience (or my character’s experience) available to the reader, so he or she is a participant rather than an observer?  What in my story touches the human experience, that cord of connection we all share?

    Every spiritual journey worth its salt brings the journeyer back into community, where the fruits of solitude can provide nourishment beyond the bounds of one individual life.  Likewise with creative practice; what’s born in privacy gains texture and merit by moving into the public realm.  The craft of writing well is really a rigorous discipline through which we open our internal world to another, or to the Other.  This, I believe, is essentially what revision is about—seeing our material again and again, with eyes other than our own or with sight broadened by the wider world.                        –Elizabeth Jarrett Andrew

  • Reflective Writing

    The best literature revolves around a central core of an idea or emotion—what I like to call the heartbeat.  The heartbeat pumps life into every artery and vein of a story.  It unifies.  It doesn’t prevent the inclusion of other themes and motifs, but it does rise to prominence.

    This heartbeat almost never reveals itself during a first draft.  Our work during revision involves looking for hints of this heartbeat and drawing them forward.  One helpful technique for doing this is to write with the voice of a distanced narrator.  Rather than immersing yourself in the character who is your younger self (the former you, who experienced the events of your story), step back and reflect.  What do you make of these events today?  Why are you sharing them?  What’s at stake for you?  What might be at stake for your reader?

    Whether or not these reflections get included in your manuscript, it is imperative that they become conscious.  We need to know the motivation behind our writing.  We need to know the significance of the events we’re relating, especially how they impact our present life.  We need to know why our readers might care, because this will reveal to us the universal truths within our story.  This level of awareness then shapes our revision.

    When we push ourselves to this level of reflection, fresh insights emerge that help us to see our work—and our lives—in new light.

    The reflective voice is very common in memoir and almost always present in personal essays.  As authors, we get to choose whether or not to include it.  Below are a few examples.

    This first from Mary McCarthy’s A Catholic Girlhood:

    The fear of appearing ridiculous first entered my life, as a governing motive, during my second year in the convent.  Up to then, a desire for prominence had decided many of my actions and, in fact, still persisted.  But in the eighth grade, I became aware of mockery and perceived that I could not seek prominence without attracting laughter.  Other people could, but I couldn’t.  This laughter was proceeding, not from my classmates, but from the girls of the class just above me, in particular from two boon companions, Elinor Heffernan and Mary Harty, a clownish pair—oddly assorted in size and shape, as teams of clowns generally are, one short, plump, and baby-faced, the other tall, lean, and owlish—who entertained the high-school department by calling attention to the oddities of the younger girls. …

    It was just at this time, too, that I found myself in a perfectly absurd situation, a very private one, which made me live, from month to month, in horror of discovery.  I had waked up one morning, in my convent room, to find a few small spots of blood on my sheet; I had somehow scratched a trifling cut on one of my legs and opened it during the night.  I wondered what to do about this…

    Note in the first paragraph the authoritative, knowledgeable tone of the narrator.  Using adult language and insight, she summarizes and interprets events from her childhood.  McCarthy is the master story-teller; her narrative perspective colors how we see and think about Elinor and Mary.  Thus she creates portraits of her characters without yet placing them in a scene.

    I chose the second paragraph because it shows McCarthy transitioning from that distant narrative point of view into a scene.  The adult narrator tells us that her childhood situation is “absurd”; she’s still interpreting for us.  But then she leaves interpretation behind and we zoom in on Mary, the character.  She segues smoothly between both perspectives throughout the story:  “But precisely the same impasse confronted me when I was summoned to her office at recess-time.  I talked about my cut, and she talked about becoming a woman.  It was rather like a round, in which she was singing “Scotland’s burning, Scotland’s burning,” and I was singing “Pour on water, pour on water.”  Neither of us could hear the other, or, rather, I could hear her, but she could not hear me.”  The distanced narrator allows her to create the analogy of the round and help her readers understand the dynamics between Mary and the Mother Superior.

    Here’s another example, this time from Bernard Cooper’s Truth Serum.

                Like most children, I once thought it possible to divide the world into male and female columns.  Blue/Pink.  Roosters/ Hens.  Trousers/Skirts.  Such divisions were easy, not to mention comforting, for they simplified matter into compatible pairs.  But there also existed a vast range of things that didn’t fit neatly into either camp:  clocks, milk, telephones, grass.  There were nights I fell into a fitful sleep while trying to sex the world correctly.
    Nothing typified the realms of male and female as clearly as my parents’ walk-in closets.  Home alone for any length of time, I always found my way inside them.  I could stare at my parents’ clothes for hours, grateful for the stillness, haunting the very heart of their privacy.
    The overhead light in my father’s closet was a bare bulb.

    Again, note the transition from exposition into scene.  The reflective voice allows Cooper to elaborate on his childhood mindset—one we’re very familiar with, and so before he’s begun his story about the closets (where he cross-dresses—something his reader might be less familiar with) he has invited us into his childhood conundrum.  Here’s his transition back out:

    …A make-up mirror above the dressing table invited my self-absorption.  Sound was muffled.  Time slowed.  It seemed as if nothing bad could happen as long as I stayed within those walls.

                Though I’d never been discovered in my mother’s closet, my parents knew that I was drawn toward girlish things—dolls and jump rope and jewelry—as well as to the games and preoccupations that were expected of a boy.

    Here you can see how the reflective voice serves as connective tissue, reminding the reader of the story’s primary theme and doing some interpretive work.  When authors choose to include the reflective voice in memoir, we do so not because scenes don’t speak for themselves—they always do if they’re working well—but because the author wishes them to serve some other purpose as well.  In this case, Cooper is exploring the permeable boundaries between the sexes and showing the hurtful impact of cultural norms on a child.

    You may also enjoy reading:

    Deep Dive Into Chaos

    Adding To The “Sum Of The Universe’s Order”

    The Aliveness Of Completed Work

  • Holy Memory

    Five hours into our week-long family vacation, Gwyn said, “I want to go home!”  This wasn’t a new refrain.  When she’s excessively tired or hungry, she sometimes says it when we’re at home, bustling around the kitchen or getting ready for bed.  Emily and I have speculated that “home” is a pre-birth memory for Gwyn, and today received confirmation.  “Let’s play I’m home in Nanny’s womb,” Gwyn said to Emily this morning as she crawled under the covers.

    In short order she was born once more.

    Nanny is Gwyn’s biological mother.  That Gwyn remembers her womb so viscerally, so fondly, feels miraculous.  At firs Annie didn’t want a baby inside her although she came to care for it responsibly and with love beyond her years.  Perhaps, though, it wasn’t Annie so much as God who made a home for Gwyn before this one, wrapping her in warm water and sending her a steady stream of nutrients.  Perhaps the home Gwyn remembers is pre-womb, even, a place of origins and ends, what Christians call heaven.  I like to think Gwyn remembers being immersed in God.

    Regardless, at the core of her being Gwyn knows home.  She knows complete comfort, complete unity, somewhere, somehow.  I like to think we all do, although most of us have lost our conscious awareness.

    This, I believe is the foundation of Gwyn’s spiritual life, and everyone’s:  A memory of home.  Her journey as a human being is both away from this home and towards it.  The more she draws from this source, pulling divinity forward into her being, containing in her body the love of her origin, the more she will grow in spirit.  Over and over she will be born.                                                            –Elizabeth Jarrett Andrew

  • What’s At Stake?

    Perhaps the most important question for every creative writer to ask—and definitely the hardest question to answer—is “What’s at stake for me?”  For writing to work well, the writer must care deeply.

    On the surface this question seems simplistic; our care is instinctive, compelling, and unspoken.  In practice, the journey through revision is an excavation of the author’s stake, digging below external reasons (“I want to help others; I want to be published”), below the outer story (“I want to explore this memory, character, or idea”), to some subconscious, undercurrent of longing.  Our stake is always found in our emotional relationship to the subject matter.  Without some connection to our content, we might convey the content to a reader but we’ve no reason to explore it.  And passionate exploration is what makes writing great.

    What’s in question?  What are you risking?  What of your heart have you invested?  A writer’s stake in a project is a fiery furnace that fuels the steam engine and makes it move.  When I ask writers, “What’s at stake?” they frequently have no idea.  The writing process is their heartfelt search for that single burning coal.  Sometimes writers have an answer that changes with time and revision, a sign that their work is gaining dimension.  Sometimes writers continue to learn about their stake long after the project is done.  Only when writers have a definitive, unchanging answer do I grow concerned for their work.

    I believe every project is an attempt to give words to an inarticulate relationship between the author’s heart and his or her subject matter.  Our struggles naming this relationship are understandable:  It changes by virtue of being written.      –Elizabeth Jarrett Andrew