Sometimes I wonder if Jesus could have saved himself a few words and rephrased the Golden Rule by saying, "It's not about you."
On my way home today, there was lots of traffic leading up to a red light. An oncoming car was trying to turn left through the jam, and the car a few up from me in my lane stopped to let him turn, since we were stuck at a red light anyway. The car behind me, seeing that we were stopped, zipped into the right lane to race his way to the red light, nearly hitting the poor left turner that our lane had tried to let turn.
It's not about you.
When I voted yesterday, I thought about the unemployed, the poor, seniors on fixed incomes, families living in homelessness, children who rely on free school lunches for nutrition, hopes for peace in our world, the ways that I am compelled and called to take care of my neighbors. I voted not for my own interests but for the interests of others, for the common good.
Voting: It's not about you. It's about us.
If there is one prevailing side effect of my faith in God, it is the understanding that I do not live for myself. And everything I do has an effect on someone else, whether I intend it or not.
And so, in faith, I see it as my responsibility to leave a gentle footprint on this earth, stepping lightly and humbly over the course of my existence, not trampling anyone or anything, letting go of myself, living in the awareness of my connectedness, dependence, and responsibility to my fellow human beings and all creation.
"Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others." (Philippians 2:3-4 NIV)
It's not about you.
Showing posts with label dialogue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dialogue. Show all posts
11.07.2012
11.02.2012
Money makes the world go 'round
I had the afternoon off and was flipping channels while I waited to switch over some laundry. I came upon a re-run of a recent edition of FRONTLINE entitled "Big Sky, Big Money." And, as FRONTLINE usually succeeds in doing, it sucked me in. I watched this story unfold about campaign finance, and outside funding groups who raise money, have no legal responsibility to disclose where these funds come from, and who use these funds to promote "issues," but really, to take down opposing candidates. I cannot convey in words how disgusted this investigation made me feel (you'll have to watch it to see what I mean). I am always surprised by human willingness to do smarmy, despicable, dishonest things, and to think that exploiting legal loopholes somehow makes their actions right
The piece mentioned the billions of dollars that will be spent in campaign season across the country, and I couldn't help but think about what a horrible waste of money that seems to me. Investing such an incredible amount of money in order to drag someone's name through the mud so that your favorite person can win the political game...while in the meantime, our economy continues to struggle and people in our country and around the world live in severe poverty. Isn't there a better use of billions of dollars?
Meanwhile, I think about how I will sleep outside in a box tomorrow night. I'll do this because I am raising money and awareness for homelessness in our community. I'll do it to support the work of Bridge Communities, a community organization that helps homeless families get back on their feet. I will sleep out because there are people in need who rely on others to help them survive.
Our church's goal is to raise $3000. And that feels like a huge goal. Why is it so hard to raise $3000 to help people in need, but elsewhere in the country, there are billions of free dollars being used to pitch attack ads against opposing political candidates? This is one of those days when I feel angry.
Billions of dollars would help homeless families, and help hungry families, and help starvation across the world, and that money could create jobs and fund college scholarships and build hospitals and improve public transportation....
I am so ready for campaign season to be over. And I am so ready for people to be generous in ways that actually matter.
The piece mentioned the billions of dollars that will be spent in campaign season across the country, and I couldn't help but think about what a horrible waste of money that seems to me. Investing such an incredible amount of money in order to drag someone's name through the mud so that your favorite person can win the political game...while in the meantime, our economy continues to struggle and people in our country and around the world live in severe poverty. Isn't there a better use of billions of dollars?
Meanwhile, I think about how I will sleep outside in a box tomorrow night. I'll do this because I am raising money and awareness for homelessness in our community. I'll do it to support the work of Bridge Communities, a community organization that helps homeless families get back on their feet. I will sleep out because there are people in need who rely on others to help them survive.
Our church's goal is to raise $3000. And that feels like a huge goal. Why is it so hard to raise $3000 to help people in need, but elsewhere in the country, there are billions of free dollars being used to pitch attack ads against opposing political candidates? This is one of those days when I feel angry.
Billions of dollars would help homeless families, and help hungry families, and help starvation across the world, and that money could create jobs and fund college scholarships and build hospitals and improve public transportation....
I am so ready for campaign season to be over. And I am so ready for people to be generous in ways that actually matter.
9.06.2012
Something political
Election years, as well they should, cause me to consider again my ideals and values, and the expectations I have for how a government should function and how a government should best seek the common good for its citizens.
This time around, I've realized that my own politics can be summed up in two statements, which are not my own, but come from a pretty respectable source:
First, loving God: This means that I live in the care of and in the hope of God. It means that I am free to realize that no political system can give me salvation, or no one political party has the corner on saving the world. It means that I don't ever see political candidates as larger-than-life, nor do I need to put all my trust in them. It means that I am free to understand that no one candidate has the power either to save or destroy the world, and that there is life after election day.
Second, loving neighbor as yourself: This is where the rubber hits the road. It takes all individualism out of politics. Preserving my own interests comes second to taking care of the common good. I seek the good of my neighbors, trusting that they will seek good for me. A political system of loving your neighbor means that you seek peace and not war, that all lives have dignity and deserve to be preserved, that wealth is to be shared, that opportunity be available no matter class or race, that justice is tempered by mercy, and that I vote on behalf of my neighbor's needs and interests and not my own.
Loving God and loving neighbor mean that, for me, politics is not about whether I am better off but rather whether we are better off...but at the end of the day it is not even about being better off. It is about being better at the things that matter: love, grace, patience, charity, inclusivity, caring for one another.
So for all of the campaign commercials, all of the conventions, all of the email forwards and blog posts and articles shared on Facebook - every piece of rhetoric that tries to tell me how I should vote - I find that I don't need anything to guide me except for two short sentences: Love God. Love neighbor.
All the law and prophets hang on these two things.
This time around, I've realized that my own politics can be summed up in two statements, which are not my own, but come from a pretty respectable source:
Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind."And how do these two statements inform my politics?
And a second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
First, loving God: This means that I live in the care of and in the hope of God. It means that I am free to realize that no political system can give me salvation, or no one political party has the corner on saving the world. It means that I don't ever see political candidates as larger-than-life, nor do I need to put all my trust in them. It means that I am free to understand that no one candidate has the power either to save or destroy the world, and that there is life after election day.
Second, loving neighbor as yourself: This is where the rubber hits the road. It takes all individualism out of politics. Preserving my own interests comes second to taking care of the common good. I seek the good of my neighbors, trusting that they will seek good for me. A political system of loving your neighbor means that you seek peace and not war, that all lives have dignity and deserve to be preserved, that wealth is to be shared, that opportunity be available no matter class or race, that justice is tempered by mercy, and that I vote on behalf of my neighbor's needs and interests and not my own.
Loving God and loving neighbor mean that, for me, politics is not about whether I am better off but rather whether we are better off...but at the end of the day it is not even about being better off. It is about being better at the things that matter: love, grace, patience, charity, inclusivity, caring for one another.
So for all of the campaign commercials, all of the conventions, all of the email forwards and blog posts and articles shared on Facebook - every piece of rhetoric that tries to tell me how I should vote - I find that I don't need anything to guide me except for two short sentences: Love God. Love neighbor.
All the law and prophets hang on these two things.
2.12.2012
But it's not always easy: ELCA World Hunger Leadership Gathering day 4
It has been an absolutely inspiring past few days, full of new learnings, creative ideas, energetic fellowship, and sparks of inspiration. We ended Gathering with conversation in affinity groups and closing worship this morning, and I'm taking a little space to reflect and write over lunch (while waiting to head to the airport), because I ended up in an uncomfortable situation this morning.
I went to an affinity group about HIV/AIDS and hunger in Africa. I'm not experienced in affinity group models, and was comfortable (for the most part) with the simple model for our groups: simply to gather with others on topics interesting to us, to talk about our experiences, hopes, ideas...very open-ended.
We had one man - the one who had proposed the topic - who dominated the conversation. He has an interesting lens, being a professional economist focusing on health and public policy, and spent significant time in Africa researching effectiveness of various HIV/AIDS development and relief work. Unfortunately, he did not leave much room for others to talk. I think he was approaching the group as a teaching session rather than a discussion.
He said some interesting things, but seemed to believe that his research and his preferred methods of relief and development (through large government programs and broad global initiatives) were the right way to do things. Others in our group started trying to talk about their own experiences (we had all traveled to Africa), both to challenge and to support what he was saying. We had one member get frustrated and fume in the corner, and two or three of us who tried to ask questions and tell stories and bring things to a middle ground, and a couple people who didn't get to speak because we were all working so hard to force our way in.
Things were a little heated, a little frustrating, and a lot awkward.
There were interesting fundamental differences at play: On the one hand, the idea that we can study large groups of people, figure out what is the best way to help them, and then to build programs and incentives around those best methods. On the other hand, the idea that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and individual countries and communities will adopt practices in different ways - or resist these practices!
And I thought about Mama Sara. We who traveled to Tanzania this summer were all absolutely moved by the ways that she influences her community through of her relationships, her passions, and her cultural capital. I know that the Fribergs benefit from large programs, broad initiatives, government funding, global projects and initiatives. But on the ground, they approach their work in a very different way, taking into account particular needs of the community and working with particular people like Mama Sara.
I don't think it is one-or-the-other. We need the big programs and cost-benefit analysis and all of that. This is one way of measuring effectiveness. But we also need the on-the-ground solutions, and people who know their communities, and know how to be effective in the small-scale.
I wish we could have talked more about that, rather than fighting one another and giving up on group process. I was sad that one of our members disengaged, got frustrated with both the topic and the group process itself, without taking the time to listen to others' ideas and experiences nor putting effort into helping our group process. And I am reeling a bit because I even tried reconciling with her after the fact and she blew me off.
I think that I need to use today to remember that big issues of hunger, poverty, health, and development are complicated. There is no one right answer. There might be many conflicting ideas...and they all might be right given particular places or circumstances. And I need to remember that things get heated because we are all passionate about making a better world.
But still. It is a sobering end to a fantastic weekend to leave feeling unsettled. Even if being unsettled is probably a good thing.
I went to an affinity group about HIV/AIDS and hunger in Africa. I'm not experienced in affinity group models, and was comfortable (for the most part) with the simple model for our groups: simply to gather with others on topics interesting to us, to talk about our experiences, hopes, ideas...very open-ended.
We had one man - the one who had proposed the topic - who dominated the conversation. He has an interesting lens, being a professional economist focusing on health and public policy, and spent significant time in Africa researching effectiveness of various HIV/AIDS development and relief work. Unfortunately, he did not leave much room for others to talk. I think he was approaching the group as a teaching session rather than a discussion.
He said some interesting things, but seemed to believe that his research and his preferred methods of relief and development (through large government programs and broad global initiatives) were the right way to do things. Others in our group started trying to talk about their own experiences (we had all traveled to Africa), both to challenge and to support what he was saying. We had one member get frustrated and fume in the corner, and two or three of us who tried to ask questions and tell stories and bring things to a middle ground, and a couple people who didn't get to speak because we were all working so hard to force our way in.
Things were a little heated, a little frustrating, and a lot awkward.
There were interesting fundamental differences at play: On the one hand, the idea that we can study large groups of people, figure out what is the best way to help them, and then to build programs and incentives around those best methods. On the other hand, the idea that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and individual countries and communities will adopt practices in different ways - or resist these practices!
And I thought about Mama Sara. We who traveled to Tanzania this summer were all absolutely moved by the ways that she influences her community through of her relationships, her passions, and her cultural capital. I know that the Fribergs benefit from large programs, broad initiatives, government funding, global projects and initiatives. But on the ground, they approach their work in a very different way, taking into account particular needs of the community and working with particular people like Mama Sara.
I don't think it is one-or-the-other. We need the big programs and cost-benefit analysis and all of that. This is one way of measuring effectiveness. But we also need the on-the-ground solutions, and people who know their communities, and know how to be effective in the small-scale.
I wish we could have talked more about that, rather than fighting one another and giving up on group process. I was sad that one of our members disengaged, got frustrated with both the topic and the group process itself, without taking the time to listen to others' ideas and experiences nor putting effort into helping our group process. And I am reeling a bit because I even tried reconciling with her after the fact and she blew me off.
I think that I need to use today to remember that big issues of hunger, poverty, health, and development are complicated. There is no one right answer. There might be many conflicting ideas...and they all might be right given particular places or circumstances. And I need to remember that things get heated because we are all passionate about making a better world.
But still. It is a sobering end to a fantastic weekend to leave feeling unsettled. Even if being unsettled is probably a good thing.
2.11.2012
Sustainable development: ELCA World Hunger Leadership Gathering day 3
There is a huge disclaimer that I need to put on this post as I get going. I spent the day listening to an inspiring morning plenary about meaningful international engagement for both relief and development efforts. I sat in an energizing afternoon plenary that overwhelmed me with good news about the work of ELCA World Hunger and challenged me to commit to taking action in my church and synod. I went to a workshop on domestic disaster relief that made my heart break (in a good way). I went to a workshop on advocacy that stretched and challenged me to be more courageous in my public witness. I went to a workshop on international development and decided that the new "only thing I've ever wanted to do" was to do work with international development partnerships (and it gave me a serious case of international wanderlust!) I ate breakfast, lunch, and dinner with new colleagues and partners in ministry. I learned about other hunger leaders as I sat next to them on the bus. In short, it was a FULL day, and my head is filled to capacity. I could write from now until next weekend about all I learned - even the "quick" summary of my day is already a giant paragraph! So my disclaimer is that this post isn't a full summary of my experiences, it is merely a reflection on one tiny sliver of the day.
One of the highlights of my day was my last workshop of the day on international development.
We talked about six principles of sustainable development. Sustainable development is the process of engaging international communities at a local level to work toward development goals such as improving hunger and nutrition, improving poverty, improving class and race relations, and helping communities work toward sustainable self-improvement. These six principles all get at the idea that we don't just go in and fix things for communities, but that we help communities develop themselves and understand themselves as agents of change. This is how development continues past missionary or World Hunger involvement.
After we did an overview of the six principles, we were each given two or three pictures from various global communities that the ELCA has been working with. We were asked to tape each one to the wall next to the principle we thought the picture best expressed. So here are the six principles, and bad pictures of our work. :)
Participation: this has to do with intentionally inviting active involvement of all - development leaders, community leaders, community members - in every stage of the process, planning through evaluation.
Empowerment: this has to do with helping people build strengths, investing in local, long-term solutions, and making informed decisions as a community about the community's development and future.
Sustainability: this has to do with working toward localized activities, stable funding, and sustained results; that is, this is all about setting the stage for ongoing development rather than one-time projects.
Rights-based: this has to do with helping communities understand that they have a right to know (and exert) their own human rights (such as the right to basic needs such as food, water, shelter, clothing, safety, etc.); this comes from an understanding of development that sees people as capable participants in development rather than objects of charity.
Asset-based: this has to do with recognizing and utilizing community strengths, and helping community members see their own useful gifts and talents.
Transparency & Accountability: this final principle has to do with being good stewards of the time, effort, and money that are invested into development projects, and keeping open and honest about the process to both participants and donors.
All of these principles drive home the point that ELCA World Hunger, and other relief and development organizations in our world, are doing the best work in the world when they accompany the communities that they serve, and help lead those communities into self-sustained development rather than simply offering charity, imposing structures from outside the community, and focusing on one-time projects. I am quite interested in international development, and curious about ways that individual congregations and the larger church can get more involved.
One of the highlights of my day was my last workshop of the day on international development.
We talked about six principles of sustainable development. Sustainable development is the process of engaging international communities at a local level to work toward development goals such as improving hunger and nutrition, improving poverty, improving class and race relations, and helping communities work toward sustainable self-improvement. These six principles all get at the idea that we don't just go in and fix things for communities, but that we help communities develop themselves and understand themselves as agents of change. This is how development continues past missionary or World Hunger involvement.
After we did an overview of the six principles, we were each given two or three pictures from various global communities that the ELCA has been working with. We were asked to tape each one to the wall next to the principle we thought the picture best expressed. So here are the six principles, and bad pictures of our work. :)
All of these principles drive home the point that ELCA World Hunger, and other relief and development organizations in our world, are doing the best work in the world when they accompany the communities that they serve, and help lead those communities into self-sustained development rather than simply offering charity, imposing structures from outside the community, and focusing on one-time projects. I am quite interested in international development, and curious about ways that individual congregations and the larger church can get more involved.
2.07.2012
Soap box: human dignity
Not worth linking to it (because it will just make me MAD again), but I read an article this morning about illegal immigrants, children born in the US (and therefore citizens), and food stamps. And Alabama.
And I made the HUGE mistake of reading some of the comments. And I read as people called illegal immigrants "garbage" and their children "spawn" and watched as they preferred that the children of illegal immigrants to die of starvation rather than Americans having to pay money to help people who weren't going to give them anything back.
And I could have cried. Or punched something. And I went a little crazy, commenting on lots of comments, trying to make the point that compassion and human decency are basic human values, and that we are being horrible human beings if we are honestly saying to immigrant families that we wish them dead, simply because they didn't play by our rules.
Laws are good. Order is good. Our immigration system is broken. But other countries and governments are corrupt and broken, and there are plenty of people who leave their home countries in order to protect and save their lives and their hopes for a future.
And so, honestly, I don't care whether we are Americans or Canadians or Mexicans or whomever else. Our nationality and even our country's laws don't let us off the hook for being decent human beings.
God is generous. God is gracious. And I know that I most certainly have not followed all the rules. And yet God promises me hope and life and new life nonetheless. And it breaks my heart to think that I'm in the minority when it comes to viewing others with that same gracious attitude.
Human needs are human needs. People need food. People need housing. People need clean water and clothing. And we are being unjust if we deny any of those things to our neighbors, no matter what their legal status. Because they are human beings. And they are children of God. And if you want to talk to me about the sanctity of life, then please talk to me about how we can care for one another and preserve life for ALL, not just for those whom we deem worthy.
Ok. Stepping off my soapbox now...
And I made the HUGE mistake of reading some of the comments. And I read as people called illegal immigrants "garbage" and their children "spawn" and watched as they preferred that the children of illegal immigrants to die of starvation rather than Americans having to pay money to help people who weren't going to give them anything back.
And I could have cried. Or punched something. And I went a little crazy, commenting on lots of comments, trying to make the point that compassion and human decency are basic human values, and that we are being horrible human beings if we are honestly saying to immigrant families that we wish them dead, simply because they didn't play by our rules.
Laws are good. Order is good. Our immigration system is broken. But other countries and governments are corrupt and broken, and there are plenty of people who leave their home countries in order to protect and save their lives and their hopes for a future.
And so, honestly, I don't care whether we are Americans or Canadians or Mexicans or whomever else. Our nationality and even our country's laws don't let us off the hook for being decent human beings.
God is generous. God is gracious. And I know that I most certainly have not followed all the rules. And yet God promises me hope and life and new life nonetheless. And it breaks my heart to think that I'm in the minority when it comes to viewing others with that same gracious attitude.
Human needs are human needs. People need food. People need housing. People need clean water and clothing. And we are being unjust if we deny any of those things to our neighbors, no matter what their legal status. Because they are human beings. And they are children of God. And if you want to talk to me about the sanctity of life, then please talk to me about how we can care for one another and preserve life for ALL, not just for those whom we deem worthy.
Ok. Stepping off my soapbox now...
11.09.2010
Sticks and stones
On my drive to church yesterday morning, I caught the following news item on NPR:
Anti-Abortion Activist on Trial for "Wanted" Posters (Audio here)
As I listened to Flip's antics and considered his statements, I couldn't help but draw parallels between this mode of Christian witness and the words and actions of your average, devastating school or workplace bully. Bullying is all over the news media these days. There is a certain call to outrage that pervades media discussions of bullying. Communities, schools, and other groups are working diligently to offer tools and advice about how to curb bullying behavior and how to help those who have been victimized.
I strongly believe that the church should be a place where young people experience and learn the value of human life, the value of diversity, and the value of unconditional love. Theologically speaking, Christianity is fundamentally at odds with all sorts of bullying behaviors. At their root, bullying behaviors are a matter of division, judgment, and self-interest. At its root, Christianity is a matter of grace, compassion, love, and justice.
That being said, I am incredibly saddened by people like Flip Benham and others who skew the good news of God's grace into a message of "believe the good news and get your act together...or else." There is a large and distinct strain of Christian theology that utilizes evangelism techniques and language that walk a fine line between impassioned belief and flat-out evangelistic bullying.
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, made the following statement in a speech given earlier last spring:
If we intend to believe that our faith communities can be places capable of curbing and condemning bullying behaviors, then we must ensure that our faith communities take a deeper look at our own faith practices and presumptions. In order to resist bullying with any shred of integrity, the demands and practices of our faith must be centered around the values of Jesus, and the good news that we preach must be, in fact, good news of God's unfailing compassion, grace, and love.
Anti-Abortion Activist on Trial for "Wanted" Posters (Audio here)
As I listened to Flip's antics and considered his statements, I couldn't help but draw parallels between this mode of Christian witness and the words and actions of your average, devastating school or workplace bully. Bullying is all over the news media these days. There is a certain call to outrage that pervades media discussions of bullying. Communities, schools, and other groups are working diligently to offer tools and advice about how to curb bullying behavior and how to help those who have been victimized.
I strongly believe that the church should be a place where young people experience and learn the value of human life, the value of diversity, and the value of unconditional love. Theologically speaking, Christianity is fundamentally at odds with all sorts of bullying behaviors. At their root, bullying behaviors are a matter of division, judgment, and self-interest. At its root, Christianity is a matter of grace, compassion, love, and justice.
That being said, I am incredibly saddened by people like Flip Benham and others who skew the good news of God's grace into a message of "believe the good news and get your act together...or else." There is a large and distinct strain of Christian theology that utilizes evangelism techniques and language that walk a fine line between impassioned belief and flat-out evangelistic bullying.
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, made the following statement in a speech given earlier last spring:
We are very rightly suspicious of proselytism, of manipulative, bullying, insensitive approaches to people of other faith which treat them as if they knew nothing, as if we had nothing to learn and as if the tradition of their reflection and imagination were of no interest to us or God.How can Christianity be an effective, essential voice against bullying when there yet exists a strong tradition of bully-evangelism? How might a Christian church that utilizes evangelism-by-threat-of-eternal-damnation be unwittingly forming its youth to believe that threats and bullying are ultimately acceptable tools for getting your way, or that might-makes-right is an acceptable and faithful value by which to live? How is this sort of evangelistic focus unintentionally condoning threatening or bullying behaviors?
If we intend to believe that our faith communities can be places capable of curbing and condemning bullying behaviors, then we must ensure that our faith communities take a deeper look at our own faith practices and presumptions. In order to resist bullying with any shred of integrity, the demands and practices of our faith must be centered around the values of Jesus, and the good news that we preach must be, in fact, good news of God's unfailing compassion, grace, and love.
11.02.2010
Election Day
I'm so glad that Election Day is (nearly) over. I'm so tired of alarmist, cruel, vindictive political ads. I'm tired of watching everyone's inner cynic float to the surface. I decided that I'd be a good citizen and vote today, only to find out that I unsuccessfully transferred my voter registration out to the suburbs when we moved here from the city over a year and a half ago. So I am sorry to say that I couldn't vote. But I did pay attention to what other people had to say about voting and elections and politics today.
Here are a few links and thoughts from around the web that had an impact on me today:
"If we want qualified and capable [people] for both civil and spiritual leadership, we must spare no effort, time, and expense in teaching and educating our children to serve God and mankind." –Martin Luther
Today's post on my friend's blog "The Private Intellectual" made the astute observation, "In politics, demographics is destiny."
Today's Stillspeaking Daily Devotional, "Beware of false prophets" offers us the following challenge: "So while we study the candidates to try to figure out who is real and reliable, let’s remember to be real and reliable ourselves."
One friend on facebook "hopes there will be an item on her ballot today that will allow her to vote for an end to ridiculous, negative, petty, demeaning, mudslinging political campaigns. Seriously, people, they wouldn't allow that crap in grade school student council elections, why do you think that's it's ok to do as adults???! Rant over, go vote."
Another friend on facebook offers some perspective: "Despite everything I disagree with about how negatively this election was run, and all the unlimited shady financial contributions, I am glad it was money and not violence, or threats of torture, death, or imprisonment being used. I'm also glad that even if my preferred candidates don't win, I know the fairly-generated polling results will be honored."
And last but not least, in case you were just dying to make a mid-term mix tape, NPR has some suggestions for you: Wait Wait Don't Tell Me's Midterms Mix
Here are a few links and thoughts from around the web that had an impact on me today:
"If we want qualified and capable [people] for both civil and spiritual leadership, we must spare no effort, time, and expense in teaching and educating our children to serve God and mankind." –Martin Luther
Today's post on my friend's blog "The Private Intellectual" made the astute observation, "In politics, demographics is destiny."
Today's Stillspeaking Daily Devotional, "Beware of false prophets" offers us the following challenge: "So while we study the candidates to try to figure out who is real and reliable, let’s remember to be real and reliable ourselves."
One friend on facebook "hopes there will be an item on her ballot today that will allow her to vote for an end to ridiculous, negative, petty, demeaning, mudslinging political campaigns. Seriously, people, they wouldn't allow that crap in grade school student council elections, why do you think that's it's ok to do as adults???! Rant over, go vote."
Another friend on facebook offers some perspective: "Despite everything I disagree with about how negatively this election was run, and all the unlimited shady financial contributions, I am glad it was money and not violence, or threats of torture, death, or imprisonment being used. I'm also glad that even if my preferred candidates don't win, I know the fairly-generated polling results will be honored."
And last but not least, in case you were just dying to make a mid-term mix tape, NPR has some suggestions for you: Wait Wait Don't Tell Me's Midterms Mix
7.15.2010
Credo
- I believe that life, in all its forms, is absolutely sacred. This is why I don't understand why pro-lifers and anti-death-penalty folks somehow have ended up on the far opposite extremes of the political spectrum.
- I believe in peace and grieve deeply over war and conflict.
- I believe that care for one another and care for creation are essential, moral foundations upon which all other action should be built.
- I believe that it is absolutely immoral to deny human, humane, or humanitarian rights to a person based on age, race, faith, sexuality, gender, class, worldview, appearance, personality, political party, nationality, or any other factor. The right to live well, die peacefully, love, care for those we love, feed ourselves and our families, seek meaningful work, be safe and healthy, and have space to think, breathe, and take pleasure in life: these, to me, are basic parts of being human, and I believe that everyone deserves them. We can worry about politics later.
- I believe that while fear is an effective motivator, it is neither a fair nor an optimal motivator. And I believe that fear-mongering is utterly despicable, especially in politics and religion.
- I believe that justice is a matter of being both just and merciful, and not a matter of winners, losers, or retribution.
- I believe that everyone needs more love, no matter how much or little they are already loved. (This statement makes me sound like a flower-child. I know. But I don't care.)
- I believe that my own life would be better if I stopped caring about what other people think of me, and if I focused more on caring for those around me. I also believe that I need to start really living my life as a self-aware, thinking adult, who is allowed to have opinions, even if they are different than other people's opinions.
- I believe that hope, listening, paying attention, introspection, and self-awareness are more important and powerful than most people realize.
- I believe that everything I have and everything I am are nothing other than blessings and gifts of God's grace, none of which I deserve. I believe that I am called to live out that same grace in my life.
- I believe that my number one purpose in life is to bear hope in the world.
6.24.2010
Intelligent conversation
One of the realities of being the church is that attitudes and trends in society will inevitably affect the life and ministry of the church. That society and church intersect (or collide, as the case may sometimes be) is not inherently a problem. That the church needs to discern when to embrace societal shifts and when to eschew or combat them is a different story.
Andrew Sullivan, writing for The Economist's "Democracy in America" blog recently discussed the Tea Party movement as an illustration of the apparent demise of intellectual argument in politics. His writing has a certain despairing quality to it. It seems reasonable to assume that his discomfort with emotional versus rational discussions extends beyond the sphere of politics, and into the wider sphere of public discourse.
With a consumer culture and a news media culture alike that rely on sensationalism and public opinion rather than depth of content to "sell" their "product, it is no surprise that our public discourse has become equally as shallow.
In the individualistic and presumably post-modern culture in which we live, intellectual (and intellectual humble) discourse is constantly being replaced with this thing called "worldview." Having a worldview is not inherently problematic. Bounding yourself by your worldview, on the other hand, is the problem. Instead of evaluating ideas on their own merit, we tend to evaluate ideas based on whether or not they fit the rigid worldview that we have constructed around ourselves. The problem with worldviews is that, in their rigid form, they no longer serve as helpful lenses through which to view the world and engage other worldviews. They instead become defense mechanisms and boundaries.
So in this culture of rigid and bounded worldviews, coupled with our infatuation with soundbytes rather than reasoned engagement with ideas, where does this leave the church?
One option would be for the church to reinforce these societal trends: offering to our congregations our own "Christian soundbytes," preaching sermons that merely affirm the political, financial, and social worldview of our members, and reducing our theology to simplistic formulas.
Another option would be for the church to resist these societal trends. This difficult task requires that our churches do not merely lament and despair over these trends; this difficult task requires that our churches become themselves models of honest and humble dialogue. It means preaching and teaching and engaging faith more deeply...and yet opening up as many entry points as possible for all people (lifelong and new Christians) to enter the conversation. It means challenging the boundaries of our congregational worldviews, not haphazardly, but in response to the word of God and the movement of the Spirit. It means accompanying our congregations toward deeper and more inquisitive theology by helping one another ask better questions.
My own opinion? Our culture continues to ask less and less of people, and this seems counter to the life of faith, which not only promises us life (and life abundant!), but also urges us on toward deeper engagement with all of creation, every corner of which has been raised up to new life by the grace of the same one who created it and called it "good."
Andrew Sullivan, writing for The Economist's "Democracy in America" blog recently discussed the Tea Party movement as an illustration of the apparent demise of intellectual argument in politics. His writing has a certain despairing quality to it. It seems reasonable to assume that his discomfort with emotional versus rational discussions extends beyond the sphere of politics, and into the wider sphere of public discourse.
With a consumer culture and a news media culture alike that rely on sensationalism and public opinion rather than depth of content to "sell" their "product, it is no surprise that our public discourse has become equally as shallow.
In the individualistic and presumably post-modern culture in which we live, intellectual (and intellectual humble) discourse is constantly being replaced with this thing called "worldview." Having a worldview is not inherently problematic. Bounding yourself by your worldview, on the other hand, is the problem. Instead of evaluating ideas on their own merit, we tend to evaluate ideas based on whether or not they fit the rigid worldview that we have constructed around ourselves. The problem with worldviews is that, in their rigid form, they no longer serve as helpful lenses through which to view the world and engage other worldviews. They instead become defense mechanisms and boundaries.
So in this culture of rigid and bounded worldviews, coupled with our infatuation with soundbytes rather than reasoned engagement with ideas, where does this leave the church?
One option would be for the church to reinforce these societal trends: offering to our congregations our own "Christian soundbytes," preaching sermons that merely affirm the political, financial, and social worldview of our members, and reducing our theology to simplistic formulas.
Another option would be for the church to resist these societal trends. This difficult task requires that our churches do not merely lament and despair over these trends; this difficult task requires that our churches become themselves models of honest and humble dialogue. It means preaching and teaching and engaging faith more deeply...and yet opening up as many entry points as possible for all people (lifelong and new Christians) to enter the conversation. It means challenging the boundaries of our congregational worldviews, not haphazardly, but in response to the word of God and the movement of the Spirit. It means accompanying our congregations toward deeper and more inquisitive theology by helping one another ask better questions.
My own opinion? Our culture continues to ask less and less of people, and this seems counter to the life of faith, which not only promises us life (and life abundant!), but also urges us on toward deeper engagement with all of creation, every corner of which has been raised up to new life by the grace of the same one who created it and called it "good."
11.16.2009
Do not, for the sake of [insert controversial issue here], destroy the work of God.
I stumbled upon this passage today, and thought of the struggles the ELCA is going through right now over the actions of the Churchwide Assembly in August concerning sexuality. There was much talk of respecting the bound consciences of each other - acknowledging that people of faith can come to different conclusions on this (or any other) issue. The passage below (Romans 14:1-15:6) is talking about food - whether or not to eat clean or unclean foods - but I think that we could substitute a number of different words/issues for "food" and get the same message: there are people on one side of an issue who take that side in order to honor God...and there are people on the other side of an issue who also take that side in order to honor God. And in the end, it is not our positions that matter. It's our dispositions.
Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions. Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand. Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God.
We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written,
"As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall give praise to God."
So then, each of us will be accountable to God.
Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. If your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. So do not let your good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. The one who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and has human approval. Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat; it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble. The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God. Blessed are those who have no reason to condemn themselves because of what they approve. But those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because they do not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
We who are strong ought to put up with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Each of us must please our neighbor for the good purpose of building up the neighbor. For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written, "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope. May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in harmony with one another, in accordance with Christ Jesus, so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
10.19.2009
Inconvenient, Inefficient, Clumsy, and Faithful: Being Church in a Consumer World
Many people have written many articles about the church and consumer culture; I am certainly not the first, nor the most convincing, nor the most articulate. But I have been thinking about this subject for quite some time, and finally feel compelled to write out my own thoughts on the matter.
Especially here in upper-middle-class suburbia, our culture does little to help us distinguish wants from needs. Moreover, our culture does little to help us distinguish between rights and privileges. I see in people a general tendency toward entitlement - our is an "on-demand" sort of existence, where we expect that we can get what we want, when we want it, with as little effort as possible on our parts.
There is a distinct hubris to all of this. We each believe that we are the center of our universe, and that everything - be it schools, restaurants, stores, churches - should cater to us. We expect our institutions to compete for our business, and we expect to have the luxury of weighing our options and choosing to utilize those institutions that have done the most to win us over.
On one hand, it is good that we have choices in our lives. I appreciate that I can comparison shop when buying a new dishwasher, or that I have the ability to splurge on a cashmere scarf at Macy's while still buying laundry detergent on sale at Target. I appreciate being able to create and express my identity through the institutions that I associate myself with. But I firmly believe that putting too high a value on a consumeristic understanding of choice leads to the detriment of true community. Consumerism destroys the ethic of loyalty. We flit from one "brand" to another, we associate with people and institutions only as long as they offer us the "best deal," and we begin to view our commitments in a purely utilitarian light. We make our values and communities shallow by focusing on efficiency rather than on depth or quality, and by focusing on convenience rather than on authenticity or integrity. We want our goods to be cheap, fast, and useful, and so we begin to view other aspects of our life in the same manner.
And so, I think that we are losing the ability to understand the church as a community rather than as a vendor. People seek worship experiences that speak to their own individual interests, needs, and values rather than seeking worship that binds together the Christian community throughout the world, past, present, and future. People want churches with amenities rather than churches with solid faith and theological foundations. People seek communities of faith that uphold their own status quo rather than challenging it for the sake of the gospel. People seek churches that require little commitment or effort on their parts - we want our churches to subscribe to the consumeristic notion that "the customer is always right."
But this is not what the church is about. The first church was a place where people invested themselves deeply into building community with other believers. It is a place where serving one another was more important than wealth or status, and a place where the good news of Jesus Christ was so central and compelling that believers would orient the rest of their lives around that good news.
Consumer culture has taught us to believe that churches are to serve us, rather than to serve God. Consumer culture encourages us to seek churches that cater to our needs and interests, and to feel betrayed by churches if at any point we don't get our way. Consumer culture makes us believe that the church should give us what we want with as little effort as possible on our own parts. It makes us feel entitled to demand that the church serve our own individual wants and needs rather than the wants and needs of the wider community. It leads us to believe that the church should give us everything and yet demand nothing of us. Consumer culture tells us that getting what we want from a church (whether it be in terms of a worship experience or political ideology or socio-economic makeup of its population) is more important than building relationships and communities within our churches.
Those of us in church leadership are often faced with the question of how to grow our churches. Many churches believe that, in a consumer culture, we have to compete for "business" using the same tools as other institutions. We invest in marketing and gimmicks, the likes of which are often indistinguishable from other businesses (we try to sell churches the same way we try to sell cars and kitchen knives!). We try to make church appealing by making it low-commitment, safe, and familiar.
But what if we "marketed" the church by letting it be what it is: a deep, convicting, and even challenging place where we do real work together as a community in order that we might live deeply into our faith in a God who has shown us radical and unfathomable grace and love? What if we stopped trying to compete with all the other businesses out there, and instead tried to work toward intentional communities of faith, focused on service, on love of neighbors, of peace and justice, of deep (and even demanding) worship, of letting our lives be shaped by the good news of Christ? What if we told the truth about the church: it is a place where imperfect people gather, where faith and doubt and real life collide in important (but often uncomfortable) ways, where diverse people come together to worship and discuss and even disagree, where we cling to a faith that binds up the brokenness of the world into a profound hope in a God who has promised to redeem and restore all things? None of this is easy. None of it is sugar-coated, or convenient, or pre-packaged, or mass-manufactured. But it is essential.
Especially here in upper-middle-class suburbia, our culture does little to help us distinguish wants from needs. Moreover, our culture does little to help us distinguish between rights and privileges. I see in people a general tendency toward entitlement - our is an "on-demand" sort of existence, where we expect that we can get what we want, when we want it, with as little effort as possible on our parts.
There is a distinct hubris to all of this. We each believe that we are the center of our universe, and that everything - be it schools, restaurants, stores, churches - should cater to us. We expect our institutions to compete for our business, and we expect to have the luxury of weighing our options and choosing to utilize those institutions that have done the most to win us over.
On one hand, it is good that we have choices in our lives. I appreciate that I can comparison shop when buying a new dishwasher, or that I have the ability to splurge on a cashmere scarf at Macy's while still buying laundry detergent on sale at Target. I appreciate being able to create and express my identity through the institutions that I associate myself with. But I firmly believe that putting too high a value on a consumeristic understanding of choice leads to the detriment of true community. Consumerism destroys the ethic of loyalty. We flit from one "brand" to another, we associate with people and institutions only as long as they offer us the "best deal," and we begin to view our commitments in a purely utilitarian light. We make our values and communities shallow by focusing on efficiency rather than on depth or quality, and by focusing on convenience rather than on authenticity or integrity. We want our goods to be cheap, fast, and useful, and so we begin to view other aspects of our life in the same manner.
And so, I think that we are losing the ability to understand the church as a community rather than as a vendor. People seek worship experiences that speak to their own individual interests, needs, and values rather than seeking worship that binds together the Christian community throughout the world, past, present, and future. People want churches with amenities rather than churches with solid faith and theological foundations. People seek communities of faith that uphold their own status quo rather than challenging it for the sake of the gospel. People seek churches that require little commitment or effort on their parts - we want our churches to subscribe to the consumeristic notion that "the customer is always right."
But this is not what the church is about. The first church was a place where people invested themselves deeply into building community with other believers. It is a place where serving one another was more important than wealth or status, and a place where the good news of Jesus Christ was so central and compelling that believers would orient the rest of their lives around that good news.
Consumer culture has taught us to believe that churches are to serve us, rather than to serve God. Consumer culture encourages us to seek churches that cater to our needs and interests, and to feel betrayed by churches if at any point we don't get our way. Consumer culture makes us believe that the church should give us what we want with as little effort as possible on our own parts. It makes us feel entitled to demand that the church serve our own individual wants and needs rather than the wants and needs of the wider community. It leads us to believe that the church should give us everything and yet demand nothing of us. Consumer culture tells us that getting what we want from a church (whether it be in terms of a worship experience or political ideology or socio-economic makeup of its population) is more important than building relationships and communities within our churches.
Those of us in church leadership are often faced with the question of how to grow our churches. Many churches believe that, in a consumer culture, we have to compete for "business" using the same tools as other institutions. We invest in marketing and gimmicks, the likes of which are often indistinguishable from other businesses (we try to sell churches the same way we try to sell cars and kitchen knives!). We try to make church appealing by making it low-commitment, safe, and familiar.
But what if we "marketed" the church by letting it be what it is: a deep, convicting, and even challenging place where we do real work together as a community in order that we might live deeply into our faith in a God who has shown us radical and unfathomable grace and love? What if we stopped trying to compete with all the other businesses out there, and instead tried to work toward intentional communities of faith, focused on service, on love of neighbors, of peace and justice, of deep (and even demanding) worship, of letting our lives be shaped by the good news of Christ? What if we told the truth about the church: it is a place where imperfect people gather, where faith and doubt and real life collide in important (but often uncomfortable) ways, where diverse people come together to worship and discuss and even disagree, where we cling to a faith that binds up the brokenness of the world into a profound hope in a God who has promised to redeem and restore all things? None of this is easy. None of it is sugar-coated, or convenient, or pre-packaged, or mass-manufactured. But it is essential.
Free time? Huh?
Turns out that this whole pastor thing keeps me busy.
And it also turns out that the things that occupy my brain - the things on my mind that I would ordinarily blog about - can be summed up in the following sentence: I wish that people would engage ideas and issues (even controversial ones) in the spirit of conversation rather than contention.
Turns out that I write about this theme quite often around here. So instead of boring you with continued rants about people-behaving-badly, I do things like ignore my blog for a full month.
But I'm still here, I promise.
And it also turns out that the things that occupy my brain - the things on my mind that I would ordinarily blog about - can be summed up in the following sentence: I wish that people would engage ideas and issues (even controversial ones) in the spirit of conversation rather than contention.
Turns out that I write about this theme quite often around here. So instead of boring you with continued rants about people-behaving-badly, I do things like ignore my blog for a full month.
But I'm still here, I promise.
9.08.2009
Inhale. Exhale. Repeat.
Today is a good day to remember how to take a deep breath. It helps you keep from getting overwhelmed, it helps you deal with change, it helps you show grace to others.
I have a giant to-do list for this week. With the office closed yesterday, and with Friday as my weekly day off, I have a three-day week. Which sounds nice enough, I know, but it turns out that I have enough to work on this week that three days is not nearly enough! Or so it feels. Must remember to take a deep breath - no sense in getting overwhelmed.
This weekend kicks off the Sunday school year, the program year (children's/youth programming, choir rehearsals, meetings and events, etc.), and our new worship schedule. While worship times might not seem like a big deal, changing them causes plenty of anxiety. I'll be glad when this weekend is over. I think that everyone - congregation AND staff - will breathe a sigh of relief no matter what happens this weekend. There's just something about getting through the first week that helps everyone take a deep breath and deal with the change.
Speaking of people not taking a deep breath and thinking rationally, have I mentioned how angry I am about all the folks who absolutely will not allow their children to be addressed by the president, simply because they disagree with his politics or because they are irrationally fearful of what he'll say? Never mind that the text of the speech was released in advance. Never mind that other presidents have done this. Never mind that it is a civil, decent thing to respect your president, no matter what party he is and no matter what party you are.
I get frustrated when adults stop acting like adults, and when decent human beings stop acting like decent human beings. I get frustrated when there is no grace.
And it's times like this when I remember exactly why I feel called to the ministry...I can do my part to try to preach and teach grace, patience, and love in the midst of a world that isn't always so great at exhibiting any of those qualities. So, I suppose, preaching and teaching about God's grace is, in a sense, preaching a message of "deep breaths" with the hope that at least a few people will keep deep-breathing in their daily lives, being faith-formed examples of grace, patience, and love out in the world.
I have a giant to-do list for this week. With the office closed yesterday, and with Friday as my weekly day off, I have a three-day week. Which sounds nice enough, I know, but it turns out that I have enough to work on this week that three days is not nearly enough! Or so it feels. Must remember to take a deep breath - no sense in getting overwhelmed.
This weekend kicks off the Sunday school year, the program year (children's/youth programming, choir rehearsals, meetings and events, etc.), and our new worship schedule. While worship times might not seem like a big deal, changing them causes plenty of anxiety. I'll be glad when this weekend is over. I think that everyone - congregation AND staff - will breathe a sigh of relief no matter what happens this weekend. There's just something about getting through the first week that helps everyone take a deep breath and deal with the change.
Speaking of people not taking a deep breath and thinking rationally, have I mentioned how angry I am about all the folks who absolutely will not allow their children to be addressed by the president, simply because they disagree with his politics or because they are irrationally fearful of what he'll say? Never mind that the text of the speech was released in advance. Never mind that other presidents have done this. Never mind that it is a civil, decent thing to respect your president, no matter what party he is and no matter what party you are.
I get frustrated when adults stop acting like adults, and when decent human beings stop acting like decent human beings. I get frustrated when there is no grace.
And it's times like this when I remember exactly why I feel called to the ministry...I can do my part to try to preach and teach grace, patience, and love in the midst of a world that isn't always so great at exhibiting any of those qualities. So, I suppose, preaching and teaching about God's grace is, in a sense, preaching a message of "deep breaths" with the hope that at least a few people will keep deep-breathing in their daily lives, being faith-formed examples of grace, patience, and love out in the world.
9.03.2009
Discourse, not Diatribe.
Given the state of politics in our country, and given the current controversies in the ELCA, this article makes the important statement that engaging ideas is far more important than sticking to a label or a party: Open your minds, America. It's a must-read.
[HT: Peter Allen]
[HT: Peter Allen]
8.21.2009
Not on the fence. But yet stuck in the middle.
It has been a long day, and a long few days at this summer's ELCA Churchwide Assembly. The biggest (though perhaps not the most important) issue to be discussed: the ordination of those in committed, same-sex relationships, and the church's ability to choose to recognize and affirm those relationships.
I won't lie. I have a particular viewpoint on those issues. I'm not going to pretend that my mind and heart don't have an opinion.
But that doesn't mean that I think clearly about the issue. It doesn't mean that I think that my viewpoint is obvious, nor do I claim that I have the corner on God's will. It doesn't mean that I take the Bible any more or less seriously than those who differ in opinion from me, and it doesn't mean that I don't have my own reservations or doubts about the opinion that I hold.
What it means is that, while I am not on the fence about the issue, I yet find myself stuck in the middle. Maybe it means that, while I have an opinion, I am not called to advocate for it. I rather feel that my contribution to the conversation and to my denomination is to be a voice of calm and understanding, to be a force for peace and unity, to be concerned with the heartache and struggle that have ensued on all sides of the issue. There are plenty of people doing meaningful work, advocating for the various sides of the issues. I don't think that the ELCA needs me to be one of those people.
I think that the ELCA needs me to pray for its pastors and congregations. I think that the ELCA needs me to feel joy with those who are feeling joy and to feel sorrow with those who are feeling sorrow. I think that the ELCA needs me to hang out in the midst of the complexities that led to this assembly, and to the new complexities that have been created by the vote.
I have followed the debate and voting today on Twitter and Facebook. I have read numerous blog posts and news articles, some more biased than others. And I have felt discouraged. I have been saddened by so much of what has been said on either side, demonizing those with whom they disagree, speaking from a position of certainty and self-righteousness rather than humility and grace, threats and fear-mongering and propaganda.
I am far less concerned with the outcome of the vote, and far more concerned with the way that the ELCA member churches, as well as all those Christian churches with whom we work ecumenically, choose to treat one another. Schism would be the obvious and easy way out. Instead, I can hope and pray that the Spirit will move among us and help to unite the church - the body of Christ - even in our disagreements. I can hope and pray that we can move beyond this issue and spend more time and energy on preaching God's good news of grace and salvation to a broken world, and spend more time feeding the hungry, lifting up the poor, working for justice and peace, seeking the health and wholeness of all those in need, and proclaiming a gospel not of fear but of hope, not of law but of grace, not of division, but unity in Christ.
I won't lie. I have a particular viewpoint on those issues. I'm not going to pretend that my mind and heart don't have an opinion.
But that doesn't mean that I think clearly about the issue. It doesn't mean that I think that my viewpoint is obvious, nor do I claim that I have the corner on God's will. It doesn't mean that I take the Bible any more or less seriously than those who differ in opinion from me, and it doesn't mean that I don't have my own reservations or doubts about the opinion that I hold.
What it means is that, while I am not on the fence about the issue, I yet find myself stuck in the middle. Maybe it means that, while I have an opinion, I am not called to advocate for it. I rather feel that my contribution to the conversation and to my denomination is to be a voice of calm and understanding, to be a force for peace and unity, to be concerned with the heartache and struggle that have ensued on all sides of the issue. There are plenty of people doing meaningful work, advocating for the various sides of the issues. I don't think that the ELCA needs me to be one of those people.
I think that the ELCA needs me to pray for its pastors and congregations. I think that the ELCA needs me to feel joy with those who are feeling joy and to feel sorrow with those who are feeling sorrow. I think that the ELCA needs me to hang out in the midst of the complexities that led to this assembly, and to the new complexities that have been created by the vote.
I have followed the debate and voting today on Twitter and Facebook. I have read numerous blog posts and news articles, some more biased than others. And I have felt discouraged. I have been saddened by so much of what has been said on either side, demonizing those with whom they disagree, speaking from a position of certainty and self-righteousness rather than humility and grace, threats and fear-mongering and propaganda.
I am far less concerned with the outcome of the vote, and far more concerned with the way that the ELCA member churches, as well as all those Christian churches with whom we work ecumenically, choose to treat one another. Schism would be the obvious and easy way out. Instead, I can hope and pray that the Spirit will move among us and help to unite the church - the body of Christ - even in our disagreements. I can hope and pray that we can move beyond this issue and spend more time and energy on preaching God's good news of grace and salvation to a broken world, and spend more time feeding the hungry, lifting up the poor, working for justice and peace, seeking the health and wholeness of all those in need, and proclaiming a gospel not of fear but of hope, not of law but of grace, not of division, but unity in Christ.
4.14.2009
Embracing the Gray
Over the past week, I've engaged in serious conversations (either in-person or on blogs) about three different controversial issues: gun control, homosexuality (and the church), and immigration. While the subject of the conversations was wildly different, the content of the conversations was eerily similar. Controversial issues bring out the worst in people, but more than that, they bring out people's thinly-veiled fears. Everyone wants to hunker down and barricade themselves in by spouting "facts" that are, in reality, widely-spread and often-inaccurate myths. All of the arguing tends toward two extremes: 1)Ideology detached from the human experience, which thus becomes dehumanizing rhetoric, or 2)Extreme emotionality bound so tightly to individual experience that it cannot look or dialogue beyond itself.
Today, I find myself doing much thinking and reading about immigration. I've become an avid New York Times reader online, and all it takes is one article about immigration before I've read six articles about immigration. I find it dangerous that when you read one piece, the website offers you a list of other related pieces...I just keep reading and reading. The commenters on all of these articles follow the pattern I illustrated above. The reasoned, middle-voices that attempt to engage the content are so often ignored, because for members of either extreme to enter into actual dialogue on the issue would mean that they would have to step outside of their black/white world and come to embrace the gray.
I'm passionate about the immigration issue, and believe that it is nothing but gray. I could spend time here sharing with you everything that I've learned over the past few years and what conclusions I've come to about the issue, but I think that a better starting place today would be to share with you the links to the stories and articles that re-sparked my engagement with this issue:
Obama to Push Immigration Bill as One Priority
Editorial: Immigration Reform and Hard Times
Immigrant Detainee Dies, and a Life is Buried, Too
The Room for Debate blog posts on Immigration
And, in case you were curious, I have contributed my thoughts to two of the ensuing comment conversations; here and here.
Today, I find myself doing much thinking and reading about immigration. I've become an avid New York Times reader online, and all it takes is one article about immigration before I've read six articles about immigration. I find it dangerous that when you read one piece, the website offers you a list of other related pieces...I just keep reading and reading. The commenters on all of these articles follow the pattern I illustrated above. The reasoned, middle-voices that attempt to engage the content are so often ignored, because for members of either extreme to enter into actual dialogue on the issue would mean that they would have to step outside of their black/white world and come to embrace the gray.
I'm passionate about the immigration issue, and believe that it is nothing but gray. I could spend time here sharing with you everything that I've learned over the past few years and what conclusions I've come to about the issue, but I think that a better starting place today would be to share with you the links to the stories and articles that re-sparked my engagement with this issue:
Obama to Push Immigration Bill as One Priority
Editorial: Immigration Reform and Hard Times
Immigrant Detainee Dies, and a Life is Buried, Too
The Room for Debate blog posts on Immigration
And, in case you were curious, I have contributed my thoughts to two of the ensuing comment conversations; here and here.
2.16.2009
On Reformations
Related to my recent post about institutions, individualism, and deference, I started thinking today about reformation, whether it be theological, corporate, institutional, political, etc. There is a tendency, it seems, both within the academy and without, to believe that the way to contribute meaning to the world is to enact reformation. We champion the cause of innovators and history-makers. We rally around the new voices and the radical thinkers. We seek out ways in which to reject the former, the popular, and the established in order that we might build up something new, being consistently encouraged to believe that new is always better.
I fear that we have bought in to the “new is better” myth with an unchecked gusto, and have now become wary of anything that appears to be stable. “Status quo” are now evil words. Postmodern thought has encouraged us to shake our foundations and to reclaim the ability to create and contribute knowledge from the oppressive power of institutions. Hence, we are set up to believe that reformation is the greatest good.
It seems to me that this has led to a short-changing of critical engagement with existing knowledge. Instead of looking to established knowledge in order to engage it fully, decide what is worth keeping, and decide what is worth revising, we seem to have found that it is easier to flat-out reject any established knowledge and then build up our own body of thought in its place. We are so hungry for change for change’s sake that we would throw out baby, bathwater, and bathtub rather than run the risk that things might stay the same.
I suspect that few of the true reformers in history sought change in order that they might be called reformers. I also suspect that many reformers throughout history were reluctant reformers – reforming not because they wanted to make change, but reforming because they felt they had no choice. No doubt many thinkers today would claim that they, too, are seeking change because they have no choice. I simply wonder how deeply today’s thinkers have meaningfully engaged with the entities they seek to change, and how many of them have begun this process with enough self-awareness to distinguish that which needs to be changed on a universal level and that which they seek to change solely based on personal preference. Can we claim “reformation” with integrity if we are actually fighting to do things “our way,” or in order to fulfill our own needs and wishes? Or does reformation imply something bigger than ourselves, something bigger than change itself, and something more profound (and perhaps with a greater sense of regret) than merely indulging our human tendency toward reactivity and rebellion?
I fear that we have bought in to the “new is better” myth with an unchecked gusto, and have now become wary of anything that appears to be stable. “Status quo” are now evil words. Postmodern thought has encouraged us to shake our foundations and to reclaim the ability to create and contribute knowledge from the oppressive power of institutions. Hence, we are set up to believe that reformation is the greatest good.
It seems to me that this has led to a short-changing of critical engagement with existing knowledge. Instead of looking to established knowledge in order to engage it fully, decide what is worth keeping, and decide what is worth revising, we seem to have found that it is easier to flat-out reject any established knowledge and then build up our own body of thought in its place. We are so hungry for change for change’s sake that we would throw out baby, bathwater, and bathtub rather than run the risk that things might stay the same.
I suspect that few of the true reformers in history sought change in order that they might be called reformers. I also suspect that many reformers throughout history were reluctant reformers – reforming not because they wanted to make change, but reforming because they felt they had no choice. No doubt many thinkers today would claim that they, too, are seeking change because they have no choice. I simply wonder how deeply today’s thinkers have meaningfully engaged with the entities they seek to change, and how many of them have begun this process with enough self-awareness to distinguish that which needs to be changed on a universal level and that which they seek to change solely based on personal preference. Can we claim “reformation” with integrity if we are actually fighting to do things “our way,” or in order to fulfill our own needs and wishes? Or does reformation imply something bigger than ourselves, something bigger than change itself, and something more profound (and perhaps with a greater sense of regret) than merely indulging our human tendency toward reactivity and rebellion?
1.29.2009
Deference
In his Op-Ed piece, "What Life Asks of Us," David Brooks defends the importance of institutions as bestowers of meaning in life. He critiques the hubris of unchecked individualism that believes that our lives only have meaning if we ourselves create that meaning. Inspired by Hugh Helco's book On Thinking Institutionally, Brooks champions the worth of institutions:
I think that Brooks is urging us to something deeper, however, beyond simply valuing the institution as the necessary precursor to the rebellion of individualism. Brooks is asking us to consider the value of institutions themselves - he is asking us to reinvigorate the value of deference. I have explored this subject before: Teaching Faith Not Baggage and The Cost of Reinventing Worship, however this is a topic is not limited to questions of faith and the church. The fundamental question here is basic: How do we reconcile our individual values and desires with the values and desires that formed us?
I suspect that respect and humility are the key to this balancing act. Wayne Miller, bishop of the metro-Chicago synod of the ELCA, points to this in his post, "Significance," which recounts his initial thoughts upon visiting the Holy Land:
As we go through life, we travel through institutions — first family and school, then the institutions of a profession or a craft. Each of these institutions comes with certain rules and obligations that tell us how to do what we’re supposed to do....In the process of absorbing the rules of the institutions we inhabit, we become who we are. New generations don’t invent institutional practices. These practices are passed down and evolve. So the institutionalist has a deep reverence for those who came before and built up the rules that he has temporarily taken delivery of. “In taking delivery,” Heclo writes, “institutionalists see themselves as debtors who owe something, not creditors to whom something is owed.”This is not to say that institutions should be immune to critique or rebellion, nor does it mean that individualism, curiosity, and self-determination are inherently bad. Brooks does, however, want to criticize the hubris and greed that result from unchecked individualism. The luxury of shaking our foundations and questioning our institutions exists precisely because those foundations and institutions exist in the first place. Or, as one commenter on the Brooks piece puts it, "One can't 'think outside the box' in any meaningful way without the 'box.'"
I think that Brooks is urging us to something deeper, however, beyond simply valuing the institution as the necessary precursor to the rebellion of individualism. Brooks is asking us to consider the value of institutions themselves - he is asking us to reinvigorate the value of deference. I have explored this subject before: Teaching Faith Not Baggage and The Cost of Reinventing Worship, however this is a topic is not limited to questions of faith and the church. The fundamental question here is basic: How do we reconcile our individual values and desires with the values and desires that formed us?
I suspect that respect and humility are the key to this balancing act. Wayne Miller, bishop of the metro-Chicago synod of the ELCA, points to this in his post, "Significance," which recounts his initial thoughts upon visiting the Holy Land:
"So what is it," I wondered, "that has made this land so significant?"Taking a cue from this reflection, the way to strike a balance between our individual values and institutional values is to have enough self-awareness to know when to swell and when to diminish. The balance is a matter of deference, of realizing when our own individual interests should take center stage and when they need to fade into the background. Or, to get a bit hokey and clever here, I think about the phrase "Standing on the shoulder of giants." We want to create meaning, to impact history, to have the luxury of defining ourselves, to indulge in the trendy work of rejecting institutions and foundations. We want to reach higher and farther, but if in doing so we completely rid ourselves of the giants, then we find ourselves even closer to the ground than we had begun.
Then I knew that what makes this land holy has nothing whatsoever to do with the land itself. What makes the Holy Land holy is the long and rich HISTORY of what God has done here, what God is doing here, and what God hopes to do here as an "ensign to the nations" of who God is, and what God is up to in this world.
Very few of us, in the United States have any frame of reference to connect us to this sense of history. We are a culture more in love with making history than living within it. In fact we mostly don't think there is any history of any significance at all unless we ourselves have made it. I wonder, how many times in the last 3 months I have heard newscasters in the USA speak of current events in our nation as having "historic significance." How could we even know what historic significance is?
Being here demands a bit more humility, I think. In fact it is hard to walk these old stone streets filled with small outdoor markets, not unlike the ones frequented by the prophets of Israel as they railed against the merchants who put their thumbs on the scales to cheat the poor out of a few ounces of sesame seed... not unlike the ones Jesus passed by in the short days between Palm Sunday and Good Friday... it is hard to be in a place like this without feeling incredibly small, and without feeling the ordinary cares of my personal life, my work, my neighborhood, reduced to the minuscule proportions of having no significance at all.
12.18.2008
The Problem
I had an epiphany this morning: All of my frustrations with politics, religion, blog comments, road rage, and any other venue where people seem to be inordinately contentious and cruel stem from one underlying fact about our current society.
We have forgotten how to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Adam's latest blog on sexuality has brought out commenters in droves, and the comments have (again) brought out some of the worst in people.
Obama's decision to have Rick Warren give the invocation at his inauguration has sparked disproportionately impassioned comments despairing over his political maneuvering and judging him to be manipulative or flip-floppy or [insert negative connotation here].
Even the stupid debates over who likes what sort of coffee descend into the immediate assumption not only that your opinion is right and everyone else's is wrong, but moreover, that your opinion is right and everyone else is an idiot.
I wonder what the world would look like if we held our own thoughts and opinions a little more loosely. I wonder what it would be like if we started on the assumption that our opponent's views were just as likely to be valid as are our own views. I wonder what it would be like to discuss and even debate issues while making an intentional effort to validate the true or useful or good points that the other side was making - if we gave our opponents credit for their opinions. I wonder what the world would look like if we didn't always jump to the assumption that people are manipulative or conniving or have dishonorable intentions or have hidden agendas.
I'm tired, people. I'm tired. When did we stop putting in the effort to see good in all people? When did we stop trying to be civil? When did we stop thinking about people as people, and instead start thinking of them as punching bags or political parties or simply means to an end?
I am certainly in a place of advent right now. I believe so strongly that God in Christ has begun the work of restoration and reconciliation. And especially on days when those things feel so far away (and so impossible!), I need to cling to the faith that while the winter may be dark, Christ is indeed coming soon.
O come, Desire of nations, bind
All peoples in one heart and mind;
Bid envy, strife, and discord cease;
Fill the whole world with heaven’s peace.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!
We have forgotten how to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Adam's latest blog on sexuality has brought out commenters in droves, and the comments have (again) brought out some of the worst in people.
Obama's decision to have Rick Warren give the invocation at his inauguration has sparked disproportionately impassioned comments despairing over his political maneuvering and judging him to be manipulative or flip-floppy or [insert negative connotation here].
Even the stupid debates over who likes what sort of coffee descend into the immediate assumption not only that your opinion is right and everyone else's is wrong, but moreover, that your opinion is right and everyone else is an idiot.
I wonder what the world would look like if we held our own thoughts and opinions a little more loosely. I wonder what it would be like if we started on the assumption that our opponent's views were just as likely to be valid as are our own views. I wonder what it would be like to discuss and even debate issues while making an intentional effort to validate the true or useful or good points that the other side was making - if we gave our opponents credit for their opinions. I wonder what the world would look like if we didn't always jump to the assumption that people are manipulative or conniving or have dishonorable intentions or have hidden agendas.
I'm tired, people. I'm tired. When did we stop putting in the effort to see good in all people? When did we stop trying to be civil? When did we stop thinking about people as people, and instead start thinking of them as punching bags or political parties or simply means to an end?
I am certainly in a place of advent right now. I believe so strongly that God in Christ has begun the work of restoration and reconciliation. And especially on days when those things feel so far away (and so impossible!), I need to cling to the faith that while the winter may be dark, Christ is indeed coming soon.
O come, Desire of nations, bind
All peoples in one heart and mind;
Bid envy, strife, and discord cease;
Fill the whole world with heaven’s peace.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)