I figured that I would be writing on "AVATAR" this morning. But I saw that the film grossed $212 Million in its first five days so it would appear that there's no one left for me to tell about it. I praised the story in my sermon yesterday and now kinda wish I hadn't. Not because I have had a change of heart but because the scope of the film really doesn't lend itself to five minute summaries. I only hope that the people in the parish pursue any questions that the comments might have inspired.
One interesting thing that I will share is that the film immediately reminded me of "Dances with Wolves" not only because the subject matter was similar but because of the way that I felt after the film was over. I saw Costner's film the night it opened with my wife and another couple who were close friends. I remember feeling strongly that what we had just experienced was much more than a movie. That there was a mythical transcendence about the story and the message (or messages) within it. I felt as though I understood. I also sensed that understanding would demand a lingering sense of sadness and regret. And I frankly doubted that my movie-going companions would be up to this. And indeed what most people recall about that film was the cinematography.
"AVATAR" is a little different because twenty years later, it is nearly impossible to make a film that is not first about entertainment. And yet, the elements are still there. This is a story that people should experience. It is transcendent. But unlike "Dances with Wolves," the transcendence is more hopeful. I am not yet sure what this means but if $212 million worth of people have already seen this story, it will be interesting to see if its legacy transcends the dazzling technological marvel. The element of hope that the story offers is quite powerful and well beyond the cheesy examples that we have come to expect from feel-good movies. People will no-doubt feel good after seeing "AVATAR" but they will have also witnessed something pretty new in the process. I hope people allow their hearts to weigh the story.
Speaking of which... We just finished the annual pilgrimage to Bethlehem--which for many is a lot like going to the movies. And because most people don't see the need to see a movie more than once a year, my expectations are generally pretty low for the Sunday after Christmas. Yet much to my surprise, the Whos were out in numbers yesterday. Despite the commercial overkill and the now familiar anticlimactic thud that arrives on the 25th, the faithful of Saint Francis were there to greet the actual season of Christmas... The fanfare had come and gone; yet, the people returned. Puzzling...
And the Grinch, with his Grinch-feet ice cold in the snow, stood puzzling and puzzling, how could it be so? It came without ribbons. It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags. And he puzzled and puzzled 'till his puzzler was sore. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before. What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store? What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more?
Here are some more comments on the wonder that is Christmas.
http://quotations.about.com/od/specialdays/a/christmas5.htm
Monday, December 28, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
What is real
I watched the final episode of Survivor last night. I'd never seen the show before. But as I was flipping through the channels looking for a mindless way to conclude a long Sunday, I came upon a compelling picture of a tropical paradise. Nothing like big screens and HD to change your value system. I am always raging against the evils of television but seeing that crystal clear image of white sands and turquoise waters, I happily sat my butt down for two and a half hours. I am sure the tan bodies had nothing to do with it.
I have mixed feelings about the digital age. I am amazed by the clarity. My television works better than my eyes do. And that is not an exaggeration. I honestly do not see well enough to fully appreciate things like 1080i (whatever that means) but what I can see--especially on channels like Discovery and Smithsonian--simply blows me away. But at the same time, if I think much about it, I always get creeped out. I have serious doubts about digital representations of the world. Something tells me that they are not real.
Part of the reason for this is that I shot film photography for years. When digital cameras started showing up, I held them in disdain partly because I was something of a purist and a zenophobe but also because something told me that digital photography was completely unreal. Of course, my holdout didn't exactly slow the transition. Technology sort of works like that. It's kind of like an invading army or a virus. It sort of has to run its course. And sometimes that means completely taking over. I watched as the pixels went up and up. I saw how handy it was to put pictures on computers instead of paper. And most of all, I could not deny the quality. It was a trifecta. Quality, Convenience and Price... I purchased a Nikon D90 earlier this fall and I have not been disappointed. Still though. It's all sorta creepy. I am not sure how it works but the image sure looks a lot like what I am pointing the camera at--just better.
A woman named Natalie won Survivor. It was an upset. She appeared to be the meakest person left on the island, cowering behind Russell the arrogant and manipulative alpha male. But all that expediency came back to bite Russell as he sat before the jury. Of course the jury was made up of people Russell had lied to and disposed of earlier in the contest. In the end, the jury had little to work with. The nine judges had to choose a winner from three dispicable people. It was either going to be Russell who plowed his way through and over everyone else on his way to the finish line or one of his two coat-tailed submissives. Mick was apparently a non-option altogether receiving zero of the nine votes. Natalie was finally chosen because her cowardess appeared more forgiving than Russell's arrogance.
As I said this was the only episode that I saw. I am sure that there were other people in the contest that might have been more deserving of the million dollar prize but given that these folks had long been eliminated, I guess Natalie was the best choice. I have this theory about good-looking women who sell pharmaceuticals and copiers... Perhaps the saddest moment was the very end of the show. After the votes had been cast and everyone had the opportunity to go home, shower and return to the LA studio for the final announcemnt of the winner. Mick, Russell and everyone else showed up pretty much as we remembered them from the show but Natalie was frankly unrecognizable. She had her hair done and enough make up to smother every tiki torch on the island. I tried to imagine who had made this decision. Was she hoping to parlay her 39 days on Samoa in to somekind of Hollywood acting contract or did she really believe that she looked better as a Barbie? And how does the answer to that question relate to this whole business of surviving?
At the beginning of the show, I sort of got hooked. I told my wife that I thought I could do this "Survivor" thing. But as the show wore on, I was reminded of what was really happening. In the end of the day, these people were on TV. I think I might be able to handle eating the bugs and suffering the elements and even dealing with the personalities. But being turned into a zillion dots of light simply for entertaining the masses? That would probably kill me.
I have mixed feelings about the digital age. I am amazed by the clarity. My television works better than my eyes do. And that is not an exaggeration. I honestly do not see well enough to fully appreciate things like 1080i (whatever that means) but what I can see--especially on channels like Discovery and Smithsonian--simply blows me away. But at the same time, if I think much about it, I always get creeped out. I have serious doubts about digital representations of the world. Something tells me that they are not real.
Part of the reason for this is that I shot film photography for years. When digital cameras started showing up, I held them in disdain partly because I was something of a purist and a zenophobe but also because something told me that digital photography was completely unreal. Of course, my holdout didn't exactly slow the transition. Technology sort of works like that. It's kind of like an invading army or a virus. It sort of has to run its course. And sometimes that means completely taking over. I watched as the pixels went up and up. I saw how handy it was to put pictures on computers instead of paper. And most of all, I could not deny the quality. It was a trifecta. Quality, Convenience and Price... I purchased a Nikon D90 earlier this fall and I have not been disappointed. Still though. It's all sorta creepy. I am not sure how it works but the image sure looks a lot like what I am pointing the camera at--just better.
A woman named Natalie won Survivor. It was an upset. She appeared to be the meakest person left on the island, cowering behind Russell the arrogant and manipulative alpha male. But all that expediency came back to bite Russell as he sat before the jury. Of course the jury was made up of people Russell had lied to and disposed of earlier in the contest. In the end, the jury had little to work with. The nine judges had to choose a winner from three dispicable people. It was either going to be Russell who plowed his way through and over everyone else on his way to the finish line or one of his two coat-tailed submissives. Mick was apparently a non-option altogether receiving zero of the nine votes. Natalie was finally chosen because her cowardess appeared more forgiving than Russell's arrogance.
As I said this was the only episode that I saw. I am sure that there were other people in the contest that might have been more deserving of the million dollar prize but given that these folks had long been eliminated, I guess Natalie was the best choice. I have this theory about good-looking women who sell pharmaceuticals and copiers... Perhaps the saddest moment was the very end of the show. After the votes had been cast and everyone had the opportunity to go home, shower and return to the LA studio for the final announcemnt of the winner. Mick, Russell and everyone else showed up pretty much as we remembered them from the show but Natalie was frankly unrecognizable. She had her hair done and enough make up to smother every tiki torch on the island. I tried to imagine who had made this decision. Was she hoping to parlay her 39 days on Samoa in to somekind of Hollywood acting contract or did she really believe that she looked better as a Barbie? And how does the answer to that question relate to this whole business of surviving?
At the beginning of the show, I sort of got hooked. I told my wife that I thought I could do this "Survivor" thing. But as the show wore on, I was reminded of what was really happening. In the end of the day, these people were on TV. I think I might be able to handle eating the bugs and suffering the elements and even dealing with the personalities. But being turned into a zillion dots of light simply for entertaining the masses? That would probably kill me.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Peace on Earth
Yesterday was the third Sunday of Advent. Perhaps you have witnessed the progressive lighting of candles either at your current place of worship or at some point in your spiritual past. I first encountered the Advent wreath as a child. Our family was asked to light the candles and do the readings a couple of times. I remember trying to figure out all those weeks and themes. Even as a pastor, I often have to check back to make sure that I have it right. After briefly consulting the sources out there, it appears that the prevailing order of the themes are: Hope, Peace, Joy and Love. While each of these are worthy postures and celebrations, today I want to say a word or two about the second. I am probably doing this as much for confession as anything else.
When I began my ministry some twenty-plus years ago, peace was a central theme not merely of Advent but of my deepest understanding of Christianity. Three wars and twenty years later, I am not even sure I deserve to say the word anymore. Our world, and the Church as well, have gone in for a way of life that is decidedly not peaceful. Whether or not this is acceptable in God's sight remains to be seen. But for someone who's call to the ministry was closely tied to the coming and reign of the Prince of Peace, our contemporary comfort with war, violence and discord is a quieting reality. I live in this world and I accept that I am certainly contributing to the horrors but if the truth be told, I am far from comfortable with this.
Last week they gave the Nobel Prize for peace to the commander in chief. This has happened before. So what I say here is not so much about the chief as it is about us and about the world in which we live. What does it mean that the most peaceful person we can find is a war-time leader of the most powerful empire in the world? And did you read some of the comments from that speech? It takes rhetorical skill (and sizable kahunas) to thank the world for a Peace Prize while simultaneously laying out an argument for war. I was also a little concerned about his reference to "rules of conduct." Of course, this was an entirely political statement and perhaps understandable given the recent past. But it is still tragic, especially given the context. When we're listening to a man of peace suggest that there are rules to war, we can probably trust that we are listening to the voice of the empire.
I hope that this is not offensive to anyone. It has frankly been a long time since I have said something worthy of offending the powers of this world. But that is really the point of the blog here. It is a confessional. Where is the Church of Peace? Where are the peacemakers of our time? Where are the followers of Christ who believe that the path of discipleship is greater than the path of might?
When I began my ministry some twenty-plus years ago, peace was a central theme not merely of Advent but of my deepest understanding of Christianity. Three wars and twenty years later, I am not even sure I deserve to say the word anymore. Our world, and the Church as well, have gone in for a way of life that is decidedly not peaceful. Whether or not this is acceptable in God's sight remains to be seen. But for someone who's call to the ministry was closely tied to the coming and reign of the Prince of Peace, our contemporary comfort with war, violence and discord is a quieting reality. I live in this world and I accept that I am certainly contributing to the horrors but if the truth be told, I am far from comfortable with this.
Last week they gave the Nobel Prize for peace to the commander in chief. This has happened before. So what I say here is not so much about the chief as it is about us and about the world in which we live. What does it mean that the most peaceful person we can find is a war-time leader of the most powerful empire in the world? And did you read some of the comments from that speech? It takes rhetorical skill (and sizable kahunas) to thank the world for a Peace Prize while simultaneously laying out an argument for war. I was also a little concerned about his reference to "rules of conduct." Of course, this was an entirely political statement and perhaps understandable given the recent past. But it is still tragic, especially given the context. When we're listening to a man of peace suggest that there are rules to war, we can probably trust that we are listening to the voice of the empire.
I hope that this is not offensive to anyone. It has frankly been a long time since I have said something worthy of offending the powers of this world. But that is really the point of the blog here. It is a confessional. Where is the Church of Peace? Where are the peacemakers of our time? Where are the followers of Christ who believe that the path of discipleship is greater than the path of might?
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Saving the Planet
This is an important week, at least in terms of world politics. The gathering in Copenhagen to address the issue of climate change is an important event no matter what we might think about the question. This is a gathering of world figures around a discussion that apparently concerns us all--not all the people in the room or all the people in the nation or in a particular region but in the world. Again, I do not know whether or not the gathering merits the urgency that seems to surround it but in some ways it makes no difference. The fact that there are this many people, representing this many countries gathered to one place to discuss anything at all is monumental. Or so it seems to me.
The title of my blog is purposeful to the extent that I wanted to echo the emotional tone of the discussion. I recently was listening to a radio news show that was covering the summit in Copenhagen. It began with the voices of children. They were clearly representing different countries and many were speaking a language that was not their native tongue. Yet, each child said the same thing, and in English: Please save the world...
It is always a risk to get children to do our bidding for us. The image of children spurs strong emotions. But it is not easy to predict which emotions will emerge. For example, consider the "Children's Crusade" of the middle period. Sending children to do the bidding of the Church or bring the message of God might initially sound charming but give it some time and it turns a bit--mostly in the stomach. The picture of kids entering the Holy Land to face the same hostile forces that already slaughtered thousands of adults is likely to inspire a few descriptives but charming is probably not one of them.
Such was my impression of hearing the voices of children proclaiming the urgency of the Conference on Climate Change. Not so much because it was personally dangerous but because it was such a blatant example of exploitation. Whatever comes out of Copenhagen is destined to be both controversial and politically charged. There are going to be some people who are happy and some people who are furious about whatever happens next. Why would you want to associate children with this. No matter what it is going to appear exploitative... because it is...
But some might argue that why not play every card available. After all, isn't this a matter of life and death? Should we not use every resource at our disposal to drive home the serious nature of this issue???? My answer here would be "no." Using children is not OK for any crusade--no matter how righteous it might appear. In addition to the example above, here are two more reasons.
First, my point here has nothing to do with the question of global warming or its urgency. Of course, children are going to suffer whatever the future brings. Reminding delegates or watchers of this only insults their intelligence and calls their integrity into question. Call me idealistic but I just sort of assume that anyone who is attending something called, "The United Nations Climate Change Conference," has at least some authentic interest in future generations.
Second, "Please Save The World" is a hugely unfaithful thing to say. Therefore, putting such words in the mouths of children is especially despicable. I think most Christians would accept that humans cannot save the world. But it is equally true that humans cannot destroy the world. We might wreak havoc on the plant but just as we did not make the world, it is neither our's to destroy. That work belongs to God.
This point was brought home to me twice in my lifetime by two very different people. The first was a liberal Christian pastor. The second was an orthodox Christian theologian.
Some twenty-five years ago, I was driving in a car on the way to Colorado with a friend. He and I and a number of others were going to Estes Park to climb Long's Peak. I had just finished college and was attending Divinity School so my mind was alive with ideas and my spirit was filled with purity. At one point, I began talking about the environment and how humans tear it up so well. I don't know what sparked my enthusiasm exactly; perhaps we were passing a feed lot or something. There are certainly plenty of examples of the topic on the road from Des Moines to Estes Park.
Anyway, I raged on for a few minutes about everything from water pollution to strip mining. I finally stopped to catch my breadth and wait for an atta-boy from my mentor. But instead he said something that rather surprised me. He said, I think you underestimate the earth. It's taken everything that we've thrown at it thus far. The planet has a marvelous way of healing itself...
WHAT?! I thought to myself. How is this helping? Why isn't this guy sharing my righteous indignation? But I had just enough humility left to think a little about what I had just heard... And I've been thinking about it ever since.
Then about a year later I was sitting back in class at the Divinity School. Our professor was talking to us about the arrogance of modern Christianity. He said, many people in the Church would have you believe that it's all up to us--the proclamation, the poor, the planet--it's not. We're just creatures here. This is God's world to make, to judge, to redeem... We don't have the authority to destroy the world. That's God's business.
The first time we hear something like this, we say, "of course but." The of course means that while we acknowledge God...it is sort of a mute point because we're the only ones here--the only ones who can have an impact... But the real of course is that this is an unfaithful thing to say. If we truly believe that this is God's world then does this not mean that it will always be God's world? That at any given moment it remains God's world? And so, while our influence might appear profound to us; all is probably not as we imagine.
Now, does this mean that we should not be concerned about things like Global Warming? Or, that we should not gather with other nations to discuss better and worse ways to live and work and behave on the planet? Of course not. But it does change the starting point. While I am not especially excited about an urgent gathering to "save the world;" I can certainly see the value of an urgent gathering to rethink our place on it and our relation to it... To speak of our role as faithful stewards and humble servants of the God's generous trust.
Things like exploitation and pollution are just plain wrong quite without threatening the end of civilization. These things should have our attention long before we hear the voices of children or threats concerning the end of the world. That's the confession--that it takes such hyperbole to capture our interest... But the Good News is that God is God and this really is God's world. And the earth, which is part of God's world, is pretty amazing. Though we humans tend to be quite impressed with ourselves and, in this case, our ability to break things; the fact is, we have only been around for a few thousand years. The earth has seen things that we have never seen. It has endured things--truly catastrophic things--that we might not even be able to imagine.
As humans, we surely might be in danger of destroying ourselves...we always are... But we're really not in a position to destroy God's world.
The title of my blog is purposeful to the extent that I wanted to echo the emotional tone of the discussion. I recently was listening to a radio news show that was covering the summit in Copenhagen. It began with the voices of children. They were clearly representing different countries and many were speaking a language that was not their native tongue. Yet, each child said the same thing, and in English: Please save the world...
It is always a risk to get children to do our bidding for us. The image of children spurs strong emotions. But it is not easy to predict which emotions will emerge. For example, consider the "Children's Crusade" of the middle period. Sending children to do the bidding of the Church or bring the message of God might initially sound charming but give it some time and it turns a bit--mostly in the stomach. The picture of kids entering the Holy Land to face the same hostile forces that already slaughtered thousands of adults is likely to inspire a few descriptives but charming is probably not one of them.
Such was my impression of hearing the voices of children proclaiming the urgency of the Conference on Climate Change. Not so much because it was personally dangerous but because it was such a blatant example of exploitation. Whatever comes out of Copenhagen is destined to be both controversial and politically charged. There are going to be some people who are happy and some people who are furious about whatever happens next. Why would you want to associate children with this. No matter what it is going to appear exploitative... because it is...
But some might argue that why not play every card available. After all, isn't this a matter of life and death? Should we not use every resource at our disposal to drive home the serious nature of this issue???? My answer here would be "no." Using children is not OK for any crusade--no matter how righteous it might appear. In addition to the example above, here are two more reasons.
First, my point here has nothing to do with the question of global warming or its urgency. Of course, children are going to suffer whatever the future brings. Reminding delegates or watchers of this only insults their intelligence and calls their integrity into question. Call me idealistic but I just sort of assume that anyone who is attending something called, "The United Nations Climate Change Conference," has at least some authentic interest in future generations.
Second, "Please Save The World" is a hugely unfaithful thing to say. Therefore, putting such words in the mouths of children is especially despicable. I think most Christians would accept that humans cannot save the world. But it is equally true that humans cannot destroy the world. We might wreak havoc on the plant but just as we did not make the world, it is neither our's to destroy. That work belongs to God.
This point was brought home to me twice in my lifetime by two very different people. The first was a liberal Christian pastor. The second was an orthodox Christian theologian.
Some twenty-five years ago, I was driving in a car on the way to Colorado with a friend. He and I and a number of others were going to Estes Park to climb Long's Peak. I had just finished college and was attending Divinity School so my mind was alive with ideas and my spirit was filled with purity. At one point, I began talking about the environment and how humans tear it up so well. I don't know what sparked my enthusiasm exactly; perhaps we were passing a feed lot or something. There are certainly plenty of examples of the topic on the road from Des Moines to Estes Park.
Anyway, I raged on for a few minutes about everything from water pollution to strip mining. I finally stopped to catch my breadth and wait for an atta-boy from my mentor. But instead he said something that rather surprised me. He said, I think you underestimate the earth. It's taken everything that we've thrown at it thus far. The planet has a marvelous way of healing itself...
WHAT?! I thought to myself. How is this helping? Why isn't this guy sharing my righteous indignation? But I had just enough humility left to think a little about what I had just heard... And I've been thinking about it ever since.
Then about a year later I was sitting back in class at the Divinity School. Our professor was talking to us about the arrogance of modern Christianity. He said, many people in the Church would have you believe that it's all up to us--the proclamation, the poor, the planet--it's not. We're just creatures here. This is God's world to make, to judge, to redeem... We don't have the authority to destroy the world. That's God's business.
The first time we hear something like this, we say, "of course but." The of course means that while we acknowledge God...it is sort of a mute point because we're the only ones here--the only ones who can have an impact... But the real of course is that this is an unfaithful thing to say. If we truly believe that this is God's world then does this not mean that it will always be God's world? That at any given moment it remains God's world? And so, while our influence might appear profound to us; all is probably not as we imagine.
Now, does this mean that we should not be concerned about things like Global Warming? Or, that we should not gather with other nations to discuss better and worse ways to live and work and behave on the planet? Of course not. But it does change the starting point. While I am not especially excited about an urgent gathering to "save the world;" I can certainly see the value of an urgent gathering to rethink our place on it and our relation to it... To speak of our role as faithful stewards and humble servants of the God's generous trust.
Things like exploitation and pollution are just plain wrong quite without threatening the end of civilization. These things should have our attention long before we hear the voices of children or threats concerning the end of the world. That's the confession--that it takes such hyperbole to capture our interest... But the Good News is that God is God and this really is God's world. And the earth, which is part of God's world, is pretty amazing. Though we humans tend to be quite impressed with ourselves and, in this case, our ability to break things; the fact is, we have only been around for a few thousand years. The earth has seen things that we have never seen. It has endured things--truly catastrophic things--that we might not even be able to imagine.
As humans, we surely might be in danger of destroying ourselves...we always are... But we're really not in a position to destroy God's world.
Monday, November 30, 2009
2012
I went to see the film...twice. If you're readings this, chances are you already know that I am a film junkie but you may not know that I am especially fond of adventure stories and science fiction. I have seen just about every disaster film ever made!
I've seen the classics; "Towering Inferno", the original and the remake of "The Poseidon Adventure." I've seen the more technologically-enhanced offerings like "Armageddon" as well as the films that have tried to tell the more personal sides of crises such as "Deep Impact" and "The Day After Tomorrow." And I liked them all! Of course, I watch disaster films on the Sci Fi Channel so my taste here is not exactly refined. I think I just like to see things break down.
"Independence Day" had set a pretty high bar. It would be hard to imagine a better "worse-case scenario" than what Bill Pullman and Will Smith had to deal with. But "2012" takes breaking down to a whole new level. It is a disaster movie of planetary proportions. The death toll is never cited exactly but at one point in the film, one of the characters makes the statement, "...that we might be able to save 400,000 people is nothing short of a miracle." Happily, we don't have to watch the other 6.5 billion perish but we do get a unique opportunity to use our imaginations as we watch the crust of the earth literally turn inside-out.
The story behind the story, of course, is the date. December 21, 2012 represents a curious convergence of science and religion. The scientific side has to do with planetary positioning and the Milky Way galaxy. The religious side has to do with the Mayan Calendar and some interpretations of Nostradamus. There is ample reading for all of this on the Internet and beyond so I will not get into it here--except to say that it is interesting--a bit more intriguing, I think, than say Y2K which came and went without inspiring even a modest disaster film.
As far as the meanings or predictions associated with the date... Or to a lesser degree, the possibilities suggested by the film... I say why not. Not in terms of digging a hole and waiting for the end or worrying about what will or will not be. But rather, why not pay attention--as Christians are called to do BTW. Jesus says, "watch." So why not ask a few questions? For example, in a universe that appears to be billions of years old, how is it that human civilization only appears to be a few thousand? Or, how is it that an ancient civilization like the Mayans could possibly understand the stars and planets so well? Clearly there is more to this amazing world than we understand. And clearly we are not going to ever fully understand it but why not widen our vision a little.
Jesus has already made it clear that no one knows "the day nor the hour." So it would seem ill-advised to turn our own worlds upside-down. If there is something to all this, then any amount of worrying (or digging for that matter!) is not going to change anything.
On a final note, I better make it clear that I am not professing to believe anything about December 21, 2012. The fact is, I wouldn't know where to begin. I am not a big fan of belief anyway. Belief, it seems to me, is a poor substitute for faith. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we believe. What matters is what is true. Or specifically, whether or not our faith in God is grounded in something more than our minds. I believe (for lack of a better word) that it is. I have faith that whatever happens or does not happen two years from now is in God's care. This not only seems to help with the regular anxieties of life; it also allows me to sit back and enjoy a good disaster film.
I've seen the classics; "Towering Inferno", the original and the remake of "The Poseidon Adventure." I've seen the more technologically-enhanced offerings like "Armageddon" as well as the films that have tried to tell the more personal sides of crises such as "Deep Impact" and "The Day After Tomorrow." And I liked them all! Of course, I watch disaster films on the Sci Fi Channel so my taste here is not exactly refined. I think I just like to see things break down.
"Independence Day" had set a pretty high bar. It would be hard to imagine a better "worse-case scenario" than what Bill Pullman and Will Smith had to deal with. But "2012" takes breaking down to a whole new level. It is a disaster movie of planetary proportions. The death toll is never cited exactly but at one point in the film, one of the characters makes the statement, "...that we might be able to save 400,000 people is nothing short of a miracle." Happily, we don't have to watch the other 6.5 billion perish but we do get a unique opportunity to use our imaginations as we watch the crust of the earth literally turn inside-out.
The story behind the story, of course, is the date. December 21, 2012 represents a curious convergence of science and religion. The scientific side has to do with planetary positioning and the Milky Way galaxy. The religious side has to do with the Mayan Calendar and some interpretations of Nostradamus. There is ample reading for all of this on the Internet and beyond so I will not get into it here--except to say that it is interesting--a bit more intriguing, I think, than say Y2K which came and went without inspiring even a modest disaster film.
As far as the meanings or predictions associated with the date... Or to a lesser degree, the possibilities suggested by the film... I say why not. Not in terms of digging a hole and waiting for the end or worrying about what will or will not be. But rather, why not pay attention--as Christians are called to do BTW. Jesus says, "watch." So why not ask a few questions? For example, in a universe that appears to be billions of years old, how is it that human civilization only appears to be a few thousand? Or, how is it that an ancient civilization like the Mayans could possibly understand the stars and planets so well? Clearly there is more to this amazing world than we understand. And clearly we are not going to ever fully understand it but why not widen our vision a little.
Jesus has already made it clear that no one knows "the day nor the hour." So it would seem ill-advised to turn our own worlds upside-down. If there is something to all this, then any amount of worrying (or digging for that matter!) is not going to change anything.
On a final note, I better make it clear that I am not professing to believe anything about December 21, 2012. The fact is, I wouldn't know where to begin. I am not a big fan of belief anyway. Belief, it seems to me, is a poor substitute for faith. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we believe. What matters is what is true. Or specifically, whether or not our faith in God is grounded in something more than our minds. I believe (for lack of a better word) that it is. I have faith that whatever happens or does not happen two years from now is in God's care. This not only seems to help with the regular anxieties of life; it also allows me to sit back and enjoy a good disaster film.
Friday, November 20, 2009
This is the Feast
We will soon gather for the annual Thanksgiving Feast. Now there's a phrase that has sort of lost it's meaning. Not only has Thanksgiving become more about vacation than giving thanks, it is no longer understood as a feast, at least not in the traditional sense. For the last two-thousand years, feast days have had religious meaning. Christians, especially have tended to tie remembrance to the practice of sharing in a meal. In addition to being a happy and practical means of celebration, this also served as an opportunity for teaching the young--again, usually something meaningful about God or some religious conviction.
Christians, of course, did not come up with this idea. The Jews were doing this long before the coming of Jesus and pagans held similar feasts to celebrate their own religious holidays--which were often tied to season events such as planting and harvest. What Christians did do was familiarize the practice. That is, the Church made these practices more common. The most obvious example of this is through the feasts of the saints. The Holy Eucharist of Lord's Supper is celebrated regularly within the life of the Church.
At Saint Francis we celebrate the Eucharist weekly but the truth is that somewhere in the world, at any given time on any given day, the Church is breaking bread in honor of the Lord's sacrificial death. It is important to remember that the Church is One. So even though we may be not be participating personally in the feast, we are still tied to it's observance. I had a professor who used to say that if the Church ever ceased this practice, God would destroy the world. While I am not sure about that, I do find it compelling that at any given moment in time some body of the faithful are reciting the words of the Holy Eucharist.
So what exactly is happening here? The practice is first about the holy commandment of the Lord, "Do This In Remembrance of Me." But in some traditions, it is also an opportunity to teach the faith by retelling the story--not only of Jesus but also of the faithful men and women who have sought to follow him down through the ages. So, for example, in the Catholic tradition, the regular observance of the Mass might be called "The Feast of St. Francis" or "The Feast of St. Anthony." The options are rather surprising. If you have never seen it, the list will likely shock you. See http://www.catholic.org/saints/f_day/nov.php
Protestant Christians might find this a bit overdone. And sometimes we hear the suspicion... --so many feast days for so many different people... celebrating The Lord's Supper over and over... reciting those same words... doesn't that make it lose it's meaning?
But of course it is more than mere words and recitation, isn't it? The prayer of the Holy Eucharist is, after all, called "The Great Thanksgiving." It is a remembrance and celebration of what God has done, is doing and will do in Jesus Christ. It is an act of Thanksgiving in the truest sense--which is an opportunity for us to re-posture our lives. It is a chance to reorient ourselves toward God and neighbor. To give thanks is to be humble as well as grateful. It is to take time to celebrate the good blessings of life and to make room for others who God also blesses and desires to bless. How can something like this possibly be done too frequently?
As the nation takes time out for it's annual day of giving thanks, let us join them. May we share in the food and the fellowship and the time off work. May we joyfully laugh and enjoy the company of friends, family and others...
But let us also remember that such things are not to be reserved. God desires us to be humble, grateful and joyful each and every day. And God has made it so that we can be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwdZGPK6iTQ
Christians, of course, did not come up with this idea. The Jews were doing this long before the coming of Jesus and pagans held similar feasts to celebrate their own religious holidays--which were often tied to season events such as planting and harvest. What Christians did do was familiarize the practice. That is, the Church made these practices more common. The most obvious example of this is through the feasts of the saints. The Holy Eucharist of Lord's Supper is celebrated regularly within the life of the Church.
At Saint Francis we celebrate the Eucharist weekly but the truth is that somewhere in the world, at any given time on any given day, the Church is breaking bread in honor of the Lord's sacrificial death. It is important to remember that the Church is One. So even though we may be not be participating personally in the feast, we are still tied to it's observance. I had a professor who used to say that if the Church ever ceased this practice, God would destroy the world. While I am not sure about that, I do find it compelling that at any given moment in time some body of the faithful are reciting the words of the Holy Eucharist.
So what exactly is happening here? The practice is first about the holy commandment of the Lord, "Do This In Remembrance of Me." But in some traditions, it is also an opportunity to teach the faith by retelling the story--not only of Jesus but also of the faithful men and women who have sought to follow him down through the ages. So, for example, in the Catholic tradition, the regular observance of the Mass might be called "The Feast of St. Francis" or "The Feast of St. Anthony." The options are rather surprising. If you have never seen it, the list will likely shock you. See http://www.catholic.org/saints/f_day/nov.php
Protestant Christians might find this a bit overdone. And sometimes we hear the suspicion... --so many feast days for so many different people... celebrating The Lord's Supper over and over... reciting those same words... doesn't that make it lose it's meaning?
But of course it is more than mere words and recitation, isn't it? The prayer of the Holy Eucharist is, after all, called "The Great Thanksgiving." It is a remembrance and celebration of what God has done, is doing and will do in Jesus Christ. It is an act of Thanksgiving in the truest sense--which is an opportunity for us to re-posture our lives. It is a chance to reorient ourselves toward God and neighbor. To give thanks is to be humble as well as grateful. It is to take time to celebrate the good blessings of life and to make room for others who God also blesses and desires to bless. How can something like this possibly be done too frequently?
As the nation takes time out for it's annual day of giving thanks, let us join them. May we share in the food and the fellowship and the time off work. May we joyfully laugh and enjoy the company of friends, family and others...
But let us also remember that such things are not to be reserved. God desires us to be humble, grateful and joyful each and every day. And God has made it so that we can be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwdZGPK6iTQ
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Not-quite Instant Karma
Occasionally, we hear people judge God. Actually what they are doing is judging God on the basis of things that take place on earth. They will claim that God must not exist because innocent children suffer or they will claim that God is irresponsible because there are clearly horrible things going on. The fact is, most people say these kinds of things not because they are looking for a meaningful conversation but rather to offer a veiled excuse for not taking their own faith more seriously.
But for the sake of those who might actually raise such questions in good faith, I want to share a story. But before I do, I need to offer a little context and a few caveats. First, things like the Holocaust or Rwanda or the history of slavery in America are complex and frightful matters. They involve not only the reality of human sin but also the evils of secular structures like nation-states and economic ambitions. Second, the story I am about to tell is trivial and silly. It is in no way meant to be equated with the kind complexity and urgency involved with real human suffering. Rather, I offer it precisely because it is so small and silly and therefore, safe. If we can perhaps see God or at least signs of God’s nearness in tiny things, then it seems to me we can be more assured that God is very near to what we might call big things.
I bowl on Wednesday nights. This is after our regular mid-week meal and programming here at Saint Francis. Though most of the folks in the league know that I am a pastor, no one attends the church so it serves as an opportunity to wind-down and decompress. My teammates are a Korean couple, Young and Chung, and a friend named, John who has a healthy understanding of people and the world in which we live. They are all great. We always have fun and generally bowl well enough so as not to embarrass ourselves.
Last night we were bowling a team that has been doing very well. We won the first game and were mid-way through the second when Chung lost her balance while throwing her first ball in the fourth frame. She didn’t fall but she did step forward into the right gutter. Meanwhile, the ball hit for a strike. Chung was excited but as she made her way back from the alley, I could already see that the opposing team was not going to let this stand. Officially, stepping over the line, even into the gutter, is a foul. Two of the bowlers on the opposing team wanted to ignore the infraction as did John and I. After all, this is a fun league and the woman just threw a strike! But the other two bowlers saw that it might change the outcome of the game and as they understood it, a rule was a rule… So I had the joy of explaining that her strike would not count and that she would have to throw a second ball. Meanwhile, the opposing team captain corrected the score. Afterwards, I walked to the table and almost at the same time John and I said the word “Karma.”
Chung is about the sweetest person you could meet—if that reference is still acceptable. She is always respectful and cheerful and you cannot help but hope that things will fall her way. And they don’t always. But John and I both sort of sensed that this time they might…We ended up winning the second game as well.
Then came the third game. None of us were bowling very well and we ended up being down by over 50 pins in the tenth frame. The opposing team bowled well extending the lead a bit further but Chung and I still had a chance and we were both working on a strike in the ninth. Chung then threw what appeared to be a perfect shot but rather than a strike, it turned out to be a split. She was unable to make the spare. I remember thinking at the time that it seemed wrong. I am no Karma expert but it seemed to me that she should have at least had a chance to make it close—but a split???
Anyway, I got up to throw the last frame of the night. At this point, the opposing team was finished and I figured that they were well out of reach. My first ball was a solid strike—fun, because it seemed to send a message of what might have been… But my second ball was another strike. I heard a cheer in the back but I honestly didn’t know the score. My third ball was a final strike with the seven-pin wobbling and then falling with the rest. I walked back to John’s outstretched hand. We had won the third game by a single pin.
Now I am capable of throwing three strikes in the tenth frame. I’ve done it before although certainly not often—and certainly not to win a game by a single pin. In other words, this might be considered nothing more than a cheesy, self-aggrandizing story. And you are welcome to take it that way, I guess. But that’s not the way it felt. John and I wanted to see our opponents pay for needlessly hurting our friend—not a lot—we certainly didn’t want anyone to get hurt but we did want to see Chung vindicated. And truth be told… that was just about right. You could see the look on the faces of the two guys…A rule is a rule, I guess, even in God’s sometimes mysterious sense of justice…
But for the sake of those who might actually raise such questions in good faith, I want to share a story. But before I do, I need to offer a little context and a few caveats. First, things like the Holocaust or Rwanda or the history of slavery in America are complex and frightful matters. They involve not only the reality of human sin but also the evils of secular structures like nation-states and economic ambitions. Second, the story I am about to tell is trivial and silly. It is in no way meant to be equated with the kind complexity and urgency involved with real human suffering. Rather, I offer it precisely because it is so small and silly and therefore, safe. If we can perhaps see God or at least signs of God’s nearness in tiny things, then it seems to me we can be more assured that God is very near to what we might call big things.
I bowl on Wednesday nights. This is after our regular mid-week meal and programming here at Saint Francis. Though most of the folks in the league know that I am a pastor, no one attends the church so it serves as an opportunity to wind-down and decompress. My teammates are a Korean couple, Young and Chung, and a friend named, John who has a healthy understanding of people and the world in which we live. They are all great. We always have fun and generally bowl well enough so as not to embarrass ourselves.
Last night we were bowling a team that has been doing very well. We won the first game and were mid-way through the second when Chung lost her balance while throwing her first ball in the fourth frame. She didn’t fall but she did step forward into the right gutter. Meanwhile, the ball hit for a strike. Chung was excited but as she made her way back from the alley, I could already see that the opposing team was not going to let this stand. Officially, stepping over the line, even into the gutter, is a foul. Two of the bowlers on the opposing team wanted to ignore the infraction as did John and I. After all, this is a fun league and the woman just threw a strike! But the other two bowlers saw that it might change the outcome of the game and as they understood it, a rule was a rule… So I had the joy of explaining that her strike would not count and that she would have to throw a second ball. Meanwhile, the opposing team captain corrected the score. Afterwards, I walked to the table and almost at the same time John and I said the word “Karma.”
Chung is about the sweetest person you could meet—if that reference is still acceptable. She is always respectful and cheerful and you cannot help but hope that things will fall her way. And they don’t always. But John and I both sort of sensed that this time they might…We ended up winning the second game as well.
Then came the third game. None of us were bowling very well and we ended up being down by over 50 pins in the tenth frame. The opposing team bowled well extending the lead a bit further but Chung and I still had a chance and we were both working on a strike in the ninth. Chung then threw what appeared to be a perfect shot but rather than a strike, it turned out to be a split. She was unable to make the spare. I remember thinking at the time that it seemed wrong. I am no Karma expert but it seemed to me that she should have at least had a chance to make it close—but a split???
Anyway, I got up to throw the last frame of the night. At this point, the opposing team was finished and I figured that they were well out of reach. My first ball was a solid strike—fun, because it seemed to send a message of what might have been… But my second ball was another strike. I heard a cheer in the back but I honestly didn’t know the score. My third ball was a final strike with the seven-pin wobbling and then falling with the rest. I walked back to John’s outstretched hand. We had won the third game by a single pin.
Now I am capable of throwing three strikes in the tenth frame. I’ve done it before although certainly not often—and certainly not to win a game by a single pin. In other words, this might be considered nothing more than a cheesy, self-aggrandizing story. And you are welcome to take it that way, I guess. But that’s not the way it felt. John and I wanted to see our opponents pay for needlessly hurting our friend—not a lot—we certainly didn’t want anyone to get hurt but we did want to see Chung vindicated. And truth be told… that was just about right. You could see the look on the faces of the two guys…A rule is a rule, I guess, even in God’s sometimes mysterious sense of justice…
Age Before Beauty
O.K. This one is primarily for all the basketball junkies out there... And for old people like me. The truth is I can barely stand the NBA. I only watch the games on television when there's is absolutely nothing else on--which sadly is more and more often.
Steve Nash is once again leading the NBA in assists. He is currently averaging 12.9 per game. These are assists, mind you, not points. In order to average 13 of them, a player has to make a pass that leads directly to a basket. And these aren't like the assists in soccer where you can pass it to a guy and he can then dribble the ball for 30 yards and kick it in. A true assist in basketball occurs when the last thing that happens before the shot is a pass. A good high school guard will average 5 of these per game. Bobby Hurley (hmmmm, where did he play?) still holds the NCAA record for most assists (1076). That record has stood since 1993. As good as Hurley was, he never averaged more than 8.2 assists per game in a single year. I think that he had 13 just once.
A few years ago, Allen Iverson and Carmello Anthony were battling for a scoring title one year. They were both flirting with the magical number of 30 points-per-game. Someone consulted Michael Jordan about this (Jordan averaged 30.1 over his entire career). Jordan just chuckled. He rhetorically asked, do you have any idea what it takes to average 30 a night? Here is a recollection/paraphrase of the conversation: Let's say you have an off night and you only score 20--which is still well above what the average NBA player can score in any given night--but you want to average 30 so that means you have to score 40 the next time out. Or, let's say you've got the flu and you get 15--now you're looking at a 45 point outing... just to keep pace. And, of course, you are playing against the best competition in the world. They know full well that you are the leader so while you are doing your best to average 30, they're doing their absolute best to keep you under 20.
So, we get it. Michael Jordan's accomplishments are even greater than we thought... But Steve Nash is no Michael Jordan...Right? He's that pale, anorexic guy from Canada. He looks more like a guy who works at a mom and pop video store than a serious athlete. And he's getting old or at least older for NBA point guards...
And yet--there it is--almost 13 assists per game. Once again, Nash is setting the bar. At 35-years-old, Nash, along with 37-year-old Grant Hill (hmmm, where did he play college ball?) have led the Suns to an 8-1 start this year. Nash is outplaying younger and seemingly more talented players, sometimes to the disgust of what my dad would have referred to as all the Prima Donnas out there.
So hat's off to Steve Nash and to all those folks out there who are making other people shine, Assists are great and so is playing the game with respect and style at 35! Here's a link to the article that inspired my blog http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ian_thomsen/11/11/steve.nash/index.html?eref=sihp
Steve Nash is once again leading the NBA in assists. He is currently averaging 12.9 per game. These are assists, mind you, not points. In order to average 13 of them, a player has to make a pass that leads directly to a basket. And these aren't like the assists in soccer where you can pass it to a guy and he can then dribble the ball for 30 yards and kick it in. A true assist in basketball occurs when the last thing that happens before the shot is a pass. A good high school guard will average 5 of these per game. Bobby Hurley (hmmmm, where did he play?) still holds the NCAA record for most assists (1076). That record has stood since 1993. As good as Hurley was, he never averaged more than 8.2 assists per game in a single year. I think that he had 13 just once.
A few years ago, Allen Iverson and Carmello Anthony were battling for a scoring title one year. They were both flirting with the magical number of 30 points-per-game. Someone consulted Michael Jordan about this (Jordan averaged 30.1 over his entire career). Jordan just chuckled. He rhetorically asked, do you have any idea what it takes to average 30 a night? Here is a recollection/paraphrase of the conversation: Let's say you have an off night and you only score 20--which is still well above what the average NBA player can score in any given night--but you want to average 30 so that means you have to score 40 the next time out. Or, let's say you've got the flu and you get 15--now you're looking at a 45 point outing... just to keep pace. And, of course, you are playing against the best competition in the world. They know full well that you are the leader so while you are doing your best to average 30, they're doing their absolute best to keep you under 20.
So, we get it. Michael Jordan's accomplishments are even greater than we thought... But Steve Nash is no Michael Jordan...Right? He's that pale, anorexic guy from Canada. He looks more like a guy who works at a mom and pop video store than a serious athlete. And he's getting old or at least older for NBA point guards...
And yet--there it is--almost 13 assists per game. Once again, Nash is setting the bar. At 35-years-old, Nash, along with 37-year-old Grant Hill (hmmm, where did he play college ball?) have led the Suns to an 8-1 start this year. Nash is outplaying younger and seemingly more talented players, sometimes to the disgust of what my dad would have referred to as all the Prima Donnas out there.
So hat's off to Steve Nash and to all those folks out there who are making other people shine, Assists are great and so is playing the game with respect and style at 35! Here's a link to the article that inspired my blog http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ian_thomsen/11/11/steve.nash/index.html?eref=sihp
Friday, November 6, 2009
Elegance
A friend took me trout fishing yesterday. I had a great time and we caught a few fish but it was hard not to notice the sophistication. If I were a lesser man—which would be hard to imagine—I could probably write a pretty funny blog about all the sophistication that goes into fly fishing. But instead, I thought I’d write about how little sophistication goes into so much of religion these days.
I mean, of course, there’s a point at which you begin to fall over the edge. I am not exactly sure how much the average fly fisherman spends on his/her passion but it is clearly more than say the average worm fisherman. You’ve got the rod, the flies, the extra license and the exotic location… And these are the absolutes. But very quickly you need to be thinking about vests and waders and hats and shirts and sunglasses. You should probably be thinking about a guide and digital camera and maybe a surgeon to safely remove the hook should you happen to actually catch one of these precious things. That would be unlikely though. What is the average SAT score for a trout anyway? It’s gotta be higher than most NCAA athletes.
As off-putting as all the regalia might be for some people, I’m a little drawn to it. It's kinda nice to be reminded that the whole world is not made out of particle board and cheeseburgers. Of course, I don’t have the time nor means to fund a fly fishing addiction at this point in my life but I do like the fact that those who do seem to genuinely respect their pursuit. They take the fish, the process and themselves pretty darn seriously… O.K., maybe a little too seriously.
There was a day when Christianity was more like this. The buildings were gargantuan structures of mystery and wonder. The priests wore the finest linens. In some places, even the service was offered in an exotic language that only a few people even understood. So when someone came into the sanctuary, they would quickly understand that there was a grace about the place. Worshipers and adherents were reverent and respectful because that was the nature of the world that they had now entered. The process might be elaborate and the learning curve a little extensive but this too was part of the value.
Contrast this with the consumer-driven examples out there today. There is no longer any danger of asking too much of the worshippers and adherents, at least in these most modern expressions of Christianity. If anything, the Church has fallen over backward in its effort to strip-out anything that might come across as exotic or exclusive. For many Christian bodies, mystery has become more an enemy than an attraction. Whereas worshippers and adherents were once humbled to come before the presence of God, it would now seem that God has been humbled before the appetites of consumers. I think of Kurt Cobain’s timely assessment, “Here we are now, entertain us!”
Of course, we are never going back to the days when the service took place in a foreign language and the priest was the only person who understood what was going on--and for good reason… But at the same time, I hope that the Western Christianity can recover some of the elegance and respect that it has traded away in the name of reaching people.
I mean, of course, there’s a point at which you begin to fall over the edge. I am not exactly sure how much the average fly fisherman spends on his/her passion but it is clearly more than say the average worm fisherman. You’ve got the rod, the flies, the extra license and the exotic location… And these are the absolutes. But very quickly you need to be thinking about vests and waders and hats and shirts and sunglasses. You should probably be thinking about a guide and digital camera and maybe a surgeon to safely remove the hook should you happen to actually catch one of these precious things. That would be unlikely though. What is the average SAT score for a trout anyway? It’s gotta be higher than most NCAA athletes.
As off-putting as all the regalia might be for some people, I’m a little drawn to it. It's kinda nice to be reminded that the whole world is not made out of particle board and cheeseburgers. Of course, I don’t have the time nor means to fund a fly fishing addiction at this point in my life but I do like the fact that those who do seem to genuinely respect their pursuit. They take the fish, the process and themselves pretty darn seriously… O.K., maybe a little too seriously.
There was a day when Christianity was more like this. The buildings were gargantuan structures of mystery and wonder. The priests wore the finest linens. In some places, even the service was offered in an exotic language that only a few people even understood. So when someone came into the sanctuary, they would quickly understand that there was a grace about the place. Worshipers and adherents were reverent and respectful because that was the nature of the world that they had now entered. The process might be elaborate and the learning curve a little extensive but this too was part of the value.
Contrast this with the consumer-driven examples out there today. There is no longer any danger of asking too much of the worshippers and adherents, at least in these most modern expressions of Christianity. If anything, the Church has fallen over backward in its effort to strip-out anything that might come across as exotic or exclusive. For many Christian bodies, mystery has become more an enemy than an attraction. Whereas worshippers and adherents were once humbled to come before the presence of God, it would now seem that God has been humbled before the appetites of consumers. I think of Kurt Cobain’s timely assessment, “Here we are now, entertain us!”
Of course, we are never going back to the days when the service took place in a foreign language and the priest was the only person who understood what was going on--and for good reason… But at the same time, I hope that the Western Christianity can recover some of the elegance and respect that it has traded away in the name of reaching people.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
What's Funny
Last night I showed "Year One" to our Monday evening Bible study. It seemed fitting. I thought it would be fun to take a break and laugh together. Besides, we had just spent five months working through Genesis and had not yet decided on what we would study next.
I had been dragging my feet on watching the film. I had seen the previews so many times that when it actually released, I didn't even want to see it. The over-promotion just killed my interest. The bits they showed over and over in the previews just made the story seem slapstick (which of course it was). I wondered if I would even laugh. My second son, Jackson felt the same way. He avoided it in the theaters and still has not sat down to watch it. My elder son, Will, did see it. And he had told us both that it was "pretty good." The problem, he said, was that the film came out at the exact same time as "The Hangover." So what ended up happening was the critics went in for the raunchy Vegas film to the expense of what probably appeared to them as a tired story about cavemen. Oh, and "The Hangover" was rated R which is always a bit of an advantage. In comedy, pitching to the absolute lowest point is generally a sure win, although I did recently see an exception. "Miss March" is perhaps the most low-ball sexploitative comedy ever made and it is really not funny.
When I finally picked up the DVD for "Year One" last Friday at Blockbuster, I saw that Harold Ramis directed the film. That's all it took, really. I wonder why they wasted all that advertising money on redundant previews when all they really needed to do was leak a story stating that this film was directed by the same guy who gave us Caddyshack, Stripes and Groundhog Day. He also wrote Ghostbusters and was one of three writers responsible for Animal House. Here's a rule: If the guy who wrote Caddyshack is Jewish and he makes a film that essentially retells some of the more curious parts of the book of Genesis, go see it. "Year One" is not the best movie ever made but if you know anything about the book of Genesis, it will make you laugh... and probably think a little as well. Which brings me back to my initial statement and/or confession.
I showed this film to my Bible study... in my office... which is in the church. It was rated PG-13 so it certainly could have been worse but there were a few words and plenty of suggestive humor. I struggled with whether or not I should show it but I wanted us to see it together... especially because we had just finished reading the very stories that Ramis was having fun with. Being able to laugh about your own story is a pretty healthy thing to do. Being able to laugh at your own religion without cheapening it is a very healthy thing to do.
The fact is we are funny creatures. Life is a funny thing. Of course, it's not all funny. I actually had to close my eyes during the scene in which Cain kills his brother Able. But the fact that Ramis did not ignore this and was able to carry Cain's character forward and allow us to laugh a bit at him, to see that the line between the monsters and the people runs right down the middle of most of us... that seems like a pretty interesting thing.
Of course, in making the film, Ramis told a story that was not exactly accurate (Sodom somehow avoids the hellfire pelting that it receives in the older version) but I sense that those who know the story understand this. They understand that a film like this is going to show things in a different light. The point is not to re-educate us. It is to entertain us--to allow us to look at ourselves and our beliefs with a little merriment.
I had been dragging my feet on watching the film. I had seen the previews so many times that when it actually released, I didn't even want to see it. The over-promotion just killed my interest. The bits they showed over and over in the previews just made the story seem slapstick (which of course it was). I wondered if I would even laugh. My second son, Jackson felt the same way. He avoided it in the theaters and still has not sat down to watch it. My elder son, Will, did see it. And he had told us both that it was "pretty good." The problem, he said, was that the film came out at the exact same time as "The Hangover." So what ended up happening was the critics went in for the raunchy Vegas film to the expense of what probably appeared to them as a tired story about cavemen. Oh, and "The Hangover" was rated R which is always a bit of an advantage. In comedy, pitching to the absolute lowest point is generally a sure win, although I did recently see an exception. "Miss March" is perhaps the most low-ball sexploitative comedy ever made and it is really not funny.
When I finally picked up the DVD for "Year One" last Friday at Blockbuster, I saw that Harold Ramis directed the film. That's all it took, really. I wonder why they wasted all that advertising money on redundant previews when all they really needed to do was leak a story stating that this film was directed by the same guy who gave us Caddyshack, Stripes and Groundhog Day. He also wrote Ghostbusters and was one of three writers responsible for Animal House. Here's a rule: If the guy who wrote Caddyshack is Jewish and he makes a film that essentially retells some of the more curious parts of the book of Genesis, go see it. "Year One" is not the best movie ever made but if you know anything about the book of Genesis, it will make you laugh... and probably think a little as well. Which brings me back to my initial statement and/or confession.
I showed this film to my Bible study... in my office... which is in the church. It was rated PG-13 so it certainly could have been worse but there were a few words and plenty of suggestive humor. I struggled with whether or not I should show it but I wanted us to see it together... especially because we had just finished reading the very stories that Ramis was having fun with. Being able to laugh about your own story is a pretty healthy thing to do. Being able to laugh at your own religion without cheapening it is a very healthy thing to do.
The fact is we are funny creatures. Life is a funny thing. Of course, it's not all funny. I actually had to close my eyes during the scene in which Cain kills his brother Able. But the fact that Ramis did not ignore this and was able to carry Cain's character forward and allow us to laugh a bit at him, to see that the line between the monsters and the people runs right down the middle of most of us... that seems like a pretty interesting thing.
Of course, in making the film, Ramis told a story that was not exactly accurate (Sodom somehow avoids the hellfire pelting that it receives in the older version) but I sense that those who know the story understand this. They understand that a film like this is going to show things in a different light. The point is not to re-educate us. It is to entertain us--to allow us to look at ourselves and our beliefs with a little merriment.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Bang for the Buck
I recently changed my start page. I had been using CNN on and off for several years. On because I like the convenience. Off because it feels more and more like I am watching Entertainment Tonight than reading from an actual news source. So last week I decided that my brain was probably turning into that gooey stuff they use to preserve ham so I ran a super-creative search: "Best Online News Sources."
The first three suggested were BBC, The Christian Science Monitor and Voice of America. I'd never really heard or read much about Voice of America so I decided to try that for a while... The problem now is that I am so addicted to the shiny-happy-people format of CNN, I can hardly force myself to tackle all those words on the VOA homepage. I guess this means that I'd like to imagine myself as someone who really cares about solid news and reporting but I just don't have the time and attention span. UGHHHH!
Now that the confession of the day is over, on to even lighter news... CNN has those cool links that take you to the main sites of partners like Sports Illustrated and Money Magazine. I must admit, this is pretty clever and a great example of that networking thing that everyone else seems to understand. Of course, in order to participate in all that cross promoting, the companies agree (happily, I'm sure) to dummy down all the material on their sites. For example, Money does these cheesy lists--top ten this and the best and worst of that... The articles are little more than pictures and tag lines. But naturally, I am right there clicking through them. Chalk it up; they've hit the target audience right in the middle of our vacant foreheads.
This morning, Money ran a list of the best and worst places to find housing deals. Not surprisingly, the best deals are in places like Detroit, Michigan and Youngstown Ohio; the worst are in New York and Los Angeles. The funny (read annoying or irksome) thing was the houses they pictured in the article. The article boasted about how much house $105,000 will buy you in Detroit but the picture showed a house that costs $239,000! What is that? In fact, every example showed a house that cost way more than than the average they had listed for the area and well beyond the medium income of people living there. So what was the message supposed to be? ....You can find some great housing deals out there as long as your interested in the kinds of houses that are so nasty that our corporate partners won't even let us show them on this website...
This got me thinking about real bargains--you know, things that might fit the criteria of say, desirable AND affordable. Right? 'Cause a fire sale on yachts or a yard sale in front of a strip club really only appeal to small or curious subset of people. So here's my list:
BEST BARGAINS for people who don't furnish their yacht with used brass from foreclosed strip clubs:
10. A sensible key chain: By this, of course, I mean something that you can lift. But beyond that, how about something that has some meaning to you. I admit, it seems a bit insignificant. But think about it. You touch these things every day. Why not get something meaningful? You have to have this thing in your pocket or purse so why not make it something that lifts your spirit or reminds you who you are? At the very least, keep it simple so you don't wreck your ignition.
9. Carbonated Soda: It's not good for you and I am by no means suggesting you start drinking more of it but it is actually less expensive than it was when I was growing up in the late 1970s and early 1980s. And I am not talking about inflation; a can of pop literally cost less than it did 30 years ago. The same is true for Levi's and many other things but I am pretty sure the reasons are different. I think Coke and Pepsi are produced stateside and do not involve the messiness of child labor. The exceptions here are craft sodas made with cane sugar rather than corn syrup and diet sodas of any kind. I know a lot of you drink diet soda but I don't know if you're really getting a deal here.
8. Calvin Klein Underwear: This is sort of the other side of #7. Jones Soda is without question better tasting than Coke or Pepsi but one bottle of Jones for the price of twelve Cokes? A treat maybe but not really a bargain. So how can $20 underwear be a bargain? I am not sure where they get the cotton and I'd rather not know who is sewing it together and under what conditions. But I'm saying, the stuff is better. But, Mark, you can get so much more for your money at Wal-Mart or even Target. How is a $20 pair of grunders a good deal? All I can say is, have you ever worn this stuff? It's only the TOTL boxers though--not the weird and crazy stuff that's everywhere at Marshalls.
7. Fish Food: This one almost doesn't qualify. But the obscurity is overcome by the math. How many fish (even Betas which are pretty durable) will you be flushing before you need another batch of this stuff?! You could go through a lifetime (yours not the fishes) and never need another one of those containers.
6. Air Purifier/Humidifier: Huge difference in price and purpose but both can be well worth the money. This rationale is similar to the underwear. As a rule, you shouldn't really skimp on things that go on your body or pass through your lungs.
5. FJ80 Series Toyota Land Cruiser: Of course I have one; this is a blog, right? These were produced from 1991-1997. But what about the "no yachts!" objection? I hear ya, but these things are like fish food. You don't want to buy one new--unless, of course, you can. But look at the value now. At $60K they were worth every penny--they'll go anywhere and outlast years of abuse... Today, you can buy them for under $10,000. Sure, you will probably get a vehicle with worn seats and a few scratches but remember these are the same vehicles they are still driving around the deserts in Africa and yours has spent the last fifteen years parked in some doctor's three-stall garage. Caution: This is not a politically correct bargain. And don't buy the Lexus version. Those are just decadent.
4. The National Park System: Biggest bargain in the world, at least in terms of size and it will be here for millions of years...provided we resist the temptation to trade it away... You can buy an Eagle Pass for less than $100 and visit every National Park, Monument or Historic site in the country for one year and you can return as many times as you like. The experience will bless you in the moment and spawn memories that will last a lifetime.
3. Pie and Coffee: O.K., it doesn't have to be this exactly... But taking time to enjoy a conversation with a friend or a moment of peace and quiet... UNDERRATED! This is the bees knees people! Call a friend and meet them. Call your mother or your dad or pick you kid up from school in the middle of the day. This is the stuff that Mastercard commercials are made of. Apart from my Land Cruiser and Swiss Army key-chain, I'd trade just about anything for coffee, pie and a good conversation. Or I should anyway.
2. An Education: Make no mistake--Schooling can be a terrible deal. Lots of people borrow or spend tons of money to go to college and then waste the investment. The truth is that most learning is actually free. [Stick your finger in a spinning blender sometime and you'll see what I mean.] But sometimes an education does cost money. College, especially, can be very expensive. So when can we call it an actual "bang for the buck?" Two answers: When it helps you follow a dream and when you begin to appreciate learning for its own sake. The real deal is not in the diploma or credentials. It's in learning to value education itself.
1. A Pet: I am thinking of dogs and cats but as long as we're talking about companionship, the return on the investment is unquestionable. You can even get a pet for free but there will be a maintenance cost that you really don't want to avoid. I know that people sometimes have trouble with their pets. But these folks are probably excluded by the "companionship" rule. Besides, the carpet stains and obedience issues are probably their fault anyway.
Happy hunting! Now let's hear some of yours...
The first three suggested were BBC, The Christian Science Monitor and Voice of America. I'd never really heard or read much about Voice of America so I decided to try that for a while... The problem now is that I am so addicted to the shiny-happy-people format of CNN, I can hardly force myself to tackle all those words on the VOA homepage. I guess this means that I'd like to imagine myself as someone who really cares about solid news and reporting but I just don't have the time and attention span. UGHHHH!
Now that the confession of the day is over, on to even lighter news... CNN has those cool links that take you to the main sites of partners like Sports Illustrated and Money Magazine. I must admit, this is pretty clever and a great example of that networking thing that everyone else seems to understand. Of course, in order to participate in all that cross promoting, the companies agree (happily, I'm sure) to dummy down all the material on their sites. For example, Money does these cheesy lists--top ten this and the best and worst of that... The articles are little more than pictures and tag lines. But naturally, I am right there clicking through them. Chalk it up; they've hit the target audience right in the middle of our vacant foreheads.
This morning, Money ran a list of the best and worst places to find housing deals. Not surprisingly, the best deals are in places like Detroit, Michigan and Youngstown Ohio; the worst are in New York and Los Angeles. The funny (read annoying or irksome) thing was the houses they pictured in the article. The article boasted about how much house $105,000 will buy you in Detroit but the picture showed a house that costs $239,000! What is that? In fact, every example showed a house that cost way more than than the average they had listed for the area and well beyond the medium income of people living there. So what was the message supposed to be? ....You can find some great housing deals out there as long as your interested in the kinds of houses that are so nasty that our corporate partners won't even let us show them on this website...
This got me thinking about real bargains--you know, things that might fit the criteria of say, desirable AND affordable. Right? 'Cause a fire sale on yachts or a yard sale in front of a strip club really only appeal to small or curious subset of people. So here's my list:
BEST BARGAINS for people who don't furnish their yacht with used brass from foreclosed strip clubs:
10. A sensible key chain: By this, of course, I mean something that you can lift. But beyond that, how about something that has some meaning to you. I admit, it seems a bit insignificant. But think about it. You touch these things every day. Why not get something meaningful? You have to have this thing in your pocket or purse so why not make it something that lifts your spirit or reminds you who you are? At the very least, keep it simple so you don't wreck your ignition.
9. Carbonated Soda: It's not good for you and I am by no means suggesting you start drinking more of it but it is actually less expensive than it was when I was growing up in the late 1970s and early 1980s. And I am not talking about inflation; a can of pop literally cost less than it did 30 years ago. The same is true for Levi's and many other things but I am pretty sure the reasons are different. I think Coke and Pepsi are produced stateside and do not involve the messiness of child labor. The exceptions here are craft sodas made with cane sugar rather than corn syrup and diet sodas of any kind. I know a lot of you drink diet soda but I don't know if you're really getting a deal here.
8. Calvin Klein Underwear: This is sort of the other side of #7. Jones Soda is without question better tasting than Coke or Pepsi but one bottle of Jones for the price of twelve Cokes? A treat maybe but not really a bargain. So how can $20 underwear be a bargain? I am not sure where they get the cotton and I'd rather not know who is sewing it together and under what conditions. But I'm saying, the stuff is better. But, Mark, you can get so much more for your money at Wal-Mart or even Target. How is a $20 pair of grunders a good deal? All I can say is, have you ever worn this stuff? It's only the TOTL boxers though--not the weird and crazy stuff that's everywhere at Marshalls.
7. Fish Food: This one almost doesn't qualify. But the obscurity is overcome by the math. How many fish (even Betas which are pretty durable) will you be flushing before you need another batch of this stuff?! You could go through a lifetime (yours not the fishes) and never need another one of those containers.
6. Air Purifier/Humidifier: Huge difference in price and purpose but both can be well worth the money. This rationale is similar to the underwear. As a rule, you shouldn't really skimp on things that go on your body or pass through your lungs.
5. FJ80 Series Toyota Land Cruiser: Of course I have one; this is a blog, right? These were produced from 1991-1997. But what about the "no yachts!" objection? I hear ya, but these things are like fish food. You don't want to buy one new--unless, of course, you can. But look at the value now. At $60K they were worth every penny--they'll go anywhere and outlast years of abuse... Today, you can buy them for under $10,000. Sure, you will probably get a vehicle with worn seats and a few scratches but remember these are the same vehicles they are still driving around the deserts in Africa and yours has spent the last fifteen years parked in some doctor's three-stall garage. Caution: This is not a politically correct bargain. And don't buy the Lexus version. Those are just decadent.
4. The National Park System: Biggest bargain in the world, at least in terms of size and it will be here for millions of years...provided we resist the temptation to trade it away... You can buy an Eagle Pass for less than $100 and visit every National Park, Monument or Historic site in the country for one year and you can return as many times as you like. The experience will bless you in the moment and spawn memories that will last a lifetime.
3. Pie and Coffee: O.K., it doesn't have to be this exactly... But taking time to enjoy a conversation with a friend or a moment of peace and quiet... UNDERRATED! This is the bees knees people! Call a friend and meet them. Call your mother or your dad or pick you kid up from school in the middle of the day. This is the stuff that Mastercard commercials are made of. Apart from my Land Cruiser and Swiss Army key-chain, I'd trade just about anything for coffee, pie and a good conversation. Or I should anyway.
2. An Education: Make no mistake--Schooling can be a terrible deal. Lots of people borrow or spend tons of money to go to college and then waste the investment. The truth is that most learning is actually free. [Stick your finger in a spinning blender sometime and you'll see what I mean.] But sometimes an education does cost money. College, especially, can be very expensive. So when can we call it an actual "bang for the buck?" Two answers: When it helps you follow a dream and when you begin to appreciate learning for its own sake. The real deal is not in the diploma or credentials. It's in learning to value education itself.
1. A Pet: I am thinking of dogs and cats but as long as we're talking about companionship, the return on the investment is unquestionable. You can even get a pet for free but there will be a maintenance cost that you really don't want to avoid. I know that people sometimes have trouble with their pets. But these folks are probably excluded by the "companionship" rule. Besides, the carpet stains and obedience issues are probably their fault anyway.
Happy hunting! Now let's hear some of yours...
Monday, October 5, 2009
The Kingdom of God
On Sundays, we have an 8:30 and a 10:30 service here at St. Francis. Sunday school meets between the two services. I have been visiting in the adult classes the last few Sundays and discovered that two of the four classes are using curriculum that is led by the same person, John Ortberg. In addition to his work as a pastor, Ortberg has had success writing and teaching on Christian formation. While the Sunday school studies were different, both dealt with real-world challenges and offered practical suggestions on how we can live more fully and faithful as Christians in the world.
There is a hunger for this kind of teaching in the Church. People sense that we live in a secular age. There are many aspects of our lives that mitigate against spiritual health and, because of this, believers are grateful for any kind of practical advice that will help them navigate the challenging spiritual climate of modern society.
As I watched Ortberg's discussion of pride on the class' DVD, it struck me that what he is doing looks and sounds a lot like modern psychology. In that, what he is offering believers are helpful and practical coping strategies. And in a way this makes a lot of sense. We live in a time that has a corrosive effect on people's lives. The values, practices and patterns of modern secular life are not only antithetical to the Christian life, they are in a lot of ways destructive and inhumane regardless of what people might believe about God. Pointing to Jesus' life and teachings, Ortberg explains central Christian values and practices such as humility and service. Embracing and employing these not only helps believers live more faithfully, it also helps us cope with the inhumanity around us.
For example, Ortberg notes that pride, an age-old sin, often parades as a value in our time, even though it ultimately serves neither our spiritual health nor our happiness in the world. Ortberg suggests that the way that we cope with pride is by becoming a servant. He suggests that nothing overcomes our tendency toward pride more effectively than the practice of service.
In this way, we cope with the challenges of the secular world through the employment of Christian principles. Nothing wrong with this and it is certainly understandable why Ortberg's books and curriculum have sold so well. Modern people like practical answers. We like the idea of coping strategies. And I celebrate what leaders like John Ortberg are doing here. At the same time, I have a slightly different take on all this.
The underlying assumption behind Ortberg's approach, and, indeed, a great deal of strategy or self-help counseling is that it imagines the world as a largely God-less place. That is, the world is a place where God isn't so it is up to us to sort of fight it off through our faith and our coping strategies. The assumption here is that we are largely on our own against the inhumanity or the world.
While there is certainly an inhumanity about the world. Christians also believe that God is working to redeem the world. Indeed, the Church teaches that the Father has sent the Son into the world to save it. Jesus himself proclaims that the Kingdom of God has come near. Other translations read, "The Kingdom of God is at hand." The reference is specifically to Jesus--his coming, his teaching, his authority and leadership.
In this way, perhaps our problem with things like pride and competition and selfishness is less about coping and more about seeing. That is, if the kingdom is indeed near to us, then perhaps we simply need to believe in it, embrace it and, thereby, enter into it. If we can do this, then the world is no longer a place where we have to cope so much as it is a place where we can enjoy our fellowship with God and serve as ambassadors of Christ to those who do not yet see what is in fact very near to them.
The example that I used to explain this to the class was the monastic life. When we think of those who intentionally seek to embrace and live the Christian message full-time, we might think of a monastery or an abbey. We imagine monks or nuns living extraordinarily faithful lives because we assume that it is only in such a protected place that this could even be an option. We believe the world to be simply too compromised, competitive and inhumane for full-time Christianity. We figure that whatever the Kingdom is, it certainly must be very different and very far from the harsh, secular world that most of us know.
But what if Jesus really is correct? What if the Kingdom has come in Jesus and continues in the life of the Church? What if we really can follow Jesus and embrace the ways of the kingdom--not merely to cope but to celebrate God's good work in our midst? In other words, perhaps what we need is not a good set of coping mechanisms but rather a bunch of monks and nuns who have the faith to leave the monasteries and abbeys. Men and women who are willing to make their homes in the world, trusting that the real kingdom is beyond those protective gates and, in fact, among the very people who are suffering the inhumanity of a world that simply does not yet see.
There is a hunger for this kind of teaching in the Church. People sense that we live in a secular age. There are many aspects of our lives that mitigate against spiritual health and, because of this, believers are grateful for any kind of practical advice that will help them navigate the challenging spiritual climate of modern society.
As I watched Ortberg's discussion of pride on the class' DVD, it struck me that what he is doing looks and sounds a lot like modern psychology. In that, what he is offering believers are helpful and practical coping strategies. And in a way this makes a lot of sense. We live in a time that has a corrosive effect on people's lives. The values, practices and patterns of modern secular life are not only antithetical to the Christian life, they are in a lot of ways destructive and inhumane regardless of what people might believe about God. Pointing to Jesus' life and teachings, Ortberg explains central Christian values and practices such as humility and service. Embracing and employing these not only helps believers live more faithfully, it also helps us cope with the inhumanity around us.
For example, Ortberg notes that pride, an age-old sin, often parades as a value in our time, even though it ultimately serves neither our spiritual health nor our happiness in the world. Ortberg suggests that the way that we cope with pride is by becoming a servant. He suggests that nothing overcomes our tendency toward pride more effectively than the practice of service.
In this way, we cope with the challenges of the secular world through the employment of Christian principles. Nothing wrong with this and it is certainly understandable why Ortberg's books and curriculum have sold so well. Modern people like practical answers. We like the idea of coping strategies. And I celebrate what leaders like John Ortberg are doing here. At the same time, I have a slightly different take on all this.
The underlying assumption behind Ortberg's approach, and, indeed, a great deal of strategy or self-help counseling is that it imagines the world as a largely God-less place. That is, the world is a place where God isn't so it is up to us to sort of fight it off through our faith and our coping strategies. The assumption here is that we are largely on our own against the inhumanity or the world.
While there is certainly an inhumanity about the world. Christians also believe that God is working to redeem the world. Indeed, the Church teaches that the Father has sent the Son into the world to save it. Jesus himself proclaims that the Kingdom of God has come near. Other translations read, "The Kingdom of God is at hand." The reference is specifically to Jesus--his coming, his teaching, his authority and leadership.
In this way, perhaps our problem with things like pride and competition and selfishness is less about coping and more about seeing. That is, if the kingdom is indeed near to us, then perhaps we simply need to believe in it, embrace it and, thereby, enter into it. If we can do this, then the world is no longer a place where we have to cope so much as it is a place where we can enjoy our fellowship with God and serve as ambassadors of Christ to those who do not yet see what is in fact very near to them.
The example that I used to explain this to the class was the monastic life. When we think of those who intentionally seek to embrace and live the Christian message full-time, we might think of a monastery or an abbey. We imagine monks or nuns living extraordinarily faithful lives because we assume that it is only in such a protected place that this could even be an option. We believe the world to be simply too compromised, competitive and inhumane for full-time Christianity. We figure that whatever the Kingdom is, it certainly must be very different and very far from the harsh, secular world that most of us know.
But what if Jesus really is correct? What if the Kingdom has come in Jesus and continues in the life of the Church? What if we really can follow Jesus and embrace the ways of the kingdom--not merely to cope but to celebrate God's good work in our midst? In other words, perhaps what we need is not a good set of coping mechanisms but rather a bunch of monks and nuns who have the faith to leave the monasteries and abbeys. Men and women who are willing to make their homes in the world, trusting that the real kingdom is beyond those protective gates and, in fact, among the very people who are suffering the inhumanity of a world that simply does not yet see.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Stress and Process
My eldest son, Will, is a senior in high school this year. For all of the things that he does or doesn't do that drive his mother and I crazy, I have to admit that he has done a truly remarkable job in school. He has made good grades, challenged himself in terms of the workload and stayed out of trouble. Because of these things he is now in a position to entertain some exciting options for the next step in his life. Given this, you might expect our family to be celebrating and enjoying this final year that Will is living at home.
And there is some of this. But the joy seems to be increasingly competing with stress. The stress is coming through something that Will's high school counselors have termed the college-application process.
A full year ago, the school sponsored an informational meeting to make sure that the parents of the junior-class were sufficiently anxious about college preparation. One of the counselors began the meeting by saying, "Your children are getting ready to begin the college-application process. As parents, I am sure that all of you are already stressing." I remember thinking to myself, "actually no; but thanks for getting me started."
Last night, it dawned on me that I actually am sort of stress about all this. I suppose that this is fair and probably even expected. My son is getting ready for the next step in his life and his mother and I certainly want it to go well for him. So if I am stressed about this, I figure that is either my prerogative or my fault. And I can appreciate that. What I can't appreciate is seeing that my son is stressed as well.
I certainly want him to be awake. I want him to be responsible for getting the information. I want him to fill out the applications and attend to the logistical expectations and deadlines. But the thought of him being stressed out not only makes me sad, it actually angers me. Will has done the work. He has put in the time and effort demanded by the high school process. So it gripes me to imagine that the reward for this would be a new level of stress tied now to the next process.
I suspect that part of my anger here has to do with this whole language of process. [See me last blog entry] The suggestion that education can be reduced to some kind of process is equally appalling and familiar.
In addition to my work here in the parish, I have also had the opportunity to work as a part-time instructor at Appalachian State University. For a number of years, I taught in the School of Education at ASU. The course was entitled, "Foundations of Education," and was required of all education majors prior to their student teaching. In teaching those courses, I learned something disturbing about college students. I learned that many of them approached their classes, and their education generally, as a means-to-an-end. That is, most of my students were far more interested in their grade then they were in whatever it was that they might learn in the course. The revelation should not have surprised me because many students go to college to get the degree to get the job... It was just disappointing to learn that teachers do the same thing. How depressing to consider that the people who would be teaching my children were already cynical about education.
Acknowledging this, I would make it a point to explain to them that we teach who we are. That is, their own appreciation for learning, or lack thereof, will not be lost on their own students. Furthermore, I explained that their own students were likely to treat them and the classes that they would soon be teaching in the same way that they treated me and the course that they were currently taking. Some of them seemed to get it--the irony of representing something that you can't be bothered with. But the vast majority either didn't understand or didn't care.
This was hard for me to see. I imagined my own children someday sitting before these students as teachers themselves who had lost all sense of appreciation and passion for learning. Of course, it happens. Things get reduced--school, work, marriage, family, faith... Nothing is completely safe from the decaying effects of process and means-ends.... So we have to be vigilant. We need to be awake and grateful. We need to maintain that sense of fascination with life and the world and the people around us.
This is what we should be up-in-arms about--the fact that our children are growing up in a world of reduction. If we're going to stress about something, it should be this--the danger of having beautiful things degraded into nothing more than the next process.
And there is some of this. But the joy seems to be increasingly competing with stress. The stress is coming through something that Will's high school counselors have termed the college-application process.
A full year ago, the school sponsored an informational meeting to make sure that the parents of the junior-class were sufficiently anxious about college preparation. One of the counselors began the meeting by saying, "Your children are getting ready to begin the college-application process. As parents, I am sure that all of you are already stressing." I remember thinking to myself, "actually no; but thanks for getting me started."
Last night, it dawned on me that I actually am sort of stress about all this. I suppose that this is fair and probably even expected. My son is getting ready for the next step in his life and his mother and I certainly want it to go well for him. So if I am stressed about this, I figure that is either my prerogative or my fault. And I can appreciate that. What I can't appreciate is seeing that my son is stressed as well.
I certainly want him to be awake. I want him to be responsible for getting the information. I want him to fill out the applications and attend to the logistical expectations and deadlines. But the thought of him being stressed out not only makes me sad, it actually angers me. Will has done the work. He has put in the time and effort demanded by the high school process. So it gripes me to imagine that the reward for this would be a new level of stress tied now to the next process.
I suspect that part of my anger here has to do with this whole language of process. [See me last blog entry] The suggestion that education can be reduced to some kind of process is equally appalling and familiar.
In addition to my work here in the parish, I have also had the opportunity to work as a part-time instructor at Appalachian State University. For a number of years, I taught in the School of Education at ASU. The course was entitled, "Foundations of Education," and was required of all education majors prior to their student teaching. In teaching those courses, I learned something disturbing about college students. I learned that many of them approached their classes, and their education generally, as a means-to-an-end. That is, most of my students were far more interested in their grade then they were in whatever it was that they might learn in the course. The revelation should not have surprised me because many students go to college to get the degree to get the job... It was just disappointing to learn that teachers do the same thing. How depressing to consider that the people who would be teaching my children were already cynical about education.
Acknowledging this, I would make it a point to explain to them that we teach who we are. That is, their own appreciation for learning, or lack thereof, will not be lost on their own students. Furthermore, I explained that their own students were likely to treat them and the classes that they would soon be teaching in the same way that they treated me and the course that they were currently taking. Some of them seemed to get it--the irony of representing something that you can't be bothered with. But the vast majority either didn't understand or didn't care.
This was hard for me to see. I imagined my own children someday sitting before these students as teachers themselves who had lost all sense of appreciation and passion for learning. Of course, it happens. Things get reduced--school, work, marriage, family, faith... Nothing is completely safe from the decaying effects of process and means-ends.... So we have to be vigilant. We need to be awake and grateful. We need to maintain that sense of fascination with life and the world and the people around us.
This is what we should be up-in-arms about--the fact that our children are growing up in a world of reduction. If we're going to stress about something, it should be this--the danger of having beautiful things degraded into nothing more than the next process.
Monday, September 14, 2009
The Spoken Word
Yesterday I preached a sermon on the human capacity for speech. It was based on a passage from James in which the apostle suggests that the tongue is a grave and dangerous tool. "With it," He contends, "we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing..."
How true. Words can be used for good as well as for ill. So many of the great things that have come upon the earth have begun and ended in the spoken word. Remember that this is actually how God creates-- "...and God said..." Perhaps this is the likeness that we share with God that is mentioned in Genesis 1... our own capacity to create by way of words and language. To name, communicate and reason our way together... It really is a gift, a power that God has given to us...
I remember when I first started to understand this. It was during my sophomore year in college. I read a series of books about language, culture and religion; the most notable was entitled, The Human Condition. Hannah Arendt was female, German and Jewish--probably all mitigating factors in 1958 when The Human Condition was published. None of this mattered to me when I read the book some twenty-five years later. After all, I was a young, free, Christian living in America and enjoying the care-free world of higher education. I could sit back and listen to Arendt's speech without fear of jail or even censorship. Nevertheless, the argument that she was making set me free--it set me free from something I didn't even understand.
The way that I explained it in the final paper for the class was that she had set me free from the process train. Reading her words, listening to her voice, it struck me that many people are taught and come to believe that life is merely process--that we simply find ourselves on the train and we have no choice but to ride this thing out. [Of course, most of us never even notice.] But Arendt suggests that human beings are capable of action--authentic action in the world. It is this action that creates the world and ultimately tells the story of life and history. And speech is the primary form of human action. It is our capacity to name, discuss and reason together that enables self-disclosure and allows us to enter into and take action in the world.
I still don't fully understand everything that I read in that book. But reading it offered to me one of those moments in which we are offered a chance to be reborn, into a world much more interesting than the one we've known.
Twenty-five years have now passed since I read The Human Condition. Sadly, I feel that much of that time has been spent riding the process train. Of course, that's what most people say when they reach their mid-forties. But still, I feel like I should know better. I understand, at least conceptually, the meaning and import of speech and action. I can only hope that even in the midst of my disappointment, I am still speaking toward a world that is more interesting than the one to which we seem to be settling.
How true. Words can be used for good as well as for ill. So many of the great things that have come upon the earth have begun and ended in the spoken word. Remember that this is actually how God creates-- "...and God said..." Perhaps this is the likeness that we share with God that is mentioned in Genesis 1... our own capacity to create by way of words and language. To name, communicate and reason our way together... It really is a gift, a power that God has given to us...
I remember when I first started to understand this. It was during my sophomore year in college. I read a series of books about language, culture and religion; the most notable was entitled, The Human Condition. Hannah Arendt was female, German and Jewish--probably all mitigating factors in 1958 when The Human Condition was published. None of this mattered to me when I read the book some twenty-five years later. After all, I was a young, free, Christian living in America and enjoying the care-free world of higher education. I could sit back and listen to Arendt's speech without fear of jail or even censorship. Nevertheless, the argument that she was making set me free--it set me free from something I didn't even understand.
The way that I explained it in the final paper for the class was that she had set me free from the process train. Reading her words, listening to her voice, it struck me that many people are taught and come to believe that life is merely process--that we simply find ourselves on the train and we have no choice but to ride this thing out. [Of course, most of us never even notice.] But Arendt suggests that human beings are capable of action--authentic action in the world. It is this action that creates the world and ultimately tells the story of life and history. And speech is the primary form of human action. It is our capacity to name, discuss and reason together that enables self-disclosure and allows us to enter into and take action in the world.
I still don't fully understand everything that I read in that book. But reading it offered to me one of those moments in which we are offered a chance to be reborn, into a world much more interesting than the one we've known.
Twenty-five years have now passed since I read The Human Condition. Sadly, I feel that much of that time has been spent riding the process train. Of course, that's what most people say when they reach their mid-forties. But still, I feel like I should know better. I understand, at least conceptually, the meaning and import of speech and action. I can only hope that even in the midst of my disappointment, I am still speaking toward a world that is more interesting than the one to which we seem to be settling.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Present Company
I have an eight-year-old daughter. This means that we have pets--more than one and always the chance for more. You see this in movies or read it in books about children. Little girls love animals, especially young ones, and will freely inquire about taking them in.
I should have seen this coming. Even before my daughter was born, my wife, Diane--a grown woman who readily complained about dog hair and cleaning the litter box--could not resist taking in a stray kitten who found its way to our porch in Watauga County. We already had a cat at the time and my wife insisted she was allergic. But it didn't matter. It was a long-haired calico, it belonged with us!
Not long after, a group of raccoon triplets were making their way across our front lawn. Diane was enthralled. I tried to explain to her that things were not as they appeared. "But they're so cute!" She insisted, reaching down to pick up the nearest. The ensuing scene was telling. Raccoon babies don't look quite the same when their backs are raised up and they are hissing and bouncing around like Taz. I am not sure who was the more angry, though. Diane seemed to imagine that the thing should be ashamed of itself for not letting her cuddle with it. The experience left her momentarily disgusted and she steered clear of nature for about a week. And then she discovered that den of bunnies in the shrubbery...
Apart from a few butterflies and a brief stretch with a clam, our house has lately been reserved for more domesticated creatures. Here is an update on some of the other members of the Evans' household:
Atticus is a Sheltie. Sheltie is an abbreviation for Shetland Sheepdog. But to most people it means miniature collie. There is actually no such thing as a miniature collie but if there were, this is exactly what they would look like. Atticus has been the subject of a few of my sermons. This is probably a compliment because it means that he is capable of things like attitude, behavior and personality. I used to get angry at him because he would always bark and make a scene around other dogs but act perfectly normal around any human. But I've figured out in the last few months that this is not a personality problem. Atticus just does not know he is a dog. It sounds weird and that's probably why it took me so long to get it but I am pretty sure that it is true. And it makes sense if you think about it. The pack that he runs with are all people and the only times he sees other dogs is when he is out for a walk or a hike or maybe at the vet. He even barks at his own reflection... Do you suppose there are people who think they're dogs?
We don't have any cats right now. Diane swore them off when we left Watauga County seven years ago. If you're a cat person, that's a long time to go without a cat. But since 3/5 of our family are not, it will probably a lot longer before I see another cat.
My daughter is responsible for the rest of our animals. These are what I call quick-decisions pets. Right now, we have a fish (Beta) that now lives in the office here at the church and two dwarf hamsters that live in a plastic mansion in my daughter's bedroom.
The Beta is named Ruby, mostly because our last fish was Turquoise and Mallory wanted to stay with the precious-gem theme. Ruby has really grown on me, mostly because he (I know, but it's not like you can see anything) is so resilient. Not only has he lasted for nearly two-years, Ruby has suffered the experience of fading affection. Right? Because that's what happens. A little girl gets a pet, a kitten or a mouse or whatever... But soon enough the newness wears off. Or, worse yet, her affections fall in the next adorable direction... And we're talking about a fish in this world. I mean, imagine competing with things like kittens and bunnies. Heck, stuffed animals can probably draw more affection than a Beta... And yet, Ruby soldiered on. He was even expelled from the house. But God is good. He landed in the church office, right next to Michele, our administrative assistant. She's probably the nicest little girl in the world so Ruby is just fine.
Obviously I am partial to Ruby. And for all kinds of reasons--not the least of which being low-maintenance. So you can imagine my disappointment [Sheltese for disgust!] to learn that our Beta had been replaced by a rodent. Hamsters, even dwarf hamsters, are pretty much everything fish are not. Unless, of course, you fail to clean their bowl.
Enter Peanut and, just a few days later, Chestnut. This is why parents need to avoid commercial pet stores. We need to just stay away because this is what happens. Of course, they have dogs and cats and birds at places like this. But who buys a cat or dog from Pet-mart? If you take a child into one of those places, parents have got to know that they are going to be confronted with guilt and pleading. You're almost certain to leave the place with something that poops. So unless you can discipline yourself and get a fish, it's like choosing to live in Calcutta.
Diane must have sensed this would have been one of those rare times when I would have tried to play my man-of-the house card. [Like it would have mattered...] So the girls went on their own--twice! And now we've got a room full of plastic and two hamsters. [I keep trying to put a "p" in there because it would then rhyme so easily with dumpsters. But the spellchecker won't have it...]
Now to be fair, the rodents have worked out pretty well. We bought an air freshener and Diane actually takes the time to get the critters out. It sort of works as a mother-daughter bonding time. I let Atticus in there when they have them running around in those little balls. But I'm really hoping my daughter starts noticing kittens!
All in all, it is a bit of a microcosm--a little of this and a little of that. Not unlike the world in general. And, of course, it's not over. I wonder sometimes what other creatures will share my time on this planet. It's a good thing--even the rodents. Diane likes to go on and on about how cute they are when they "clean themselves." Is that what they're doing?
I should have seen this coming. Even before my daughter was born, my wife, Diane--a grown woman who readily complained about dog hair and cleaning the litter box--could not resist taking in a stray kitten who found its way to our porch in Watauga County. We already had a cat at the time and my wife insisted she was allergic. But it didn't matter. It was a long-haired calico, it belonged with us!
Not long after, a group of raccoon triplets were making their way across our front lawn. Diane was enthralled. I tried to explain to her that things were not as they appeared. "But they're so cute!" She insisted, reaching down to pick up the nearest. The ensuing scene was telling. Raccoon babies don't look quite the same when their backs are raised up and they are hissing and bouncing around like Taz. I am not sure who was the more angry, though. Diane seemed to imagine that the thing should be ashamed of itself for not letting her cuddle with it. The experience left her momentarily disgusted and she steered clear of nature for about a week. And then she discovered that den of bunnies in the shrubbery...
Apart from a few butterflies and a brief stretch with a clam, our house has lately been reserved for more domesticated creatures. Here is an update on some of the other members of the Evans' household:
Atticus is a Sheltie. Sheltie is an abbreviation for Shetland Sheepdog. But to most people it means miniature collie. There is actually no such thing as a miniature collie but if there were, this is exactly what they would look like. Atticus has been the subject of a few of my sermons. This is probably a compliment because it means that he is capable of things like attitude, behavior and personality. I used to get angry at him because he would always bark and make a scene around other dogs but act perfectly normal around any human. But I've figured out in the last few months that this is not a personality problem. Atticus just does not know he is a dog. It sounds weird and that's probably why it took me so long to get it but I am pretty sure that it is true. And it makes sense if you think about it. The pack that he runs with are all people and the only times he sees other dogs is when he is out for a walk or a hike or maybe at the vet. He even barks at his own reflection... Do you suppose there are people who think they're dogs?
We don't have any cats right now. Diane swore them off when we left Watauga County seven years ago. If you're a cat person, that's a long time to go without a cat. But since 3/5 of our family are not, it will probably a lot longer before I see another cat.
My daughter is responsible for the rest of our animals. These are what I call quick-decisions pets. Right now, we have a fish (Beta) that now lives in the office here at the church and two dwarf hamsters that live in a plastic mansion in my daughter's bedroom.
The Beta is named Ruby, mostly because our last fish was Turquoise and Mallory wanted to stay with the precious-gem theme. Ruby has really grown on me, mostly because he (I know, but it's not like you can see anything) is so resilient. Not only has he lasted for nearly two-years, Ruby has suffered the experience of fading affection. Right? Because that's what happens. A little girl gets a pet, a kitten or a mouse or whatever... But soon enough the newness wears off. Or, worse yet, her affections fall in the next adorable direction... And we're talking about a fish in this world. I mean, imagine competing with things like kittens and bunnies. Heck, stuffed animals can probably draw more affection than a Beta... And yet, Ruby soldiered on. He was even expelled from the house. But God is good. He landed in the church office, right next to Michele, our administrative assistant. She's probably the nicest little girl in the world so Ruby is just fine.
Obviously I am partial to Ruby. And for all kinds of reasons--not the least of which being low-maintenance. So you can imagine my disappointment [Sheltese for disgust!] to learn that our Beta had been replaced by a rodent. Hamsters, even dwarf hamsters, are pretty much everything fish are not. Unless, of course, you fail to clean their bowl.
Enter Peanut and, just a few days later, Chestnut. This is why parents need to avoid commercial pet stores. We need to just stay away because this is what happens. Of course, they have dogs and cats and birds at places like this. But who buys a cat or dog from Pet-mart? If you take a child into one of those places, parents have got to know that they are going to be confronted with guilt and pleading. You're almost certain to leave the place with something that poops. So unless you can discipline yourself and get a fish, it's like choosing to live in Calcutta.
Diane must have sensed this would have been one of those rare times when I would have tried to play my man-of-the house card. [Like it would have mattered...] So the girls went on their own--twice! And now we've got a room full of plastic and two hamsters. [I keep trying to put a "p" in there because it would then rhyme so easily with dumpsters. But the spellchecker won't have it...]
Now to be fair, the rodents have worked out pretty well. We bought an air freshener and Diane actually takes the time to get the critters out. It sort of works as a mother-daughter bonding time. I let Atticus in there when they have them running around in those little balls. But I'm really hoping my daughter starts noticing kittens!
All in all, it is a bit of a microcosm--a little of this and a little of that. Not unlike the world in general. And, of course, it's not over. I wonder sometimes what other creatures will share my time on this planet. It's a good thing--even the rodents. Diane likes to go on and on about how cute they are when they "clean themselves." Is that what they're doing?
Monday, August 31, 2009
That was then...this is now
Occasionally someone will make note how popular ideas reflect the philosophies of the ancients. People today probably think little about Antisthenes, Epicurus or Zeno. Many moderns have probably never even heard of these guys. Yet, their ideas seem alive and well in the Cynics, Epicureans and Stoics of our time... Here are some commonalities I've noticed. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The first thing to note here is that the ancients tended to believe that we live our lives through ideas. Those who had the time and the means were compelled to pick a philosophy and live by it. There were competing "schools of thought." So adherents were advised to look at the world around them, choose a philosophical path and live life accordingly.
Our age is similar. When people talk about themselves, they speak in highly personal and intellectual ways. They might reference their identity, their beliefs, the meaning in their lives. They will talk about goals or political affiliation and can occasionally offer a rational argument to explain their pursuits. If asked about God, they will instinctively tell you about their beliefs, perhaps referencing a few guiding principles or an overarching philosophy of life. Moderns tend to assume that life is a smorgasbord of ideas and explanations. As a mentor of mine used to put it, you pay your money and make your choice...
And we see it, don't we? Modern-day cynics, skeptics, epicureans, stoics or hedonists selecting the ideological paths that seem most accurate or fitting or expedient.
Like us, the ancients knew a changing world. It was a world of good times and bad, joy and suffering, peace and war. Not surprisingly, the ideas and philosophical paths waxed and waned accordingly. One philosopher would follow the next, often reacting specifically to some weakness that was demonstrated by the turning of the globe.
So can the Portico offer anything to such a world? Do we have anything better than a salad bar of ideological options? Does the Church merely watch and judge the citizens of the world as they pass by on those streets of change?
I am a citizen of the modern world. I like ideas too. But I also have come to see their limitations. There's more to life than pay your money and take your choice.
What the Church has to offer is Christ. But offering Christ is not offering just another idea. It is an invitation to connectivity, to living life not as an individual making decisions but as a community sojourning through life together. We still live in the same world, with the same ups and downs, the same war and peace, the same joys and disappointments. But we've come to understand that this is not something that we do alone.
We sojourn with God and with one another. Of course, we still share ideas. We have our cynics and our skeptics and our hedonists but they are part of our family. In the family, we not only help each other see and accommodate the weaknesses in our respective philosophies, we teach one another to understand that our souls do not rise and fall on whether or not we have chosen the right one. http://www.8notes.com/show_video.asp?video_id=23880
The first thing to note here is that the ancients tended to believe that we live our lives through ideas. Those who had the time and the means were compelled to pick a philosophy and live by it. There were competing "schools of thought." So adherents were advised to look at the world around them, choose a philosophical path and live life accordingly.
Our age is similar. When people talk about themselves, they speak in highly personal and intellectual ways. They might reference their identity, their beliefs, the meaning in their lives. They will talk about goals or political affiliation and can occasionally offer a rational argument to explain their pursuits. If asked about God, they will instinctively tell you about their beliefs, perhaps referencing a few guiding principles or an overarching philosophy of life. Moderns tend to assume that life is a smorgasbord of ideas and explanations. As a mentor of mine used to put it, you pay your money and make your choice...
And we see it, don't we? Modern-day cynics, skeptics, epicureans, stoics or hedonists selecting the ideological paths that seem most accurate or fitting or expedient.
Like us, the ancients knew a changing world. It was a world of good times and bad, joy and suffering, peace and war. Not surprisingly, the ideas and philosophical paths waxed and waned accordingly. One philosopher would follow the next, often reacting specifically to some weakness that was demonstrated by the turning of the globe.
So can the Portico offer anything to such a world? Do we have anything better than a salad bar of ideological options? Does the Church merely watch and judge the citizens of the world as they pass by on those streets of change?
I am a citizen of the modern world. I like ideas too. But I also have come to see their limitations. There's more to life than pay your money and take your choice.
What the Church has to offer is Christ. But offering Christ is not offering just another idea. It is an invitation to connectivity, to living life not as an individual making decisions but as a community sojourning through life together. We still live in the same world, with the same ups and downs, the same war and peace, the same joys and disappointments. But we've come to understand that this is not something that we do alone.
We sojourn with God and with one another. Of course, we still share ideas. We have our cynics and our skeptics and our hedonists but they are part of our family. In the family, we not only help each other see and accommodate the weaknesses in our respective philosophies, we teach one another to understand that our souls do not rise and fall on whether or not we have chosen the right one. http://www.8notes.com/show_video.asp?video_id=23880
Monday, August 24, 2009
Standing in the middle
Late August...schools... It's a great time of year and always a signifier of new beginnings.
Like so many young people, my daughter recently received word on her new teacher and which of her fourth-grade classmates would be in her homeroom. Through the process, I found out that my wife was actually anxious about all this--not so much on the teaching side but on the classmate side. Specifically, she felt for my daughter who has friendships across the familiar grouping lines of the playground and cafeteria. All this was somewhat lost on me. Apparently, who's who and what's what starts pretty early now. Go figure... I assumed that we had at least until middle school before the demons of grouping would begin taking hold.
Everything turned out fine. Mother and daughter were both thrilled with the teacher as well as the class list. All in all, I guess you'd call it a successful lottery.
I hear a lot about this though--the way that kids pair off and treat one another accordingly. My daughter is only eight but she already feels this. She has already felt the pulling force of the grouping process. Although she doesn't really understand, I know that she doesn't like it--the pressure to choose between one friend or another. I pray she never does. But it will be hard. It is not just pressure to fit in; it's that illusion of being special. I suspect that it drives us to trade in our decency, insisting that we make choices...who is worthy and who is not...who we will love and who we will hate.
It's the same for adults, although generally more subtle. We wouldn't want to use such extreme language to describe our behavior. We wouldn't want to admit that we have chosen one group of friends over another or that we have closed the door on some people simply because someone told us that we should.
But just like my daughter, we might also resent the demands. Something within us might be telling us that this is not such a good thing--that it is counter to our humanity to choose between this person and that. But the pressure and that illusion of specialness can call to us--the stamp of approval from one side or another. And it can move us to do unwholesome things...
Here's to resisting it! As we begin a new year, here's a prayer for all of the children there together on the playground and in the cafeteria. Here's to the men and women who are willing to reach out a hand in both directions and take the time to understand more than one side. Here's to people everywhere who still have a healthy disrespect for this whole business of who's who and what's what...
Like so many young people, my daughter recently received word on her new teacher and which of her fourth-grade classmates would be in her homeroom. Through the process, I found out that my wife was actually anxious about all this--not so much on the teaching side but on the classmate side. Specifically, she felt for my daughter who has friendships across the familiar grouping lines of the playground and cafeteria. All this was somewhat lost on me. Apparently, who's who and what's what starts pretty early now. Go figure... I assumed that we had at least until middle school before the demons of grouping would begin taking hold.
Everything turned out fine. Mother and daughter were both thrilled with the teacher as well as the class list. All in all, I guess you'd call it a successful lottery.
I hear a lot about this though--the way that kids pair off and treat one another accordingly. My daughter is only eight but she already feels this. She has already felt the pulling force of the grouping process. Although she doesn't really understand, I know that she doesn't like it--the pressure to choose between one friend or another. I pray she never does. But it will be hard. It is not just pressure to fit in; it's that illusion of being special. I suspect that it drives us to trade in our decency, insisting that we make choices...who is worthy and who is not...who we will love and who we will hate.
It's the same for adults, although generally more subtle. We wouldn't want to use such extreme language to describe our behavior. We wouldn't want to admit that we have chosen one group of friends over another or that we have closed the door on some people simply because someone told us that we should.
But just like my daughter, we might also resent the demands. Something within us might be telling us that this is not such a good thing--that it is counter to our humanity to choose between this person and that. But the pressure and that illusion of specialness can call to us--the stamp of approval from one side or another. And it can move us to do unwholesome things...
Here's to resisting it! As we begin a new year, here's a prayer for all of the children there together on the playground and in the cafeteria. Here's to the men and women who are willing to reach out a hand in both directions and take the time to understand more than one side. Here's to people everywhere who still have a healthy disrespect for this whole business of who's who and what's what...
Monday, August 17, 2009
Oh hell
A little over a week ago, the Charlotte Observer ran an article entitled "What Happened to Hell." http://www.charlotteobserver.com/479/story/876121.html?storylink=omni_popular A couple of people in the parish asked me about the article and since then I have been working on a sermon that will address the issue. Of course, it's reactionary but it's also interesting. The world might actually be served by hearing what a Methodist has to say on the subject. Besides, I couldn't stand the thought of the people of St. Francis being harassed at work because their pastor is afraid of the subject.
The question is fair--why is it that many churches do not talk about hell? However, the answer might be far less conspiratorial than many imagine. The reason is simply that the Bible doesn't talk all that much about it. According to my concordance, the word "hell" appears only 15 times in the Bible and two of the references come from the Apocrypha. Compare this with the word "help" which appears 250 times or the word "mercy" 246 times. "Love" appears approximately 540 times. Not that this determines the subject matter, but from a biblically-proportional standpoint, we might expect to hear 1 sermon on hell for every 40 we hear on love. Another way to think about this is that the word "usury" appears approximately the same number of times as "hell," although I haven't heard much clamoring for sermons addressing the evils of lending money at interest...
One of the challenges that we preachers face when it comes to talking about hell is that despite the fact that there is very little Scriptural information on the subject, there seems to be volumes of ideas, images and details floating about in the larger culture. This is a challenge because even when preachers try to offer meaningful commentary on the subject, we are generally speaking to people who have already made up their minds. This, of course, is the irony. Sometimes people want to hear sermons on things like hell but it is not so much to learn something new but rather to reinforce ideas and opinions that they already cherish.
In the eleven references made by Jesus, hell certainly does not sound like anything or anyplace that we would want to encounter. And the fact that he does speak of it, not only jars our attention; it also invites the question, "why are some churches reluctant to talk about it?"
In Jesus references, hell is typically cast as a threatening prospect, as a deterrent to certain kind of attitudes and behaviors. It is, by all measure, something that we would want to avoid. And this, of course, begs the question and perhaps helps us to understand Jesus point. How do we avoid this frightening place of which we really know very little? Let's hope that the answer lies in the kinds of things that we learn from the Bible...the kinds of things that our preachers and churches are talking about on all those other Sundays.
The question is fair--why is it that many churches do not talk about hell? However, the answer might be far less conspiratorial than many imagine. The reason is simply that the Bible doesn't talk all that much about it. According to my concordance, the word "hell" appears only 15 times in the Bible and two of the references come from the Apocrypha. Compare this with the word "help" which appears 250 times or the word "mercy" 246 times. "Love" appears approximately 540 times. Not that this determines the subject matter, but from a biblically-proportional standpoint, we might expect to hear 1 sermon on hell for every 40 we hear on love. Another way to think about this is that the word "usury" appears approximately the same number of times as "hell," although I haven't heard much clamoring for sermons addressing the evils of lending money at interest...
One of the challenges that we preachers face when it comes to talking about hell is that despite the fact that there is very little Scriptural information on the subject, there seems to be volumes of ideas, images and details floating about in the larger culture. This is a challenge because even when preachers try to offer meaningful commentary on the subject, we are generally speaking to people who have already made up their minds. This, of course, is the irony. Sometimes people want to hear sermons on things like hell but it is not so much to learn something new but rather to reinforce ideas and opinions that they already cherish.
In the eleven references made by Jesus, hell certainly does not sound like anything or anyplace that we would want to encounter. And the fact that he does speak of it, not only jars our attention; it also invites the question, "why are some churches reluctant to talk about it?"
In Jesus references, hell is typically cast as a threatening prospect, as a deterrent to certain kind of attitudes and behaviors. It is, by all measure, something that we would want to avoid. And this, of course, begs the question and perhaps helps us to understand Jesus point. How do we avoid this frightening place of which we really know very little? Let's hope that the answer lies in the kinds of things that we learn from the Bible...the kinds of things that our preachers and churches are talking about on all those other Sundays.
Monday, August 10, 2009
The Health-care Debate
I haven't heard many comments about my blog lately...probably because no one's reading it... So it seems as safe a time as any to share a bit of unbridled commentary.
I recently listened to a conversation about the current health-care debate. I was struck by the extreme difference of opinion. I was also taken by how quickly the tone of the argument escalated.
People who generally agree about many things can find themselves on opposite ends of this discussion and passionately so. It's been kinda nice for me to sort of sit this one out. Too often, I find myself overly invested and overly vocal about things like this. (You know, things over-which we have little or no control.) But not here. I mostly couldn't care less about whether or not the health-care system gets nationalized. It's not because I don't care about health, it's just that my expectations are so catastrophically cynical and small that it's hard for me to imagine it making that much difference one way or another.
My reasoning has nothing to do with socialized medicine. Clearly more people will get more care if it's free. I am just not sure that this is really a good thing... I must be wrong...but it seems to me that the medical industry creates more suffering than it relieves... I feel for everyone who suffers under it.
Here is what I mean...but in reverse, back-masked order:
Everyone suffers. I learned this in college. It was one of those epiphanies in my educational and spiritual journey. Suffering is part and parcel to life in this world... Of course, some people suffer more than others. But nobody misses out. Everyone has to carry or endure various crosses in this lifetime. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to alleviate the hurt. It is rather to stop ignoring some of the less obvious ways in which people suffer in this world.
So here is the deal: Of course, sick people suffer. And, of course, people who cannot get adequate health-care suffer. But so do people who sort of imagine that the health-care that they have is something great. These people are suffering and they don't even know it. Maybe not from a physical ailment but from a profound condition of self-deception. Do you ever hear people say things like: We have the best health care system in the world These are also the people who like to say things like America is the greatest country in the world... Both might actually be true but how would they know?
Consider the very phrase "adequate health-care." In the current debate we hear a lot about the need for this. But what exactly does it mean? What is adequate health-care? A recent article suggests that $210 Billion is wasted annually on unnecessary tests. This, it seems to me, is a central interest in the debate--what's the best way to ensure that more people will have access to this unnecessary testing?
Maybe adequate health-care is less about access and more about actually helping people get whatever it is that they really need. Again, some suffer because they do not have enough; others suffer because what they have is not nearly as valuable as they imagine.
Why I don't like the medical industry...
1. It's ridiculously expensive: For all the money we throw at health-care, how healthy are we, really? Or, how much is what we've got really worth? From my peculiar spot in the universe, it seems to me that a grapefruit is more valuable than a visit to the doctor. (This is not really the doctor's fault.)
2. It's consistently bureaucratic: More than anything else, medicine is characterized by waiting, processing and disappointment. (This is not really the receptionists fault.)
3. It's dehumanizing: Dealing with the medical industry makes people feel worse. Whether it is suffering the indignity of various procedures or the arrogance of the experts, the overwhelming experience of the sick is a consistent reminder that they have little or no power of the situation. (This is not really the nurse's fault.)
4. It's arrogant: People in medicine too often carry themselves with an unjustified sense of greatness. (This probably is the University's fault.)
5. It's run by insurance companies... (This is definitely our fault.)
If we could only find a way to remove this last bit from the current debate. But... So whether we move to a more nationalized system or keep something similar to what we have now, medicine will still be determined and driven by people very far from the clinic. And here too, I feel for those who have as much as I do for those who have not. Even doctors are beholden to powers that are not primarily interested in health.
Thank God nobody reads this thing...
I recently listened to a conversation about the current health-care debate. I was struck by the extreme difference of opinion. I was also taken by how quickly the tone of the argument escalated.
People who generally agree about many things can find themselves on opposite ends of this discussion and passionately so. It's been kinda nice for me to sort of sit this one out. Too often, I find myself overly invested and overly vocal about things like this. (You know, things over-which we have little or no control.) But not here. I mostly couldn't care less about whether or not the health-care system gets nationalized. It's not because I don't care about health, it's just that my expectations are so catastrophically cynical and small that it's hard for me to imagine it making that much difference one way or another.
My reasoning has nothing to do with socialized medicine. Clearly more people will get more care if it's free. I am just not sure that this is really a good thing... I must be wrong...but it seems to me that the medical industry creates more suffering than it relieves... I feel for everyone who suffers under it.
Here is what I mean...but in reverse, back-masked order:
Everyone suffers. I learned this in college. It was one of those epiphanies in my educational and spiritual journey. Suffering is part and parcel to life in this world... Of course, some people suffer more than others. But nobody misses out. Everyone has to carry or endure various crosses in this lifetime. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to alleviate the hurt. It is rather to stop ignoring some of the less obvious ways in which people suffer in this world.
So here is the deal: Of course, sick people suffer. And, of course, people who cannot get adequate health-care suffer. But so do people who sort of imagine that the health-care that they have is something great. These people are suffering and they don't even know it. Maybe not from a physical ailment but from a profound condition of self-deception. Do you ever hear people say things like: We have the best health care system in the world These are also the people who like to say things like America is the greatest country in the world... Both might actually be true but how would they know?
Consider the very phrase "adequate health-care." In the current debate we hear a lot about the need for this. But what exactly does it mean? What is adequate health-care? A recent article suggests that $210 Billion is wasted annually on unnecessary tests. This, it seems to me, is a central interest in the debate--what's the best way to ensure that more people will have access to this unnecessary testing?
Maybe adequate health-care is less about access and more about actually helping people get whatever it is that they really need. Again, some suffer because they do not have enough; others suffer because what they have is not nearly as valuable as they imagine.
Why I don't like the medical industry...
1. It's ridiculously expensive: For all the money we throw at health-care, how healthy are we, really? Or, how much is what we've got really worth? From my peculiar spot in the universe, it seems to me that a grapefruit is more valuable than a visit to the doctor. (This is not really the doctor's fault.)
2. It's consistently bureaucratic: More than anything else, medicine is characterized by waiting, processing and disappointment. (This is not really the receptionists fault.)
3. It's dehumanizing: Dealing with the medical industry makes people feel worse. Whether it is suffering the indignity of various procedures or the arrogance of the experts, the overwhelming experience of the sick is a consistent reminder that they have little or no power of the situation. (This is not really the nurse's fault.)
4. It's arrogant: People in medicine too often carry themselves with an unjustified sense of greatness. (This probably is the University's fault.)
5. It's run by insurance companies... (This is definitely our fault.)
If we could only find a way to remove this last bit from the current debate. But... So whether we move to a more nationalized system or keep something similar to what we have now, medicine will still be determined and driven by people very far from the clinic. And here too, I feel for those who have as much as I do for those who have not. Even doctors are beholden to powers that are not primarily interested in health.
Thank God nobody reads this thing...
Monday, August 3, 2009
Rhythm and Blues
I fight authority, authority always wins...
"Authority Song" was released in 1983. The song probably represents a turning point in John Mellencamp's personal life as well as his career. Early-on, the artist recorded under the name John Cougar, then John Cougar Mellencamp and then simply his given name. "Authority Song" appears on the album "Uh Huh" during the era when John Mellencamp was using all three names.
I fight authority... is repeated 16 times during the song. Apart from the refrain, there are only two verses to the song. The first is a clever commentary on what it feels like to have aspects of your life in the hands of other people. Most of us have known this feeling at one time or another. It is not a good feeling and our response to it often takes one of two avenues. Either we force ourselves to ignore the frustration and try to get along. Or we rage against the circumstances--usually in vain. The latter is, of course, the subject matter of Mellencamp's song.
The image that comes to mind here is that of a salmon swimming upstream...straining against all odds... willing itself to some distant destination. But the metaphor is not entirely congruent. While the salmon is struggling with purpose, seeking intently to return to a specific place in order to spawn, sometimes our fights are more like a flailing against the universe in general. The energy for the rebellion is there but the cause is largely undefined.
The second verse of Mellencamp's song is a picture of this. It is the singer poking fun at himself. He can see the source of his pain and frustration but he is not quite ready to accept the antidote:
So I call up my preacher
I say: gimme strength for round 5
He said: you don't need no strength, you need to grow up, son
I said: growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
And dying to me don't sound like all that much fun
How true...When we are raging against the world in general, we really don't want to be bothered by the facts.
The good news here is that at some point Mellencamp moves beyond his vain struggle with everything that is not right with the world. Officially dropping "Cougar" from his name, sort of marks a moment of maturity in his life. Though many of his most successful songs came early in his career when he was perhaps a bit angrier, Mellencamp has nonetheless continued to release meaningful music throughout his life. I have more than once heard people say that their lives actually parallel the stories that the artist has told of the course of his career. The same is often said in regard to Bob Seger and Mary Chapin Carpenter.
Growing up is not always linear. Even now, I sometimes just want to flail. One of the playlists on my Ipod is simply called "Blue." I even have one called "Black" to match those poignant moments of rage that still run through the veins from time to time.
But happily it is not that often. And it is not a matter of caving-in or giving-up. At least I hope it is not. I rather like to think that there is a rhythm that invites us. If we are willing... It is a rhythm that transcends the limited options that children are so easily drawn to. It is a way of living and being that is something other than mere caving-in or raging-on.
"Authority Song" was released in 1983. The song probably represents a turning point in John Mellencamp's personal life as well as his career. Early-on, the artist recorded under the name John Cougar, then John Cougar Mellencamp and then simply his given name. "Authority Song" appears on the album "Uh Huh" during the era when John Mellencamp was using all three names.
I fight authority... is repeated 16 times during the song. Apart from the refrain, there are only two verses to the song. The first is a clever commentary on what it feels like to have aspects of your life in the hands of other people. Most of us have known this feeling at one time or another. It is not a good feeling and our response to it often takes one of two avenues. Either we force ourselves to ignore the frustration and try to get along. Or we rage against the circumstances--usually in vain. The latter is, of course, the subject matter of Mellencamp's song.
The image that comes to mind here is that of a salmon swimming upstream...straining against all odds... willing itself to some distant destination. But the metaphor is not entirely congruent. While the salmon is struggling with purpose, seeking intently to return to a specific place in order to spawn, sometimes our fights are more like a flailing against the universe in general. The energy for the rebellion is there but the cause is largely undefined.
The second verse of Mellencamp's song is a picture of this. It is the singer poking fun at himself. He can see the source of his pain and frustration but he is not quite ready to accept the antidote:
So I call up my preacher
I say: gimme strength for round 5
He said: you don't need no strength, you need to grow up, son
I said: growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
And dying to me don't sound like all that much fun
How true...When we are raging against the world in general, we really don't want to be bothered by the facts.
The good news here is that at some point Mellencamp moves beyond his vain struggle with everything that is not right with the world. Officially dropping "Cougar" from his name, sort of marks a moment of maturity in his life. Though many of his most successful songs came early in his career when he was perhaps a bit angrier, Mellencamp has nonetheless continued to release meaningful music throughout his life. I have more than once heard people say that their lives actually parallel the stories that the artist has told of the course of his career. The same is often said in regard to Bob Seger and Mary Chapin Carpenter.
Growing up is not always linear. Even now, I sometimes just want to flail. One of the playlists on my Ipod is simply called "Blue." I even have one called "Black" to match those poignant moments of rage that still run through the veins from time to time.
But happily it is not that often. And it is not a matter of caving-in or giving-up. At least I hope it is not. I rather like to think that there is a rhythm that invites us. If we are willing... It is a rhythm that transcends the limited options that children are so easily drawn to. It is a way of living and being that is something other than mere caving-in or raging-on.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Holiday Road
I have missed a few weeks--mostly because I have been on the road. This will be my son's senior year of high school. So it made sense to pitch the family on a good ole Griswold style vacation. We had already planned to return to Iowa to see family and friends but decided to go ahead and commit to the additional thousand miles and get back to the Grand Tetons and Yellowstone.
It was a good and noble idea but driving 6000 miles in 12 days is not for the faint of heart...really more a quest than a vacation. As Clark would say, we were on a #!*$%in quest for fun.
And it really was fun but in a different sort of way. Different from our daily routines and certainly different from the familiar avenues to entertainment that young people are used to today. Simply being within speaking distance of your children for hours at a time is a nice change and probably the very thing that we were looking for. A 6'3" kid can't hide in a Toyota, even a Land Cruiser... not for 12 hours in a row.
The other piece was getting back to the West. I love North Carolina. I love our mountains and I love the breadth of geography across the state. But I also love the West. To be able to look out a car window and literally see forty miles in every direction gives me a sense of freshness and freedom that I have not been able to find elsewhere. We hiked and camped and got tired--all things that work to remind you that fun is a much broader term than we often realize.
There is a lot to see and do in this world. I suspect that I will never be completely satisfied in my quests to see and do. But at the same time, periods of satisfaction are readily available to us--if we are just willing to give them a chance. Even though getting there was a trial in patience as well as endurance; and even though we only stayed a couple of days, I did leave renewed and refreshed. Even though it was modest, it was enough...at least for a while. It was good to simply behold and reconnect with a stretch of earth that is particularly powerful and meaningful. It was also good to spend time with my family...
Of course, there were also those moments when I could have tied Aunt Edna to the roof.
It was a good and noble idea but driving 6000 miles in 12 days is not for the faint of heart...really more a quest than a vacation. As Clark would say, we were on a #!*$%in quest for fun.
And it really was fun but in a different sort of way. Different from our daily routines and certainly different from the familiar avenues to entertainment that young people are used to today. Simply being within speaking distance of your children for hours at a time is a nice change and probably the very thing that we were looking for. A 6'3" kid can't hide in a Toyota, even a Land Cruiser... not for 12 hours in a row.
The other piece was getting back to the West. I love North Carolina. I love our mountains and I love the breadth of geography across the state. But I also love the West. To be able to look out a car window and literally see forty miles in every direction gives me a sense of freshness and freedom that I have not been able to find elsewhere. We hiked and camped and got tired--all things that work to remind you that fun is a much broader term than we often realize.
There is a lot to see and do in this world. I suspect that I will never be completely satisfied in my quests to see and do. But at the same time, periods of satisfaction are readily available to us--if we are just willing to give them a chance. Even though getting there was a trial in patience as well as endurance; and even though we only stayed a couple of days, I did leave renewed and refreshed. Even though it was modest, it was enough...at least for a while. It was good to simply behold and reconnect with a stretch of earth that is particularly powerful and meaningful. It was also good to spend time with my family...
Of course, there were also those moments when I could have tied Aunt Edna to the roof.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Curbing Enthusiasm
Caveat: I watched "Fight Club" this week--twice I think. Consequently, my psyche is a bit tortured so take what follows for what it's worth...
Yesterday I struggled to preach a sermon dealing with humanity, and especially masculinity. I likened it to trying to create an ice sculpture with a chain saw. I sort of had in mind what I wanted to get across but it was pretty chunky work--like trying to make delicate cuts without lopping off entire limbs.
We are animals at some level. Our physicality and drives are central to who we are as men and women. Indeed, it would appear that God made us this way. At the same time, this is not a license to run roughshod about the planet. As believers, or even as conscientious people, we want to be mindful and respectful of the larger world.
So what do we do with all that stuff--the thoughts, the passions, the hormones... Where's the line between appropriate expressions of manhood or womanhood and vain self-indulgence? I suspect the question is harder to answer than we realize. Some of us err on one side--overly prudish and suspicious of all forms of sexuality and worldly interest. Others of us err on the opposite side--driven entirely by one base desire or another.
It's safe to say that it's a matter of finding a balance that we can live with but the "we" here refers not only to the self but to the community around it. As we embrace our nature, we need to do so within the context of others--other people, other creature and the otherness of God. Of course, this was the part of the sermon that I was hoping would not break off as I was chiseling away at the carnal side of things. I suspect that the Church needs to hear that it is o.k. to be male or be female. And I want to be someone who is willing to say so. I just don't want to say it so loudly that people lose their minds... or their patience with me.
We are for sure earthly creatures. But there are better and worse ways to be in this world. As believers, we understand that enthusiasm is a good thing. It just needs to be appropriately applied.
Yesterday I struggled to preach a sermon dealing with humanity, and especially masculinity. I likened it to trying to create an ice sculpture with a chain saw. I sort of had in mind what I wanted to get across but it was pretty chunky work--like trying to make delicate cuts without lopping off entire limbs.
We are animals at some level. Our physicality and drives are central to who we are as men and women. Indeed, it would appear that God made us this way. At the same time, this is not a license to run roughshod about the planet. As believers, or even as conscientious people, we want to be mindful and respectful of the larger world.
So what do we do with all that stuff--the thoughts, the passions, the hormones... Where's the line between appropriate expressions of manhood or womanhood and vain self-indulgence? I suspect the question is harder to answer than we realize. Some of us err on one side--overly prudish and suspicious of all forms of sexuality and worldly interest. Others of us err on the opposite side--driven entirely by one base desire or another.
It's safe to say that it's a matter of finding a balance that we can live with but the "we" here refers not only to the self but to the community around it. As we embrace our nature, we need to do so within the context of others--other people, other creature and the otherness of God. Of course, this was the part of the sermon that I was hoping would not break off as I was chiseling away at the carnal side of things. I suspect that the Church needs to hear that it is o.k. to be male or be female. And I want to be someone who is willing to say so. I just don't want to say it so loudly that people lose their minds... or their patience with me.
We are for sure earthly creatures. But there are better and worse ways to be in this world. As believers, we understand that enthusiasm is a good thing. It just needs to be appropriately applied.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Quality and Convenience
This morning I have been on the Internet looking at albs. An alb is the basic vestment worn by clergy and others during worship. I have two albs. One is a wheat colored, wool-blend that I purchased right after I received my first appointment as a pastor back in 1989. The other is a white polyester garment that I bought with some money that my mother had given me for my birthday about five years ago. There is a marked difference in the quality between the two.
The wheat alb has held up beyond my expectations. Of course, it is worn and that is partly the reason that I am looking for a new one. But the fact that this garment has served me for twenty years now, I couldn't be more impressed. I honestly hate to replace it.
On the other hand, my white alb has been a great disappointment. I purchased it because it looked great in the catalog. Embroidered bands in the sleeves and at the bottom making make the robe look very stylish. When it arrived, it looked as good as it did in the picture. It was about twice as heavy as the wool-blend so I expected that it would hold up well. It has not. The hems are breaking down. The cloth is fraying badly. The polyester is much heavier than the wool and it breathes very poorly so the beautiful white color is now stained with rings of sweat.
By all measure the older, thinner fabric has outperformed the newer, fancier garment. As I look to purchase my next alb, I see that I am going to have to spend some money. The natural fabric costs about a third more even though it looks like it should cost less.
I suppose it is a lesson that we have to learn more than once. It is always tempting to go with the picture on the box... Besides that, it's getting harder to find the quality. Even brands that were once reputable and reliable are not necessarily producing that same stuff they were a few years back... [The difference in Ralph Lauren chinos is subtle but definitely there.] Of course, the consumer is supposedly the one with the power. Theoretically, if we don't buy the junk, sooner or later they will have to stop making it.
The wheat alb has held up beyond my expectations. Of course, it is worn and that is partly the reason that I am looking for a new one. But the fact that this garment has served me for twenty years now, I couldn't be more impressed. I honestly hate to replace it.
On the other hand, my white alb has been a great disappointment. I purchased it because it looked great in the catalog. Embroidered bands in the sleeves and at the bottom making make the robe look very stylish. When it arrived, it looked as good as it did in the picture. It was about twice as heavy as the wool-blend so I expected that it would hold up well. It has not. The hems are breaking down. The cloth is fraying badly. The polyester is much heavier than the wool and it breathes very poorly so the beautiful white color is now stained with rings of sweat.
By all measure the older, thinner fabric has outperformed the newer, fancier garment. As I look to purchase my next alb, I see that I am going to have to spend some money. The natural fabric costs about a third more even though it looks like it should cost less.
I suppose it is a lesson that we have to learn more than once. It is always tempting to go with the picture on the box... Besides that, it's getting harder to find the quality. Even brands that were once reputable and reliable are not necessarily producing that same stuff they were a few years back... [The difference in Ralph Lauren chinos is subtle but definitely there.] Of course, the consumer is supposedly the one with the power. Theoretically, if we don't buy the junk, sooner or later they will have to stop making it.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Enthusiasm and Discipline
Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing at all during those days, and when they were over, he was famished. The devil said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become a loaf of bread.’ Jesus answered him, ‘It is written, “One does not live by bread alone.” ’ (Luke 4:1-4)
It seems that we are living in a languishing age. While the earth's population is growing rapidly and resource demands are being pressed to an all time high, little has changed in terms of the way that we live. This is particularly true when it comes to understanding and utilizing energy. Oil leads a cast of familiar suspects with which we have an increasing problematic relationship. For four decades we have been hearing about "breaking free" from our dependence upon fossil fuels but the truth is our addiction has only gotten worse.
Human history is closely related to our capacity to identify and employ various forms of energy. Almost without exception this has meant burning one or another source of carbon. From the wheat metabolizing in our bodies to the wood burning in our stoves to the gasoline driving the engines in our cars, human civilization has benefited and advanced largely because of that curious atom that bonds so readily in our world.
It is a true Catch-22. We have this great thing going; and yet, we sense that we are really starting to try the relationship... Reluctantly, many of us are starting to believe that it is time to do something else--something besides burning up carbon. But few of us have even the slightest idea of where to begin.
I suspect that sometime in the not too distant future we will figure this out. We will unlock some new secret in the universe that will allow us to identify a new energy source. Odds are, it will have something to do with hydrogen--perhaps an efficient harvest of solar energy or a practical application of fusion. Of course, I don't know the details and I really have no foundation for making such a prediction--except that it seems that we are just sort of due for such a breakthrough.
And when it comes, it will come swiftly. Once practical, it only took a hundred years for the internal combustion engine to make its way across the entire planet. And the world today is vastly smaller than it was a in the 19th century.
With the change, there will come a great enthusiasm, and rightfully so. After all, we have been imprisoned by the limitations of oil for a long time now. We are addicts who have only just begun to realize that we are suffering. So the deliverance from all this can not help but come as a salvific event. We will want to be careful here. Energy is a great and glorious thing. As we have witnessed, it is something that can be easy to worship. We will want to be careful about this.
It seems that we are living in a languishing age. While the earth's population is growing rapidly and resource demands are being pressed to an all time high, little has changed in terms of the way that we live. This is particularly true when it comes to understanding and utilizing energy. Oil leads a cast of familiar suspects with which we have an increasing problematic relationship. For four decades we have been hearing about "breaking free" from our dependence upon fossil fuels but the truth is our addiction has only gotten worse.
Human history is closely related to our capacity to identify and employ various forms of energy. Almost without exception this has meant burning one or another source of carbon. From the wheat metabolizing in our bodies to the wood burning in our stoves to the gasoline driving the engines in our cars, human civilization has benefited and advanced largely because of that curious atom that bonds so readily in our world.
It is a true Catch-22. We have this great thing going; and yet, we sense that we are really starting to try the relationship... Reluctantly, many of us are starting to believe that it is time to do something else--something besides burning up carbon. But few of us have even the slightest idea of where to begin.
I suspect that sometime in the not too distant future we will figure this out. We will unlock some new secret in the universe that will allow us to identify a new energy source. Odds are, it will have something to do with hydrogen--perhaps an efficient harvest of solar energy or a practical application of fusion. Of course, I don't know the details and I really have no foundation for making such a prediction--except that it seems that we are just sort of due for such a breakthrough.
And when it comes, it will come swiftly. Once practical, it only took a hundred years for the internal combustion engine to make its way across the entire planet. And the world today is vastly smaller than it was a in the 19th century.
With the change, there will come a great enthusiasm, and rightfully so. After all, we have been imprisoned by the limitations of oil for a long time now. We are addicts who have only just begun to realize that we are suffering. So the deliverance from all this can not help but come as a salvific event. We will want to be careful here. Energy is a great and glorious thing. As we have witnessed, it is something that can be easy to worship. We will want to be careful about this.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Nagging Doubts
My sister, Angie, had her tonsils out over a week ago. Remember when this used to be a common procedure? Children everywhere lined up for their introduction to the center of modern medicine--surgery...
Turns out that something is off here or something has changed or something...Angie is just now getting better. She has been miserable for ten straight days. The only reprieve is that she has a great sense of humor so I have been able to give her a few laughs via a few timely texts about filling in for Axl Rose and Brian Johnson.
Of course, this is really nothing to laugh about. Angie told me this morning that she was working in her yard yesterday when her neighbor (an attorney) came over and said, “Now this is mostly over, I can tell you…I have been involved in two separate cases in which women died after having their tonsils taken out….Both adult women with children who bled-out while they were sleeping…”
Those who know me well have probably heard an occasional barb about hospitals, insurance or modern medicine. I can’t really say where it comes from but I have forever had this nagging suspicion about the way that our age considers and addresses health. At the very least, it strikes me as the proverbial little man behind a curtain pulling levers that produce a lot of smoke and noise. I am afraid to admit, even to myself, how I really feel about it.
You’d think that by now we would have figured out something a bit more creative than surgery. I always think of one of the middle Star Trek films in which Bones McCoy refers to our era of doctors as “butchers.” Of course, he would then just get out some kind of magic wand that he simply waved over the patient. Science Fiction...but still... Can we not come up with something a bit less invasive than the presumption and practice that has dominated medicine for the last hundred years?
Angie, sorry about your throat. Next time, you might want to just go with the vitamins.
Turns out that something is off here or something has changed or something...Angie is just now getting better. She has been miserable for ten straight days. The only reprieve is that she has a great sense of humor so I have been able to give her a few laughs via a few timely texts about filling in for Axl Rose and Brian Johnson.
Of course, this is really nothing to laugh about. Angie told me this morning that she was working in her yard yesterday when her neighbor (an attorney) came over and said, “Now this is mostly over, I can tell you…I have been involved in two separate cases in which women died after having their tonsils taken out….Both adult women with children who bled-out while they were sleeping…”
Those who know me well have probably heard an occasional barb about hospitals, insurance or modern medicine. I can’t really say where it comes from but I have forever had this nagging suspicion about the way that our age considers and addresses health. At the very least, it strikes me as the proverbial little man behind a curtain pulling levers that produce a lot of smoke and noise. I am afraid to admit, even to myself, how I really feel about it.
You’d think that by now we would have figured out something a bit more creative than surgery. I always think of one of the middle Star Trek films in which Bones McCoy refers to our era of doctors as “butchers.” Of course, he would then just get out some kind of magic wand that he simply waved over the patient. Science Fiction...but still... Can we not come up with something a bit less invasive than the presumption and practice that has dominated medicine for the last hundred years?
Angie, sorry about your throat. Next time, you might want to just go with the vitamins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
