We all know that things are tough and we all wish that they would get better. But that's the easy part. The hard part is trying to keep track of what matters most and resisting the temptation to take our anger and frustration out on the wrong people.
A business friend of mine helps me keep up with the details--the more subtle aspects of what happens during an economic downturn. Perhaps the saddest thing that I have learned through this is what happens when there is less and less to go around. We treat each other pretty well when there is plenty but when things get a little more scarce, we not only fight like fish over the last few crumbs, we begin to bite at one another as well. Not because we are hungry to eat them but because we can't bite anyone else.
None of this is new. It has been a sad side-effect of poverty since people had to leave the Garden and make a go of it in a world where things don't just grow on trees... Struggling people look around them and begin to resent and blame not those who hold the power and make the decisions but rather those who seem to have it as bad or worse than they do. In Germany, poor Christians come to resent poor Jews. In America, poor white folk learned to resent their poor black neighbors. Misplaced anger... We humans have a tendency to take our frustrations out on whatever might be in striking distance.
The best example of this is domestic abuse: You're mad at your boss. You're getting older and less attractive. The bills are piling up and no one listens to you... So what do you do? Why you beat your wife, of course; or your kids; or both!
Naturally this is wrong but people just keep doing it. What else are they going to do? ... Watching the latest on the Gulf Oil disaster, I see that rich people get into this too. Congress is dragging BP execs in so they can take some swings on behalf of the country. Nothing like a good public display of vengeance to clear the soul! Sheeeesh.
Here's an idea. How about some peace? Or some good will? If we're gonna have to suffer through this ______ anyway, why don't we try to make the best of it? How about we recognize that we actually have more in common with the people we can reach than those we can't? There is nothing wrong with a little anger, let's just work a little harder at directing it at the right people.
BTW, that poor fellow there is The Weather Man. He's just been pelted by another chocolate shake thrown from a passing car. Killing The Messenger--another tried and true practice of the downtrodden. Sure... but let me see you hit God with one of those things!
Monday, June 21, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Celibacy and Other Things The Clergy Probably Shouldn't Be Doing For Us
In response to the sex scandal in the Roman Catholic church, a group of women have apparently written an open letter to the pope. The woman are Italian Catholics who have had affairs or relationships with priests. However, unlike the harsh criticisms that has characterized other such letters, these are letters in support of the priests and others who have been caught in a system that has some very real problems. Some have said that the letters will reopen the discussion about celibacy. While that remains to be seen, I do feel that the letter is an important document. Many people have sensed (myself included) that the cause of much of the pain and suffering that we have seen in the Church around the issue of sex is rooted in the strangely applied expectation of a celibate and unmarried priesthood.
The current Pope, along with many before him, has responded to questions of this kind by referencing that celibacy has been the historic practice and expectation of clergy for a very long time (though curiously not since the beginning of the Church). I think it is a bad idea to ask entire groups of people to refrain from sex on the basis of their loyalty to God and to the Church. But what I really think is a bad idea is doing this out of some kind of queer loyalty to values and faith positions that the Church does not promote.
What I mean by this is that the Church certainly does not believe that marriage is a bad thing. Moreover, despite the strange and mixed messages that we've heard from time to time, the Church does not believe that sex is dirty or evil. While there have been times when both Protestant and Catholic Christians have entertained such ideas, the Bible does not support it and as Christians we have largely gotten past our awkward feelings about sexuality. Indeed, in the more recent past, the Church has made it a point to proclaim that sex is a part of God's created order and therefore a good thing. Of course, we also believe that there are more and less appropriate ways of expressing this particular gift but there is no official position in the Church suggesting that sex is a bad thing. Herein lies the twofold problem.
First, by setting a unique standard for the priesthood, the Vatican is indirectly making a strange statement, both to the Church and to the larger world. By implying that marriage and sex are OK for lay people but not OK for Church leaders, the Vatican is suggesting these things are some kind of vice. The unspoken lesson here is that real Christians should not be interested in lesser things like marriage and sex.
Second, and this is the really sad part... The truth is, the Church doesn't believe this. It doesn't believe that sex is dirty. In fact, marriage is actually a sacrament in the Roman Catholic tradition--on the level of Baptism and Holy Communion. Why would you deny something that is upheld as good and desirable from leaders within the Church? Again, in the proper context... Or to put it in the darker context: could it be that we are seeing perversion of sexuality in these men precisely because they have not been allowed to enjoy healthy expressions of it?
This issue is actually just one of a number of double-standards that we have applied to clergy at one time or another. Of course, part of this is helpful; we want our servant leaders to serve as examples of the faith and holding them to a higher standard makes sense in this regard. However, sometimes there seems to be something else going on. Sometimes, we sort of imagine that we want the clergy to live out our faithfulness for us. It seems that we ask them to be pure or poor or nonviolent so we won't have to.
This, it seems to me, is a poor way to live out our faith together. By asking some to carry the disciplinary burden of all might sound attractive but like the Church's expectation of celibate priesthood, it not only sends a mixed message, it also paves the way for some rather bizarre side effects. I am thinking here especially of the Church's confused and compromised relation to war and nonviolence. Although Jesus himself was nonviolent and early Christian disciples were taught to avoid vocations in which there might be shedding blood, the Church today has moved far away from this expectation. Of course, clergy are expected to be peaceful in both personal and collective ways, that expectation is seldom applied to the faithful. Another example, of course, is money. The people in the pews feel that it is their God-given right to pursue and protect wealth to any and all degrees as long as our servant leaders remain nice and poor.
Interestingly, these two examples are somewhat different from the example of celibacy. Whereas the Bible clearly recognizes sex (at least within marriage) as a good and important part of life, violence and the pursuit of riches are generally not regarded as Godly behavior. So what's going on? Does the Church really want to continue to underwrite things like violence and greed while hypocritically judging something as natural as sex?
The current Pope, along with many before him, has responded to questions of this kind by referencing that celibacy has been the historic practice and expectation of clergy for a very long time (though curiously not since the beginning of the Church). I think it is a bad idea to ask entire groups of people to refrain from sex on the basis of their loyalty to God and to the Church. But what I really think is a bad idea is doing this out of some kind of queer loyalty to values and faith positions that the Church does not promote.
What I mean by this is that the Church certainly does not believe that marriage is a bad thing. Moreover, despite the strange and mixed messages that we've heard from time to time, the Church does not believe that sex is dirty or evil. While there have been times when both Protestant and Catholic Christians have entertained such ideas, the Bible does not support it and as Christians we have largely gotten past our awkward feelings about sexuality. Indeed, in the more recent past, the Church has made it a point to proclaim that sex is a part of God's created order and therefore a good thing. Of course, we also believe that there are more and less appropriate ways of expressing this particular gift but there is no official position in the Church suggesting that sex is a bad thing. Herein lies the twofold problem.
First, by setting a unique standard for the priesthood, the Vatican is indirectly making a strange statement, both to the Church and to the larger world. By implying that marriage and sex are OK for lay people but not OK for Church leaders, the Vatican is suggesting these things are some kind of vice. The unspoken lesson here is that real Christians should not be interested in lesser things like marriage and sex.
Second, and this is the really sad part... The truth is, the Church doesn't believe this. It doesn't believe that sex is dirty. In fact, marriage is actually a sacrament in the Roman Catholic tradition--on the level of Baptism and Holy Communion. Why would you deny something that is upheld as good and desirable from leaders within the Church? Again, in the proper context... Or to put it in the darker context: could it be that we are seeing perversion of sexuality in these men precisely because they have not been allowed to enjoy healthy expressions of it?
This issue is actually just one of a number of double-standards that we have applied to clergy at one time or another. Of course, part of this is helpful; we want our servant leaders to serve as examples of the faith and holding them to a higher standard makes sense in this regard. However, sometimes there seems to be something else going on. Sometimes, we sort of imagine that we want the clergy to live out our faithfulness for us. It seems that we ask them to be pure or poor or nonviolent so we won't have to.
This, it seems to me, is a poor way to live out our faith together. By asking some to carry the disciplinary burden of all might sound attractive but like the Church's expectation of celibate priesthood, it not only sends a mixed message, it also paves the way for some rather bizarre side effects. I am thinking here especially of the Church's confused and compromised relation to war and nonviolence. Although Jesus himself was nonviolent and early Christian disciples were taught to avoid vocations in which there might be shedding blood, the Church today has moved far away from this expectation. Of course, clergy are expected to be peaceful in both personal and collective ways, that expectation is seldom applied to the faithful. Another example, of course, is money. The people in the pews feel that it is their God-given right to pursue and protect wealth to any and all degrees as long as our servant leaders remain nice and poor.
Interestingly, these two examples are somewhat different from the example of celibacy. Whereas the Bible clearly recognizes sex (at least within marriage) as a good and important part of life, violence and the pursuit of riches are generally not regarded as Godly behavior. So what's going on? Does the Church really want to continue to underwrite things like violence and greed while hypocritically judging something as natural as sex?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Enough
Occasionally, I have this image of a plow. It is hooked to an immense tractor and turning the soil over upon itself and that soil is me. It is, in a sense, a dark image I guess; but strangely comforting for me. It is not that I am in a hurry to be returned to the dust from which we all come. It is just good to know that there will some day be an end to it. All the disappointments, failures and damage that I see being wrought upon the earth and my part in it. I am glad that these things will at some point be finished--everything turned back to dirt. And then used for something new--I hope for something better.
This perhaps reads as reincarnation of some kind. But it doesn't feel that way. Reincarnation tends to focus on the I part in all this. What will become of me and all that... But my interest is more in the end of the me--the end to the us as cruel butchers of beauty and one another. It seems that all that focus on the self is sort of the part of life that I find most distressing. So my interest in the soil is not because I am in a hurry to be something or somewhere else. I just like knowing that there will be something else--something beside all the self-seeking that characterizes so much of this life.
Of course, as a Christian, I am also drawn to the image of eternal life, to the vision of paradise. And for the same reasons. Whatever paradise might be, it must be more than an endless parade of personal consumption. It is not that I don't like things or pleasure; and, again, I am not in a hurry to become fertilize for the next generation of whatver. I'm just getting tired. Or, at least I am tired today. I am tired of disappointment. And I am sick to death of the cruelty of people. It just seems there is no end to the self-seeking and death that we humans can visit on one another.
As I was thinking about this, I remembered something that Jesus said about God's people:
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! Mt. 23:37
Jesus uses that word, brood, in only one other reference.
You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Mt. 12:34
Strange isn't it? Snakes and harmless chicks--two pretty different images, indeed. Jesus likens the former to those who imagine themselves to be good and holy when, in fact, they are evil and vile. The latter he uses to name the Father's love for his childrenl.
This perhaps reads as reincarnation of some kind. But it doesn't feel that way. Reincarnation tends to focus on the I part in all this. What will become of me and all that... But my interest is more in the end of the me--the end to the us as cruel butchers of beauty and one another. It seems that all that focus on the self is sort of the part of life that I find most distressing. So my interest in the soil is not because I am in a hurry to be something or somewhere else. I just like knowing that there will be something else--something beside all the self-seeking that characterizes so much of this life.
Of course, as a Christian, I am also drawn to the image of eternal life, to the vision of paradise. And for the same reasons. Whatever paradise might be, it must be more than an endless parade of personal consumption. It is not that I don't like things or pleasure; and, again, I am not in a hurry to become fertilize for the next generation of whatver. I'm just getting tired. Or, at least I am tired today. I am tired of disappointment. And I am sick to death of the cruelty of people. It just seems there is no end to the self-seeking and death that we humans can visit on one another.
As I was thinking about this, I remembered something that Jesus said about God's people:
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! Mt. 23:37
Jesus uses that word, brood, in only one other reference.
You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Mt. 12:34
Strange isn't it? Snakes and harmless chicks--two pretty different images, indeed. Jesus likens the former to those who imagine themselves to be good and holy when, in fact, they are evil and vile. The latter he uses to name the Father's love for his childrenl.
Monday, May 17, 2010
The Weight of Want
We are now beginning to see the scale of the oil spill in the gulf. It will probably turn out to be worse than we are hearing today. But even at this point, it is pretty awful. As I think about the environmental destruction and general horror of the whole thing, I do not feel righteous or judgmental at all. Whatever happened out there, I figure that I did it. Or, we did it anyway. There's no escaping the guilt here--the greed maybe but not the guilt.
Of course, it is ridiculous and wrong that BP has made hundreds of billions in profit already this year. And we probably ought to judge them for that at some level. But the fact is they've made all that money mostly by just giving us what we want. And now the ocean and countless creatures have suffered a pretty horrible injustice because of that same degree of want. Sure, the spill will cost us something. It will cost the people who make a living in and around the coast. It will affect the stock market and probably the cost of gasoline at some point. But to suggest that we are going to suffer for what BP has done is a little like Peter blaming Judas for betraying Jesus. Nah, this is something that I've done. And it is awful.
The awful part is not that we've spilled oil in the gulf. It is the way that we spilled it. This wasn't just a tragic accident. It was the byproduct of runaway self-interest and sin. All we cared about was getting what we want. And we would have gone on caring about nothing else had we not been inconvenienced by this embarrassing little accident in the gulf.
But now that we are being made to look and see what has become of us, we have a window of opportunity. We have an opportunity to tell the truth and consider the weight of our want. The first bit of truth telling is admitting that this is not merely an accident. It is a disaster, a real disaster, and it has come upon us by our own hand. The second bit is pretty standard moral stuff. Namely, it is a matter of what now? What will we do? Will we figure out a better way to get what we want--maybe take a real look at wind power or wave power or solar power? Will we rethink the whole want thing--or at least want at the level that we have been practicing it of late?
I recently began reading a book entitled, "Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire." It was recommended to me by a friend. He's an intellectual so the book is pretty heady. And it's not a perfect book. Nevertheless, the author is struggling with some pretty important questions. There are people out there that are struggling with these things. Just like people once struggled with things like slavery and child labor and women's suffrage, it is time that we start sincerely struggling with things like consumption, globalization and the environment. These aren't political issues. These are moral issues.
I feel responsible for what has happened in the gulf. I am not sure how I've done it and I am not at all sure how to make it right but I think I'm ready to learn. I want to start wanting something else.
Of course, it is ridiculous and wrong that BP has made hundreds of billions in profit already this year. And we probably ought to judge them for that at some level. But the fact is they've made all that money mostly by just giving us what we want. And now the ocean and countless creatures have suffered a pretty horrible injustice because of that same degree of want. Sure, the spill will cost us something. It will cost the people who make a living in and around the coast. It will affect the stock market and probably the cost of gasoline at some point. But to suggest that we are going to suffer for what BP has done is a little like Peter blaming Judas for betraying Jesus. Nah, this is something that I've done. And it is awful.
The awful part is not that we've spilled oil in the gulf. It is the way that we spilled it. This wasn't just a tragic accident. It was the byproduct of runaway self-interest and sin. All we cared about was getting what we want. And we would have gone on caring about nothing else had we not been inconvenienced by this embarrassing little accident in the gulf.
But now that we are being made to look and see what has become of us, we have a window of opportunity. We have an opportunity to tell the truth and consider the weight of our want. The first bit of truth telling is admitting that this is not merely an accident. It is a disaster, a real disaster, and it has come upon us by our own hand. The second bit is pretty standard moral stuff. Namely, it is a matter of what now? What will we do? Will we figure out a better way to get what we want--maybe take a real look at wind power or wave power or solar power? Will we rethink the whole want thing--or at least want at the level that we have been practicing it of late?
I recently began reading a book entitled, "Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire." It was recommended to me by a friend. He's an intellectual so the book is pretty heady. And it's not a perfect book. Nevertheless, the author is struggling with some pretty important questions. There are people out there that are struggling with these things. Just like people once struggled with things like slavery and child labor and women's suffrage, it is time that we start sincerely struggling with things like consumption, globalization and the environment. These aren't political issues. These are moral issues.
I feel responsible for what has happened in the gulf. I am not sure how I've done it and I am not at all sure how to make it right but I think I'm ready to learn. I want to start wanting something else.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Swing Slow; Hit Hard
O.K., I can now say that I am officially connected to the city of Charlotte! I tried getting excited about the Bobcats and the Panthers but it never really took. I went to the Wachovia a couple of years back and enjoyed it but nothing to call my mom about... And then this weekend, a friend invited me to go to the Quail Hollow event. I got to see some amazing shots and catch a bit of the atmosphere on Saturday to keep me interested. And then yesterday...
For a sports enthusiasts, today is a pretty good day to live in the city of Charlotte. Millions of people are going to see and remember what Rory McIlroy accomplished yesterday. They will be talking about this for a long time--and well beyond the city of Charlotte.
I am not much of a golfer but I do have a history with it. One of my closest friends in high school was probably the best player that ever went to our high school. I caddied for him in a number of opens and club tournaments. John was an unlikely golfer. He was the only guy that I knew with a bigger chip on his shoulder than mine and he had a horrible temper. Additionally, John was an exceptional athlete. He was only 5'11" but he could dunk a basketball and probably could have run a 10.8 hundred yard dash had the track season not coincided with golf. John ended up getting a partial scholarship to the University of Northern Iowa where he had a break out tournament at some Playboy Invitational in the Midwest where for 3 days he outplayed the best golfers from several of the Big Ten schools. After that, he sort of turned to more familiar college pursuits. He left college before he graduated and has worked as a greens-keeper and landscaper for twenty some years now. His shoulders are shot from all the manual labor but I still believe that John DeVault might been the Will Hunting of golf. If only someone would have caught him while there was still time to curb all that self-destruction.
Anyway, it was really great seeing Rory win. I was just as happy for Billy Mayfair the day before and was rooting for him until it was clear that it just wasn't going to happen. It will be interesting to see how things go from here on out. We're already hearing those inevitable comparisions to Tiger Woods. It's sickening; why can't we just enjoy the golf? Why does it all have to be about astro-heroics?
This weekend I was reminded that it is good to be a student. I went to the tournament with no pretense about golf or about the culture that surrounds it. I let my friend teach me as much as I could pick up in the few hours that we were out there. And it was great! I found myself surprisingly excited about the whole thing. I am never going to be a big-time golf enthusiast but still, it was a blessing to have my mind expanded and to share in the joy of others who were absolutely thrilled to be a part of this thing. One of my favorite scenes of the whole weekend was watching the crowd react to Rory's putt on the final hole. It was, of course, like watching a movie--how else could you describe a 40-foot birdie putt to ice the cake? But all those people--they couldn't have been happier for this kid! And that is wonderful thing. To be satisfied with simply being there--happy to see someone else have their day--that's special.
I hope that I can extend this attitude to other areas. It seems that some folks just can't figure this out--if they're not the deal, they don't have time for it... I've been like that myself sometimes. But the fact is, that's a pretty sorry way to approach life. There is only so much joy we're going to be able to squeeze out of our own stories. So why not learn to celebrate it in others? Just being there when someone else is having a good day can be a blessing in and of itself.
For a sports enthusiasts, today is a pretty good day to live in the city of Charlotte. Millions of people are going to see and remember what Rory McIlroy accomplished yesterday. They will be talking about this for a long time--and well beyond the city of Charlotte.
I am not much of a golfer but I do have a history with it. One of my closest friends in high school was probably the best player that ever went to our high school. I caddied for him in a number of opens and club tournaments. John was an unlikely golfer. He was the only guy that I knew with a bigger chip on his shoulder than mine and he had a horrible temper. Additionally, John was an exceptional athlete. He was only 5'11" but he could dunk a basketball and probably could have run a 10.8 hundred yard dash had the track season not coincided with golf. John ended up getting a partial scholarship to the University of Northern Iowa where he had a break out tournament at some Playboy Invitational in the Midwest where for 3 days he outplayed the best golfers from several of the Big Ten schools. After that, he sort of turned to more familiar college pursuits. He left college before he graduated and has worked as a greens-keeper and landscaper for twenty some years now. His shoulders are shot from all the manual labor but I still believe that John DeVault might been the Will Hunting of golf. If only someone would have caught him while there was still time to curb all that self-destruction.
Anyway, it was really great seeing Rory win. I was just as happy for Billy Mayfair the day before and was rooting for him until it was clear that it just wasn't going to happen. It will be interesting to see how things go from here on out. We're already hearing those inevitable comparisions to Tiger Woods. It's sickening; why can't we just enjoy the golf? Why does it all have to be about astro-heroics?
This weekend I was reminded that it is good to be a student. I went to the tournament with no pretense about golf or about the culture that surrounds it. I let my friend teach me as much as I could pick up in the few hours that we were out there. And it was great! I found myself surprisingly excited about the whole thing. I am never going to be a big-time golf enthusiast but still, it was a blessing to have my mind expanded and to share in the joy of others who were absolutely thrilled to be a part of this thing. One of my favorite scenes of the whole weekend was watching the crowd react to Rory's putt on the final hole. It was, of course, like watching a movie--how else could you describe a 40-foot birdie putt to ice the cake? But all those people--they couldn't have been happier for this kid! And that is wonderful thing. To be satisfied with simply being there--happy to see someone else have their day--that's special.
I hope that I can extend this attitude to other areas. It seems that some folks just can't figure this out--if they're not the deal, they don't have time for it... I've been like that myself sometimes. But the fact is, that's a pretty sorry way to approach life. There is only so much joy we're going to be able to squeeze out of our own stories. So why not learn to celebrate it in others? Just being there when someone else is having a good day can be a blessing in and of itself.
Monday, April 26, 2010
You First...
I was recently sitting in on one of the Sunday school classes here at the Portico. They were studying John Wesley's, Three Simple Rules. We have a banner hanging in the sanctuary with these rules inscribed:
As I listened to the class discuss the second rule, it struck me that simplicity actually threatens the modern world. Seven billion people on the planet trying to survive. Everyone out to make it...to get theirs... We live in the age of "what's in it for me?"
And we know it. We sense that it is tacky. We know that it is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. We probably don't even want to live this way. But we're afraid of living any other way. We figure that it is just about the time that we let down our guard and start thinking about the other guy that whatever is left of the rug we're currently standing on will suddenly be ripped from beneath us and it will be over.
Of course, for all practical purposes, it is over already. As long as we remain enslaved to that fear of what will happen if, we are certainly not winning whatever game that the modern world has taught us to play. Our salvation lies in something other than the "me first" model that has brought us to this place. Yet, for whatever reason, we can't seem to shake the addiction... My daughter has a hamster. They say it runs something like six miles a night on that wheel on the outer side of the cage. It doesn't really go anywhere but it usually gets tired enough to sleep through most of the following day. It's back at it each night though...
Wesley lived in a far less complex era. Nevertheless, he still saw the value of offering the faithful a simplified version of the faith. Here, try this... here are three simple rules to live by. See if this helps with the craziness...
The way I see it is that we are all waiting for the other guy. We'd be glad to take the plunge--embrace a more simplified, just and selfless existence--just as soon as everyone else agrees to do the same. But that's just it, isn't it? It doesn't work that way. And, of course not...
I remember listening to a millionaire talking about what it took to become as wealthy as he had become. He said, "Don't kid yourself. It's not easy to get to where I've gotten in life. If it were, everyone would be doing it. But that really doesn't matter, does it? Because this isn't about everyone else. The question is how much do you want it."
Though there is certainly a difference between being materially rich and spiritually rich, I suspect the lesson still applies. It is not about the other guy. As long as we are waiting around for everybody else to get excited about living decently, we're probably not going to get too far ourselves. If we desire to be rich in spirit even just simplify our lives a bit, then we will have to take the first step... and probably the second and third as well. The fact is, if these things were easy, everyone would be doing them. So it comes down to you and I, doesn't it? Have we had enough of the "me-first" model? Are we willing to try something else--even if we can't get everyone around us to agree to the same?
As I listened to the class discuss the second rule, it struck me that simplicity actually threatens the modern world. Seven billion people on the planet trying to survive. Everyone out to make it...to get theirs... We live in the age of "what's in it for me?"
And we know it. We sense that it is tacky. We know that it is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. We probably don't even want to live this way. But we're afraid of living any other way. We figure that it is just about the time that we let down our guard and start thinking about the other guy that whatever is left of the rug we're currently standing on will suddenly be ripped from beneath us and it will be over.
Of course, for all practical purposes, it is over already. As long as we remain enslaved to that fear of what will happen if, we are certainly not winning whatever game that the modern world has taught us to play. Our salvation lies in something other than the "me first" model that has brought us to this place. Yet, for whatever reason, we can't seem to shake the addiction... My daughter has a hamster. They say it runs something like six miles a night on that wheel on the outer side of the cage. It doesn't really go anywhere but it usually gets tired enough to sleep through most of the following day. It's back at it each night though...
Wesley lived in a far less complex era. Nevertheless, he still saw the value of offering the faithful a simplified version of the faith. Here, try this... here are three simple rules to live by. See if this helps with the craziness...
The way I see it is that we are all waiting for the other guy. We'd be glad to take the plunge--embrace a more simplified, just and selfless existence--just as soon as everyone else agrees to do the same. But that's just it, isn't it? It doesn't work that way. And, of course not...
I remember listening to a millionaire talking about what it took to become as wealthy as he had become. He said, "Don't kid yourself. It's not easy to get to where I've gotten in life. If it were, everyone would be doing it. But that really doesn't matter, does it? Because this isn't about everyone else. The question is how much do you want it."
Though there is certainly a difference between being materially rich and spiritually rich, I suspect the lesson still applies. It is not about the other guy. As long as we are waiting around for everybody else to get excited about living decently, we're probably not going to get too far ourselves. If we desire to be rich in spirit even just simplify our lives a bit, then we will have to take the first step... and probably the second and third as well. The fact is, if these things were easy, everyone would be doing them. So it comes down to you and I, doesn't it? Have we had enough of the "me-first" model? Are we willing to try something else--even if we can't get everyone around us to agree to the same?
Monday, April 12, 2010
Crazy Stuff
One of my favorite Biblical stories takes place in 2 Kings 5. It is the story of Naaman. Naaman is a commander in the army of Aram. The Scriptures tell us that he is a good man but he suffers from leprosy. Aram and Israel are neighboring nations who have fought in the past but are currently enjoying a fragile peace. The King of Aram hears through his Israelite slave-girl that there is a prophet in Israel who could cure Naaman of his leprosy. The king of Aram sends a letter to the king of Israel on Naaman's behalf in hopes of healing. Of course, the king of Israel sees this whole thing as a setup: ‘Am I God, to give death or life, that this man sends word to me to cure a man of his leprosy? Just look and see how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me.’
But Elisha hears word of the request and tells the king to send Naaman on. This is where the story gets especially interesting. When Naaman arrives with his party at Elisha's house, the prophet shouts instructions out through the door. He tells Naaman to go and wash in the Jordan seven times. The commander is furious. He is especially angry about the simplicity of the answer and the fact that Elisha didn't even come out to see him and raise some kind of religious spectacle. But his associates manage to calm him down. They tell him basically, "why not?" Why got give it a try? Just because a solution is not complicated does not necessarily mean that it won't work. Of course, when he finally goes and washes the seven times in the Jordan, he becomes clean.
Last night I was thumbing through the channels and I came upon an infomercial. It was Kevin Trudeau selling a series of books written by Robert Barefoot. Both of these people have come under enormous suspicion and criticism by the federal government. The two men were having a conversation about the benefits of Coral Calcium and Vitamin D. At one point, Robert Barefoot said something to the effect of 90% of all disease could be cured by taking Calcium and spending two hours a day in the sunshine--without sunscreen.
The claims coming out of Barefoot's mouth seemed preposterous. I could scarcely imagine that he was making them on television and with a straight face. He was talking specifically about the suppression of scientific evidence proving the benefits of Calcium and Vitamin D in battling everything from MS to cancer. When asked about why people don't know about this stuff, he pointed to the Pharmaceutical Industry and its financial connection to everything from the national media to the FDA. When pressed on how something so simple (and inexpensive) could possibly work better than hundreds of billions of dollars worth of drugs, Barefoot simply said, "God knew what he was doing."
I've seen those Velcro straps that people wear just below their knees. They look like nothing more than a strip of cloth but people swear by them.
In the movie, "Idiocracy," Joe Bauers wakes up 500 years in the future to find that the gene pool has worked its way to the least common denominator. While an average person in 2006, Joe is far and away the smartest person on earth in 2506 but his intelligence only serves to get him into trouble. At one point, he notices that the people are using a Gatorade-like product called Brawndo to irrigate their crops. Consequently, all the crops are dying and it is posing a national crisis. Joe tells them that they could solve the crisis if they would use water instead but the proposition is ludicrous to the people of the twenty-sixth century. Clearly quoting some advertisement that he had heard over and over again, the Secretary of State, proclaims, "But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes."
I've recently been reading the book of Acts. And I came across something that I had never really noticed before. There are two separate stories in which the Gospel message comes into conflict with the way that people make money (Acts 16:16ff and Acts 19:23ff). The stories are telling in that in each case there is a clear conflict between God's message breaking in to a community and the financial stress that this new reality creates.
Our society says that it wants to be healthy. But I sense that there are some crazy problems that stand in the way. One of these is money. The other one is a misappropriation of faith. We have been led to believe that health is complex and costly. We have been led to believe that we need experts to tell us and sell us on what our body needs. And the assumption driving this escalating race is the belief (and I suspect a false belief) that the more complicated something is, the more likely it is to be helpful in our vain pursuit of health. Curiously, for all the expertise, complicated drugs and expensive treatment, our people seem to be sicker.
Naaman didn't want to believe that his leprosy could be cured by the simple suggestion of a prophet in Israel. Happily though, he had a few friends who helped him understand that his health was really more important than his pride.
But Elisha hears word of the request and tells the king to send Naaman on. This is where the story gets especially interesting. When Naaman arrives with his party at Elisha's house, the prophet shouts instructions out through the door. He tells Naaman to go and wash in the Jordan seven times. The commander is furious. He is especially angry about the simplicity of the answer and the fact that Elisha didn't even come out to see him and raise some kind of religious spectacle. But his associates manage to calm him down. They tell him basically, "why not?" Why got give it a try? Just because a solution is not complicated does not necessarily mean that it won't work. Of course, when he finally goes and washes the seven times in the Jordan, he becomes clean.
Last night I was thumbing through the channels and I came upon an infomercial. It was Kevin Trudeau selling a series of books written by Robert Barefoot. Both of these people have come under enormous suspicion and criticism by the federal government. The two men were having a conversation about the benefits of Coral Calcium and Vitamin D. At one point, Robert Barefoot said something to the effect of 90% of all disease could be cured by taking Calcium and spending two hours a day in the sunshine--without sunscreen.
The claims coming out of Barefoot's mouth seemed preposterous. I could scarcely imagine that he was making them on television and with a straight face. He was talking specifically about the suppression of scientific evidence proving the benefits of Calcium and Vitamin D in battling everything from MS to cancer. When asked about why people don't know about this stuff, he pointed to the Pharmaceutical Industry and its financial connection to everything from the national media to the FDA. When pressed on how something so simple (and inexpensive) could possibly work better than hundreds of billions of dollars worth of drugs, Barefoot simply said, "God knew what he was doing."
I've seen those Velcro straps that people wear just below their knees. They look like nothing more than a strip of cloth but people swear by them.
In the movie, "Idiocracy," Joe Bauers wakes up 500 years in the future to find that the gene pool has worked its way to the least common denominator. While an average person in 2006, Joe is far and away the smartest person on earth in 2506 but his intelligence only serves to get him into trouble. At one point, he notices that the people are using a Gatorade-like product called Brawndo to irrigate their crops. Consequently, all the crops are dying and it is posing a national crisis. Joe tells them that they could solve the crisis if they would use water instead but the proposition is ludicrous to the people of the twenty-sixth century. Clearly quoting some advertisement that he had heard over and over again, the Secretary of State, proclaims, "But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes."
I've recently been reading the book of Acts. And I came across something that I had never really noticed before. There are two separate stories in which the Gospel message comes into conflict with the way that people make money (Acts 16:16ff and Acts 19:23ff). The stories are telling in that in each case there is a clear conflict between God's message breaking in to a community and the financial stress that this new reality creates.
Our society says that it wants to be healthy. But I sense that there are some crazy problems that stand in the way. One of these is money. The other one is a misappropriation of faith. We have been led to believe that health is complex and costly. We have been led to believe that we need experts to tell us and sell us on what our body needs. And the assumption driving this escalating race is the belief (and I suspect a false belief) that the more complicated something is, the more likely it is to be helpful in our vain pursuit of health. Curiously, for all the expertise, complicated drugs and expensive treatment, our people seem to be sicker.
Naaman didn't want to believe that his leprosy could be cured by the simple suggestion of a prophet in Israel. Happily though, he had a few friends who helped him understand that his health was really more important than his pride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
