Hello future me (since I'm the only one who reads this),
First off, note to self, writing at two in the morning is a horrible idea. On that note, let my violate my own tenant of self-notation.
Tonight, was one of those nights, one of those awesome nights. I will refer to them lovingly as "Christmas nights," even though they can occur at any time of year. These nights seem to increase in frequency in the fall and winter, they are the nights when beauty collides with comfort and creates...something else...something perfect. I went to Mass tonight. I like Mass, even in its somewhat cold, traditional form. But tonight wasn't cold or traditional, tonight was, I guess, contemporary Mass. There was a choir of teens singing in the back, playing guitar and keyboard and some bongo drums. There were a lot of people sitting together in a well lit room, all listening attentively. It was so wonderful, yet subtle. There was no overwhelming beauty, there was no overwhelming theological implication, just simple happiness.
That is sometimes such a luxury, the simplicity of happiness. You know, those moments when you can just lightly smile and it warms you to the core. I had a lot of those moments in New York, maybe that's why I liked being alone when I was there, because I could just be simply happy. I could walk around aimlessly and smile at strangers and listen to street musicians and take in, not the sites and sounds or the hustle and bustle, but just the sheer simplicity and normalcy that still existed in that most hectic of locales. I remember the first time I went off by myself, I went to Harold Square and just sat in a small park and read for a little bit. All around me were honking horns and swirling lights and billboards and noise and everything distracting you can imagine, but in that little square, that little concrete island in the midst of the streets, everything felt so still, so quiet. I remember smiling at two middle-aged women that night while I sat there, and the whole moment was just beautiful, not for any profound reason, it just was.
Maybe that's what I mean by "Christmas nights," nights that just are, that just exist without frills or frustrations. Maybe they remind of Christmas because of all the free time that a kid has over Christmas break. The evenings are so relaxed as a kid, no homework, no school, nothing, just the beauty of another snow-filled tomorrow to look forward to. Those were good times. I like being reminded of those.
I know that I'm rambling, but forgive your former self future me. I think all of those previous thoughts led me into something more spiritual and something that connects with the sermon I heard this morning (which may have been the best sermon I've ever heard). I really love when God calls himself "I am." I think it's profound and perfect. Who is God? He is. What is God? He is. Nothing else, pure simplicity, the simplest of simple sentences. And that sentence probably carries more theological weight than anything else, anywhere, ever. So subtle and simple, yet so powerful and complex, the perfect paradox.
That's what I love about God. It's not the only thing, but its a big one. All of the beautiful paradoxes, creating a poetic, deep, meaningful, infinite, powerful, and able God. A God who can do what he wants and will do what he says and will love you along the way. In the prophets (I'm thinking Joel) there's a passage where with one hand God is shielding his people and comforting them, while with the other he is laying waste to the enemies of his people, and his people, for all intents and purposes, deserved the wrath of their enemies. God as mother and almighty warrior. God of compassion who is wrathful beyond all measures. God of justice who pours out grace and mercy upon his people who deserve death. All paradoxical, yet all real, all one.
My belief in this God, my love of this God is why I believe myself to be part of the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" no matter how many sects it tries to break itself into. I believe that God can do what he wants to do and that he is able to do it, and that he, in his infinite beautiful paradoxes, can make sense of what we've done as Christ's bride. I believe that God is able to keep us from stumbling, to keep us standing tall and celebrating in his glorious presence (the Doxology of Jude).
I don't know if any of this made sense future me, but if anyone can figure out what I'm trying to say it's me. To him be the glory and the honor and the power, forever and ever. Amen!
Monday, November 24, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Soccer Metaphors and Discernment (aka Playing the Game the Right Way)
Well, that was a lovely two month break. Apparently, I am not much of a writer when I actually have homework to do. At least I have something to write about right now.
In the past 3 years and change I have changed a lot of my views about God, the world, people, politics, the church, and many other important aspects of life. However, I have encountered a problem which seems to run rampant around those (like myself) who have augmented or changed their views. We are not better people then we were before. We may speak more eloquently and more intelligently, and we may convey an air of knowledge about certain subjects which we in no way deserve (even though in our hearts we believe that we do), but we are not transformed. We are merely changed. My initial thought then is that this path was not the path to transformation. It was simply the path to arrogance and inside jokes. The path to sneers for those who we view to be in error.
But if thats the case, if thats all we gained from our expanded knowledge of God, Christ, and the world at large, then what was the point? Because, if I remember correctly, thats exactly where I was before, albeit with less intelligent and cogent responses. I truly doubt that the path to transformation is the path of becoming a more educated fool. So where was the error? Where was the fault?
The fault lies in the fact that the goal never changed. The goal, unspoken as it were, was to be right. The goal was to win. The goal was to better, smarter, and more worthy. The goal never changed. And to be honest, we never had a chance to achieve that goal. It was beyond our reach, and would be forever. This is not to say that the goals are bad, in fact they are good, they just aren't real.
So what should the goal be? Well, here's the hard part. It's never really the same, because in the end, we don't score. We help, we aid, we assist, we mess up, but we don't finish. God does. God achieves the goal, God puts the ball in the back of the net (to continue the soccer metaphor). God wins. Our goal changes in relation to where God is acting. Our goal must be discerned on a moment to moment basis. Sometimes our goal should be to act and act strongly, sometimes its to simply to stay out of the way.
I don't how theologically accurate the soccer metaphor is, but I still kind of like it even though all metaphors eventually break down. So this new moving goal is where all the learning fits in. This is where all the ability to think and reason helps, as well as the ability to feel peoples pain and emotionally aid them*. We do all this so that we know when and how to help out. We do it all so we know what to do. There is no flow chart of how to follow God. There is no base level plan or pattern on what we should do. It changes from moment to moment, situation to situation, and person to person. We must stop focusing on what we know, and start focusing on what that knowledge tells us to do as part of God's eventual goal.
*I have a pet peeve which I want to put out here. I feel like sometimes people deride emotion for the sake of intellect. Let me be the one to say that neither is perfect and neither is better than the other. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses, and they can only work if used together. Emotion has led many people to poor decisions, but so has reason. Neither is infallible. They are equal. I hope that I do not sway in either direction, though I fear I sway too often towards the emotional side. In the same way, neither the community or the individual is greater than the other. They are equal. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses, they are only good when together. We only emphasize the communal aspects of society right now because it is a backlash against the hyper-individualized society we have grown up a part of. Individualism is not bad, community is not good, they are neutral.
I think that's pretty much all I have for now. I don't know if any of that made sense or if it helped you at all. I hope it did. It was nice for me to get out and write down.
Peace and love,
Ben
In the past 3 years and change I have changed a lot of my views about God, the world, people, politics, the church, and many other important aspects of life. However, I have encountered a problem which seems to run rampant around those (like myself) who have augmented or changed their views. We are not better people then we were before. We may speak more eloquently and more intelligently, and we may convey an air of knowledge about certain subjects which we in no way deserve (even though in our hearts we believe that we do), but we are not transformed. We are merely changed. My initial thought then is that this path was not the path to transformation. It was simply the path to arrogance and inside jokes. The path to sneers for those who we view to be in error.
But if thats the case, if thats all we gained from our expanded knowledge of God, Christ, and the world at large, then what was the point? Because, if I remember correctly, thats exactly where I was before, albeit with less intelligent and cogent responses. I truly doubt that the path to transformation is the path of becoming a more educated fool. So where was the error? Where was the fault?
The fault lies in the fact that the goal never changed. The goal, unspoken as it were, was to be right. The goal was to win. The goal was to better, smarter, and more worthy. The goal never changed. And to be honest, we never had a chance to achieve that goal. It was beyond our reach, and would be forever. This is not to say that the goals are bad, in fact they are good, they just aren't real.
So what should the goal be? Well, here's the hard part. It's never really the same, because in the end, we don't score. We help, we aid, we assist, we mess up, but we don't finish. God does. God achieves the goal, God puts the ball in the back of the net (to continue the soccer metaphor). God wins. Our goal changes in relation to where God is acting. Our goal must be discerned on a moment to moment basis. Sometimes our goal should be to act and act strongly, sometimes its to simply to stay out of the way.
I don't how theologically accurate the soccer metaphor is, but I still kind of like it even though all metaphors eventually break down. So this new moving goal is where all the learning fits in. This is where all the ability to think and reason helps, as well as the ability to feel peoples pain and emotionally aid them*. We do all this so that we know when and how to help out. We do it all so we know what to do. There is no flow chart of how to follow God. There is no base level plan or pattern on what we should do. It changes from moment to moment, situation to situation, and person to person. We must stop focusing on what we know, and start focusing on what that knowledge tells us to do as part of God's eventual goal.
*I have a pet peeve which I want to put out here. I feel like sometimes people deride emotion for the sake of intellect. Let me be the one to say that neither is perfect and neither is better than the other. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses, and they can only work if used together. Emotion has led many people to poor decisions, but so has reason. Neither is infallible. They are equal. I hope that I do not sway in either direction, though I fear I sway too often towards the emotional side. In the same way, neither the community or the individual is greater than the other. They are equal. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses, they are only good when together. We only emphasize the communal aspects of society right now because it is a backlash against the hyper-individualized society we have grown up a part of. Individualism is not bad, community is not good, they are neutral.
I think that's pretty much all I have for now. I don't know if any of that made sense or if it helped you at all. I hope it did. It was nice for me to get out and write down.
Peace and love,
Ben
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Platitude Sounds Like Platypus For $200 Alex
(Note: This post came after reading a poem by Jenna Compton. Its not actually related to the poem at all, but the initial idea sprang from reading it. It was a good poem though. It's on her blog, you should read it.)
http://www.jennacompton.blogspot.com/
I wonder how much of what we say, we actually mean. And no, this is not a discussion about lying. Well, in a sense it is, lying to ourselves, but not outright, boldly telling untruths. I mean when we say things, and say them with the best of ideals in mind, but truly don't mean them. Things where if we really dug into what we were saying and studied what it meant for us, and for the world, and if our actions reflect our speech, we would realize that we don't mean it, any of it.
For example, when people say things about how we should love everybody, no matter what they've done. Or when people say things about hating the sinner, but not the sin. I want to be that ideal, I want to do those things when I say them (and I assume other people want to follow through when they say them), but if I am honest with myself, I don't mean them. Or at least, I don't act as if I mean them. And honestly, if nothing changes, does it really matter what you said. I say all that to say this, I am not good at following through on these kinds of platitudes. I suck at it. I judge people on my own personal sliding scale. I distrust God, when I know that he knows what he's doing. I don't love everyone equally. I hate sinners, but only if they do sins which I can't get past. I lose sight of God and add in to the destruction and decay of the world around me (physically, mentally, and spiritually).
And I'm not different. I'm just like you. Just like the church, just like people in history. Everyone has their strengths, but everyone has their weaknesses. And that's kind of the point. What's the point of a savior if we already think we're good enough to not need saving? What's the point of a spirit if we don't need to be lead? What's the point of God if we don't need him? And yes, this sounds like yet another platitude, but at a certain level, these phrases transcend mere triteness and become something real and in so doing, they become bigger. And now, its not a platitude, its an understanding of how the bigger picture works.
I don't know if I'm making a point, maybe I am, maybe I'm making multiple points, but I feel like this is a big deal. I've been reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer some this summer (not enough, I need to read more), but he makes a point about how certain phrases make a lot of sense if they are the end result of the process, but don't mean the same thing as the input for a process. For instance, when Martin Luther says "Sin and sin boldly" (I may be paraphrasing, not sure), it only makes sense as the finally of a process. If that's the starting point, then it seems as if we should just sin all the time, because God will forgive us of all we do. So who cares what we do, because God loves us and he will save us. So go ahead and sin it up. Do whatever. But that's not what it means. Luther went through a process to get to that point. After going through the process, a process similar to the one which I feel I am currently experiencing, he found that we are all bound to sin. We will sin, it is inevitable, it is part of our fallen nature. And that instead of drowning in sin and sorrow, and handcuffing ourselves with worthless guilt, we should sin boldly in front of God and everyone, so that God's grace might be made known through our failures. It is not permission to sin, but acceptance of our nature and an acute awareness of God's grace and mercy. And that is just one example, there are many others.
So that's where I am for now, or maybe that's where I was, I don't quite know because I seem to be moving a lot. In my own mind I am the amateur philosophy equivalent of Bob Dylan (some of you get this joke, thank you). There is a song by Mae that says, "Say anything, but say what you mean." That's good advice. Maybe we should say what we mean, but I wonder if we even know anymore. I wonder if we are even aware of what we know, and what we simply regurgitate without ever fully digesting it. Thank God, that he sent his Spirit to us. Or else we would be so lost. Thank God we still hear echoes of a voice.
May we say what we mean. May we mean what we say. And may the spirit guide us even when we've lost the way. Amen.
Peace and love,
Ben
P.S. I feel obliged to mention that the posts that I've had this summer are not really reflective of my mood/mindset for the summer. I know at least one person who seemed to think I was depressed because of what I've been writing. Trust me, I'm not. I think I may actually be at the most balanced (not stable, God doesn't seem to like stable) I've been in a long time. For the first time in let's say 2 and a half years since this kind of spiritual renaissance has been happening I feel truly confident in God and optimistic for where this journey heads. So, I just wanted to assure everybody (aka 2 of you) that I am not down or depressed, I am actually quite chipper (I miss John Smoltz) and hopeful. I hope everybody is having a wonderful day. Smile more, it makes the day better.
http://www.jennacompton.blogspot.com/
I wonder how much of what we say, we actually mean. And no, this is not a discussion about lying. Well, in a sense it is, lying to ourselves, but not outright, boldly telling untruths. I mean when we say things, and say them with the best of ideals in mind, but truly don't mean them. Things where if we really dug into what we were saying and studied what it meant for us, and for the world, and if our actions reflect our speech, we would realize that we don't mean it, any of it.
For example, when people say things about how we should love everybody, no matter what they've done. Or when people say things about hating the sinner, but not the sin. I want to be that ideal, I want to do those things when I say them (and I assume other people want to follow through when they say them), but if I am honest with myself, I don't mean them. Or at least, I don't act as if I mean them. And honestly, if nothing changes, does it really matter what you said. I say all that to say this, I am not good at following through on these kinds of platitudes. I suck at it. I judge people on my own personal sliding scale. I distrust God, when I know that he knows what he's doing. I don't love everyone equally. I hate sinners, but only if they do sins which I can't get past. I lose sight of God and add in to the destruction and decay of the world around me (physically, mentally, and spiritually).
And I'm not different. I'm just like you. Just like the church, just like people in history. Everyone has their strengths, but everyone has their weaknesses. And that's kind of the point. What's the point of a savior if we already think we're good enough to not need saving? What's the point of a spirit if we don't need to be lead? What's the point of God if we don't need him? And yes, this sounds like yet another platitude, but at a certain level, these phrases transcend mere triteness and become something real and in so doing, they become bigger. And now, its not a platitude, its an understanding of how the bigger picture works.
I don't know if I'm making a point, maybe I am, maybe I'm making multiple points, but I feel like this is a big deal. I've been reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer some this summer (not enough, I need to read more), but he makes a point about how certain phrases make a lot of sense if they are the end result of the process, but don't mean the same thing as the input for a process. For instance, when Martin Luther says "Sin and sin boldly" (I may be paraphrasing, not sure), it only makes sense as the finally of a process. If that's the starting point, then it seems as if we should just sin all the time, because God will forgive us of all we do. So who cares what we do, because God loves us and he will save us. So go ahead and sin it up. Do whatever. But that's not what it means. Luther went through a process to get to that point. After going through the process, a process similar to the one which I feel I am currently experiencing, he found that we are all bound to sin. We will sin, it is inevitable, it is part of our fallen nature. And that instead of drowning in sin and sorrow, and handcuffing ourselves with worthless guilt, we should sin boldly in front of God and everyone, so that God's grace might be made known through our failures. It is not permission to sin, but acceptance of our nature and an acute awareness of God's grace and mercy. And that is just one example, there are many others.
So that's where I am for now, or maybe that's where I was, I don't quite know because I seem to be moving a lot. In my own mind I am the amateur philosophy equivalent of Bob Dylan (some of you get this joke, thank you). There is a song by Mae that says, "Say anything, but say what you mean." That's good advice. Maybe we should say what we mean, but I wonder if we even know anymore. I wonder if we are even aware of what we know, and what we simply regurgitate without ever fully digesting it. Thank God, that he sent his Spirit to us. Or else we would be so lost. Thank God we still hear echoes of a voice.
May we say what we mean. May we mean what we say. And may the spirit guide us even when we've lost the way. Amen.
Peace and love,
Ben
P.S. I feel obliged to mention that the posts that I've had this summer are not really reflective of my mood/mindset for the summer. I know at least one person who seemed to think I was depressed because of what I've been writing. Trust me, I'm not. I think I may actually be at the most balanced (not stable, God doesn't seem to like stable) I've been in a long time. For the first time in let's say 2 and a half years since this kind of spiritual renaissance has been happening I feel truly confident in God and optimistic for where this journey heads. So, I just wanted to assure everybody (aka 2 of you) that I am not down or depressed, I am actually quite chipper (I miss John Smoltz) and hopeful. I hope everybody is having a wonderful day. Smile more, it makes the day better.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Giving In and the Chic Rebellion of People Who Don't Know Anything (Like Me)
How do you know when you've gone too far? How do you know when to stop? I have long wondered this. As most of you (read: all of you) know I have moved over the course of my college career from being fairly conservative to pretty darn liberal*. Sometimes this disturbs me. Because if I am to be believed now, then the person I was 3 to 5 years ago was a horribly inept and stupid person. However, that person occasionally did good things. And the person I am now, occasionally (read: often) does stupid things. So logically, why should the person I am now be considered an authority of what and who is right and what and who is wrong? The answer is I shouldn't.
*I don't know what to do about the labels conservative and liberal. A lot of people say that they hate the terms, but I wonder whether they hate it because they really think they are inadequate (which they are) or because it is chic to say that one doesn't like those labels. The popularity of rebellion is a big problem which I will discuss later.
I don't know anything*. At least when I'm honest. More often than not, I give off the arrogant appearance that I know much, but really, I'm just passable at bull****. That's frightening because I base a lot of my ideals and philosophies (I can only hope that these noble thoughts actually will become actions, pray for me), on my logical acceptance of others theses on life. But what if I am stupid, what if I don't know the difference, what if I can't be trusted? Well, I'm screwed then. I'm really screwed.
*Yet another chic enlightened college statement. Bonhoeffer makes the statement that saying "All I know is that I know nothing" means something completely different when it comes out of the mouth of experience than when it comes from a young man. He's right. I can't know that I know nothing. To say that I know nothing is to short my life and my pursuit of knowledge. Once again, Bonhoeffer makes the statement that this statement is fine as the output of a life of pursuit, but is terrible if used as the input for a life not yet lived. It's my use of phrases such as these that make me wonder if intelligent elderly people find us completely intolerable.
How do I beat this? Well, I don't. I think that's the problem of Christianity (there I go thinking again, its a vicious cycle). The whole point of the religion* is that we, as followers, admit our complete failure and inability and surrender to someone who knows better. We give up our thoughts for his, our acts for his, our wants for his, our needs for his, and ourselves for him. So that's it, I surrender. I give up everything that I want, because I can't trust myself. Because I will just keep messing up and reversing course and bouncing off of walls. Because my head will be nothing but a Red Bull induced meltdown if this doesn't happen. Because I can't logically tell myself that I know what I'm doing. So I jump off the edge...
*Another chic/cliche thing coming up. I am tired of the whole "It's a relationship not a religion" thing. Not because its untrue. But because it still confines the whole notion of Christ into a bubble which we understand. One word does not and cannot confine Christ and all that he is. It can't. Yes, Christ is more than a religion, but Christ is also more than a relationship. He's just more.................
Peace and love,
Ben
P.S. Two more quick points that just didn't fit into the overall scheme.
1) When does a truism turn into a cliche? I just wonder. Does it happen when people start using it as a mantra, but it no longer MEANS anything to them? Does it happen the same way as when an indy band makes it big and then they suck? Basically, does the truth sell out when it becomes popular? I think this is interesting. Because I think (arrgh...seriously, I can't stop), Christianity stopped being real when it became big time. I mean some people still believed it, but a lot of people joined because it was chic and it became cliche.
2) I am kind of weirded out by the cool rebelliousness of college kids (and yes, I included myself in this). It's just strange. All of a sudden college kids (like me) are aggressively pacifist (ironic)/care about free trade/care about nationalism/care about capitalism. How many really believe what they say? How many actually care enough to change something about themselves? How many just say it because it means they can hang out with the cool kids in the coffee shops? How many just say it because it gets knowing chuckles and appropriately timed sneers from their friends? I really wonder, because I wonder which side I'm actually on. I wonder what I actually believe enough to change. I wonder if I just say things because they press the right buttons. Am I actually growing, or am I just better at playing the social game? That, my friends, is a terrifying thought.
*I don't know what to do about the labels conservative and liberal. A lot of people say that they hate the terms, but I wonder whether they hate it because they really think they are inadequate (which they are) or because it is chic to say that one doesn't like those labels. The popularity of rebellion is a big problem which I will discuss later.
I don't know anything*. At least when I'm honest. More often than not, I give off the arrogant appearance that I know much, but really, I'm just passable at bull****. That's frightening because I base a lot of my ideals and philosophies (I can only hope that these noble thoughts actually will become actions, pray for me), on my logical acceptance of others theses on life. But what if I am stupid, what if I don't know the difference, what if I can't be trusted? Well, I'm screwed then. I'm really screwed.
*Yet another chic enlightened college statement. Bonhoeffer makes the statement that saying "All I know is that I know nothing" means something completely different when it comes out of the mouth of experience than when it comes from a young man. He's right. I can't know that I know nothing. To say that I know nothing is to short my life and my pursuit of knowledge. Once again, Bonhoeffer makes the statement that this statement is fine as the output of a life of pursuit, but is terrible if used as the input for a life not yet lived. It's my use of phrases such as these that make me wonder if intelligent elderly people find us completely intolerable.
How do I beat this? Well, I don't. I think that's the problem of Christianity (there I go thinking again, its a vicious cycle). The whole point of the religion* is that we, as followers, admit our complete failure and inability and surrender to someone who knows better. We give up our thoughts for his, our acts for his, our wants for his, our needs for his, and ourselves for him. So that's it, I surrender. I give up everything that I want, because I can't trust myself. Because I will just keep messing up and reversing course and bouncing off of walls. Because my head will be nothing but a Red Bull induced meltdown if this doesn't happen. Because I can't logically tell myself that I know what I'm doing. So I jump off the edge...
*Another chic/cliche thing coming up. I am tired of the whole "It's a relationship not a religion" thing. Not because its untrue. But because it still confines the whole notion of Christ into a bubble which we understand. One word does not and cannot confine Christ and all that he is. It can't. Yes, Christ is more than a religion, but Christ is also more than a relationship. He's just more.................
Peace and love,
Ben
P.S. Two more quick points that just didn't fit into the overall scheme.
1) When does a truism turn into a cliche? I just wonder. Does it happen when people start using it as a mantra, but it no longer MEANS anything to them? Does it happen the same way as when an indy band makes it big and then they suck? Basically, does the truth sell out when it becomes popular? I think this is interesting. Because I think (arrgh...seriously, I can't stop), Christianity stopped being real when it became big time. I mean some people still believed it, but a lot of people joined because it was chic and it became cliche.
2) I am kind of weirded out by the cool rebelliousness of college kids (and yes, I included myself in this). It's just strange. All of a sudden college kids (like me) are aggressively pacifist (ironic)/care about free trade/care about nationalism/care about capitalism. How many really believe what they say? How many actually care enough to change something about themselves? How many just say it because it means they can hang out with the cool kids in the coffee shops? How many just say it because it gets knowing chuckles and appropriately timed sneers from their friends? I really wonder, because I wonder which side I'm actually on. I wonder what I actually believe enough to change. I wonder if I just say things because they press the right buttons. Am I actually growing, or am I just better at playing the social game? That, my friends, is a terrifying thought.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Things That Keep Me Up At Night (aka The Trappings of Someone Who Thinks Too Highly of Himself)
I'm really frustrated tonight. And by frustrated, I mean scared, because thats what people mean when they say they are frustrated. They are simply scared that things won't turn out the way the want it. That is scary, because it means they will turn out some other, less optimal way. Nobody like uncertainty, its frustrating and therefore scary.
Why am I frustrated you might ask? Well, its kind of complicated. I could give a simple answer and say, "I'm frustrated because of work" or "I'm frustrated by money" or "My parents are frustrating". But thats not it, its something bigger, something haunting. Its two really big problems in my life colliding to make me almost quesy (sp?) with frustration and fear.
Problem Number One
I am terrified of looking back on my life in fifty or sixty years and going, "Oh, thats it? That's all I did." This scares me to no end. Sometimes I literally can't sleep at night because I am so scared of underachieving. I want to do great things. I want to be part of something bigger than me, something that changes people, changes the world. So I'm terrified of my life being less than meaningful. I'm terrified of dying and people shedding a tear and going on their way never to remember me. Yes, this is a selfish thing, but it is honest as well. I wish I didn't think like that, I wish I could simply be happy with my lot in life. But I think its bigger than that, I know (we'll get to this in a second) that I have a lot of potential, I am terrified of wasting that potential and continually asking myself what could have been. I don't know if other people think about this, but it freaks me out.
Problem Number Two (and its ironic tie ins as the root cause of problem number one)
I never, ever, ever, ever go 100% on anything. If you know me, even in passing, this is not a surprise. However, the reason behind it might be. It isn't that I'm lazy (well I am at times, but thats not everything), it's that I am scared that I will go full throttle, in with everything that I have and that I will fail. I can't handle that. I can't handle pushing myself to the limit, only to find that the limit is closer than it appears. I don't want to wake up to the reality that I have limitations. So the coping mechanism I have created is not trying. I don't try hard, so if I fail, I can always say that it was because I didn't try hard enough. This is a little masochistic if you think about it, I always hold some in reserve so that I can accept the blame for failure. That's weird. This will explain why I almost inevitably end up with grades between 89.5 and 90. I will try just hard enough to do well, but not hard enough to max myself out. I really don't think I could handle risking everything and failing.
This brings to the root cause of the frustration. These problems intertwine and feed each other. I don't try hard enough which means that I inevitably don't do great things, but I don't try hard enough so to avoid learning that there are somethings I can't do. This is a vicious circle. How does one break the mold? I don't know, but i'm frustrated, scared, and I really don't know what to do.
This fear of failure (most obvious name for it) has come clearly into focus during my internship at South Brooke this summer. In this endeavor, my success or failure is not tied to my personal effort. I can succeed and do so greatly with little to no effort, and I can fail magnificently even if I put my heart and soul into a project (not that I would know, because I haven't, remember thats the problem, I'm scared of this). This, with my worldview of success and failure as it is, messes with my mind. I can do nothing and have the greatest success (which is what has happened this summer, the projects I spend the least amount of time on have invariably been the best), or I can try to succeed and fail (my biggest projects have been miserable failures). This creates a situation where my self-esteem, which is closely tied to the correlation between my effort and my success, plummets out of control. My self-esteem is, mistakenly, based on the idea that I can succeed with a small amount of effort, and succeed even more if I just tried harder. So this job, with the success completely unrelated to my work, is destroying my self-esteem. Not to mention that I feel personally accountable for every failure (even though every logical person on the planet knows that a 21 year old summer intern is not expected, nor anticipated to be successful). So, I'm frustrated and I'm a little depressed. This is a vicious cycle, but hopefully noticing that it exists can be the first step in its downfall.
So, I hope this wasn't too depressing (or potentially too narcissistic) for my reader's taste. I am just having a bad evening and needed a forum to vent. I would love to hear your own personal struggles or your recommendations on how I can fix mine. Thanks for listening (read: reading).
Peace and love,
Ben
Why am I frustrated you might ask? Well, its kind of complicated. I could give a simple answer and say, "I'm frustrated because of work" or "I'm frustrated by money" or "My parents are frustrating". But thats not it, its something bigger, something haunting. Its two really big problems in my life colliding to make me almost quesy (sp?) with frustration and fear.
Problem Number One
I am terrified of looking back on my life in fifty or sixty years and going, "Oh, thats it? That's all I did." This scares me to no end. Sometimes I literally can't sleep at night because I am so scared of underachieving. I want to do great things. I want to be part of something bigger than me, something that changes people, changes the world. So I'm terrified of my life being less than meaningful. I'm terrified of dying and people shedding a tear and going on their way never to remember me. Yes, this is a selfish thing, but it is honest as well. I wish I didn't think like that, I wish I could simply be happy with my lot in life. But I think its bigger than that, I know (we'll get to this in a second) that I have a lot of potential, I am terrified of wasting that potential and continually asking myself what could have been. I don't know if other people think about this, but it freaks me out.
Problem Number Two (and its ironic tie ins as the root cause of problem number one)
I never, ever, ever, ever go 100% on anything. If you know me, even in passing, this is not a surprise. However, the reason behind it might be. It isn't that I'm lazy (well I am at times, but thats not everything), it's that I am scared that I will go full throttle, in with everything that I have and that I will fail. I can't handle that. I can't handle pushing myself to the limit, only to find that the limit is closer than it appears. I don't want to wake up to the reality that I have limitations. So the coping mechanism I have created is not trying. I don't try hard, so if I fail, I can always say that it was because I didn't try hard enough. This is a little masochistic if you think about it, I always hold some in reserve so that I can accept the blame for failure. That's weird. This will explain why I almost inevitably end up with grades between 89.5 and 90. I will try just hard enough to do well, but not hard enough to max myself out. I really don't think I could handle risking everything and failing.
This brings to the root cause of the frustration. These problems intertwine and feed each other. I don't try hard enough which means that I inevitably don't do great things, but I don't try hard enough so to avoid learning that there are somethings I can't do. This is a vicious circle. How does one break the mold? I don't know, but i'm frustrated, scared, and I really don't know what to do.
This fear of failure (most obvious name for it) has come clearly into focus during my internship at South Brooke this summer. In this endeavor, my success or failure is not tied to my personal effort. I can succeed and do so greatly with little to no effort, and I can fail magnificently even if I put my heart and soul into a project (not that I would know, because I haven't, remember thats the problem, I'm scared of this). This, with my worldview of success and failure as it is, messes with my mind. I can do nothing and have the greatest success (which is what has happened this summer, the projects I spend the least amount of time on have invariably been the best), or I can try to succeed and fail (my biggest projects have been miserable failures). This creates a situation where my self-esteem, which is closely tied to the correlation between my effort and my success, plummets out of control. My self-esteem is, mistakenly, based on the idea that I can succeed with a small amount of effort, and succeed even more if I just tried harder. So this job, with the success completely unrelated to my work, is destroying my self-esteem. Not to mention that I feel personally accountable for every failure (even though every logical person on the planet knows that a 21 year old summer intern is not expected, nor anticipated to be successful). So, I'm frustrated and I'm a little depressed. This is a vicious cycle, but hopefully noticing that it exists can be the first step in its downfall.
So, I hope this wasn't too depressing (or potentially too narcissistic) for my reader's taste. I am just having a bad evening and needed a forum to vent. I would love to hear your own personal struggles or your recommendations on how I can fix mine. Thanks for listening (read: reading).
Peace and love,
Ben
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Sean Connery, Heroin Addiction, Love Stories, And Other Things That Make Me Question Our Culture's Collective Sanity
Before I start with anything important or serious, I wanted to make a couple of random observations, predominantly about sports, culture, and other things.
First, I miss Sean Connery. Don't ask why Sean Connery came to my mind (it involved a thought process that involved both Daniel Stern from City Slickers and A.C. Green of basketball and virginity fame), but I really do miss him. Then I thought about my favorite Sean Connery movie and known came to mind. Is that weird? Sean Connery just seems like such a transcendent actor that he should just have scads of great, legacy defining roles. But, when I looked it up, he has James Bond, and I have never seen one of his Bond films. With that said, I still miss him, if only as the creative material for one of SNL's best caricatures.
Second, I think there needs to be a readjustment of the scale for fame. I am sick and tired of hearing commercials and promos proclaim something to be "World Famous" when I have never heard of it. I tend to think of myself as fairly tuned in to the culture at large, so doesn't that mean I should be aware of "World Famous" things. Additionally, doesn't something have to be discussable (probably not a word) in order to be "World Famous". Things that don't spark discussion aren't "World Famous", they are simply present or perhaps ever present. So basically, I'm saying there needs to be a rule about when something can be called "World Famous". To echo Bill Simmons, this needs to happen.
As a corollary, MTV and other hype machines need to greatly, greatly reform their use of the word superstar. A superstar must be transcendent, they must be bigger than everything around them, in other words they must be a Super version of a Star. In the world of music, Bono is a superstar, Chris Brown...not a superstar, perhaps not even a full blown star. In basketball, Kobe Bryant is a superstar, Desmond Mason...not a superstar. Have I made my point? And, by the way, those two examples are things I have actually heard either on TV or on the radio.
Third, and the last of my random thoughts, sports radio personalities should be banned from using hyperbole and/or asking any questions where there is an obvious yes/no answer. For those of you who do not know, sports radio hosts have an annoying habit of creating mock "controversies" to drum up discussion. However, sometimes these seem desperate and absurd. Today, I heard a host prompt argument by saying that the White Sox/Cubs rivalry is bigger than Red Sox/Yankees. And the answer, without any hesitation, is no, it isn't. This isn't a discussion. Ever. Never. The pinnacle of this stupid hyperbolic prompting came during the NBA Finals when numerous call-in shows discussed whether Kobe Bryant was better than Michael Jordan. The answer is no. Ever. Never. Kobe Bryant is not, will not be, is not in the same conversation with, could not hold the jock, should not be allowed to move into the same neighborhood as Michael Jordan. I mean, just no. I'm basically saying that this needs to stop, there are more things to talk about, even if we (as sports fans) do continue to ignore almost everything about the larger world.
And just for good measure, I've decided to add a rant about oil and offshore drilling. Our country is addicted to oil. I don't think this can be argued. If you want to argue it, try and I will listen. But I am going to assume it can't be, because I haven't seen anyone say anything convincing against this assumption. Well, lately our lovely political masterminds have once again pushed forward the idea of drilling in Alaska or on the continental shelf. To quote Jon Stewart this is like saying, "I have a cocaine problem....I'm out of cocaine. Let's turn the kid's room into a cocainery." Let me add one more thing, I think arguing about gas prices is moronic and is the equivalent to a heroin addict complaining about the price of heroin. Yes, it is bad that it's making you broke, however its worse that you're ADDICTED TO HEROIN. So this is basically me saying that we (meaning I as well) have an addiction and a problem. I wonder where oil rehab is, I bet its in Sri Lanka.
So on to bigger things, I'm finally going to respond to Daniel's comment from 3 weeks ago (it's a little further down the page, its the only post with two comments). I am timely and efficient. Daniel made one core argument about that post that I wanted to address. Daniel took exception to my characterization of the Bible as a love story. He stated that if the Bible is simply a love story, like a novel, it loses all of its prescriptive ability in our lives. Daniel has a point, if the Bible is read as a novel, it loses the ability to tell us how to live. If it is simply a moral story, a love story even, it becomes a recommendation more than an authority. But that wasn't quite what I meant by love story.
The Bible is full of multiple different literary styles. There are letters like those in the New Testament, poetry like Psalms, ancient historical chronicles, books of law, books of what can best be described as oral tradition (Genesis, Exodus), and the completely un-classifiable (probably not a word) prophetic books. So I guess I disagree with the idea of the Bible as a novel, and if I gave the impression that the Bible should be read in this manor, I did not intend to. When I said the Bible is a love story, I meant it in a larger sense then a story in a book. I meant it as an all-encompassing ideal, like when we talk about the story of our lifes.
The Bible is the raw and often frightening account of an all-powerful deity, who loves his people in a way that we cannot understand. And it isn't love in the sense of romance or even friendship, its something much larger. It is the kind of angry, intense, fierce, passionate, snot-bubble crying, cut the tension with a knife, conflicting, terrifying yet comforting, "I will follow you into the dark", jealous, heart wrenching, soul searching, bottom of the ocean to the top of the mountains, scrambling, scrapping, brilliantly radiating love. Its the love of mother, father, sister, brother, lover, husband, wife, friend, master, servant and every other relationship known to man.
So that's what I mean by love story. I mean that the Bible gives us a glimpse of this love through a multitude of mediums and all the time tells of the greatness of God's love. And unlike many think, the Bible is not equivalent to God. It isn't all powerful, it isn't the only revelation, there is far more to God than the Bible can teach us. The Bible is a sacrament, it is something that helps us come closer to God. Something that allows the veil between heaven and earth (between Zion and Jerusalem to use Hebrew terms) to become thin enough or even lifted so that we can see into the sanctuary of God. The Bible is not how God leads us, it is how we get close to him so that he can lead us. It's good stuff people, real good stuff.
Peace and love,
Ben
P.S. I hope all this made sense. Very few of my thoughts today, or yesterday for that matter, have been too coherent.
First, I miss Sean Connery. Don't ask why Sean Connery came to my mind (it involved a thought process that involved both Daniel Stern from City Slickers and A.C. Green of basketball and virginity fame), but I really do miss him. Then I thought about my favorite Sean Connery movie and known came to mind. Is that weird? Sean Connery just seems like such a transcendent actor that he should just have scads of great, legacy defining roles. But, when I looked it up, he has James Bond, and I have never seen one of his Bond films. With that said, I still miss him, if only as the creative material for one of SNL's best caricatures.
Second, I think there needs to be a readjustment of the scale for fame. I am sick and tired of hearing commercials and promos proclaim something to be "World Famous" when I have never heard of it. I tend to think of myself as fairly tuned in to the culture at large, so doesn't that mean I should be aware of "World Famous" things. Additionally, doesn't something have to be discussable (probably not a word) in order to be "World Famous". Things that don't spark discussion aren't "World Famous", they are simply present or perhaps ever present. So basically, I'm saying there needs to be a rule about when something can be called "World Famous". To echo Bill Simmons, this needs to happen.
As a corollary, MTV and other hype machines need to greatly, greatly reform their use of the word superstar. A superstar must be transcendent, they must be bigger than everything around them, in other words they must be a Super version of a Star. In the world of music, Bono is a superstar, Chris Brown...not a superstar, perhaps not even a full blown star. In basketball, Kobe Bryant is a superstar, Desmond Mason...not a superstar. Have I made my point? And, by the way, those two examples are things I have actually heard either on TV or on the radio.
Third, and the last of my random thoughts, sports radio personalities should be banned from using hyperbole and/or asking any questions where there is an obvious yes/no answer. For those of you who do not know, sports radio hosts have an annoying habit of creating mock "controversies" to drum up discussion. However, sometimes these seem desperate and absurd. Today, I heard a host prompt argument by saying that the White Sox/Cubs rivalry is bigger than Red Sox/Yankees. And the answer, without any hesitation, is no, it isn't. This isn't a discussion. Ever. Never. The pinnacle of this stupid hyperbolic prompting came during the NBA Finals when numerous call-in shows discussed whether Kobe Bryant was better than Michael Jordan. The answer is no. Ever. Never. Kobe Bryant is not, will not be, is not in the same conversation with, could not hold the jock, should not be allowed to move into the same neighborhood as Michael Jordan. I mean, just no. I'm basically saying that this needs to stop, there are more things to talk about, even if we (as sports fans) do continue to ignore almost everything about the larger world.
And just for good measure, I've decided to add a rant about oil and offshore drilling. Our country is addicted to oil. I don't think this can be argued. If you want to argue it, try and I will listen. But I am going to assume it can't be, because I haven't seen anyone say anything convincing against this assumption. Well, lately our lovely political masterminds have once again pushed forward the idea of drilling in Alaska or on the continental shelf. To quote Jon Stewart this is like saying, "I have a cocaine problem....I'm out of cocaine. Let's turn the kid's room into a cocainery." Let me add one more thing, I think arguing about gas prices is moronic and is the equivalent to a heroin addict complaining about the price of heroin. Yes, it is bad that it's making you broke, however its worse that you're ADDICTED TO HEROIN. So this is basically me saying that we (meaning I as well) have an addiction and a problem. I wonder where oil rehab is, I bet its in Sri Lanka.
So on to bigger things, I'm finally going to respond to Daniel's comment from 3 weeks ago (it's a little further down the page, its the only post with two comments). I am timely and efficient. Daniel made one core argument about that post that I wanted to address. Daniel took exception to my characterization of the Bible as a love story. He stated that if the Bible is simply a love story, like a novel, it loses all of its prescriptive ability in our lives. Daniel has a point, if the Bible is read as a novel, it loses the ability to tell us how to live. If it is simply a moral story, a love story even, it becomes a recommendation more than an authority. But that wasn't quite what I meant by love story.
The Bible is full of multiple different literary styles. There are letters like those in the New Testament, poetry like Psalms, ancient historical chronicles, books of law, books of what can best be described as oral tradition (Genesis, Exodus), and the completely un-classifiable (probably not a word) prophetic books. So I guess I disagree with the idea of the Bible as a novel, and if I gave the impression that the Bible should be read in this manor, I did not intend to. When I said the Bible is a love story, I meant it in a larger sense then a story in a book. I meant it as an all-encompassing ideal, like when we talk about the story of our lifes.
The Bible is the raw and often frightening account of an all-powerful deity, who loves his people in a way that we cannot understand. And it isn't love in the sense of romance or even friendship, its something much larger. It is the kind of angry, intense, fierce, passionate, snot-bubble crying, cut the tension with a knife, conflicting, terrifying yet comforting, "I will follow you into the dark", jealous, heart wrenching, soul searching, bottom of the ocean to the top of the mountains, scrambling, scrapping, brilliantly radiating love. Its the love of mother, father, sister, brother, lover, husband, wife, friend, master, servant and every other relationship known to man.
So that's what I mean by love story. I mean that the Bible gives us a glimpse of this love through a multitude of mediums and all the time tells of the greatness of God's love. And unlike many think, the Bible is not equivalent to God. It isn't all powerful, it isn't the only revelation, there is far more to God than the Bible can teach us. The Bible is a sacrament, it is something that helps us come closer to God. Something that allows the veil between heaven and earth (between Zion and Jerusalem to use Hebrew terms) to become thin enough or even lifted so that we can see into the sanctuary of God. The Bible is not how God leads us, it is how we get close to him so that he can lead us. It's good stuff people, real good stuff.
Peace and love,
Ben
P.S. I hope all this made sense. Very few of my thoughts today, or yesterday for that matter, have been too coherent.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Validation, Lengthy Baseball Analogies, and The Ballad of Lincoln Ross
So to get right to it there are two things really bouncing around my mind today. One is far lengthier and more confusing then the other, so I will talk about the short one first. The first is happy, and the second is ... not so much.
First, I got to sit and talk with someone today for something on the order of three hours. I had initially gone to meet this guy so that we could go out to lunch and discuss some things about church events*, but we never really made it to lunch or really to the whole church events thing. It was amazing to talk with this guy. Not amazing in that he gave me new insights (which he did) or because of his linguistic skills (which were excellent), but it was amazing because it made me feel validated. It is a special feeling when someone from a completely different background with different outside input comes to the same conclusion on pretty much everything that you believe. It is even better when that person is a respected older man who has lived through much more than myself. I needed this today, I needed someone to make me feel like I wasn't alone, like my ideas were more than youthful ignorance. That's what I got today, it was great.
*I've been using this analogy about baseball for church events and how churches try and get people to attend for awhile and I think it is apt. In baseball, owners and PR people try all kinds of gimmicks to get people to come to games. They will do giveaways, promotions, little games, and all types of other little things to try and get people to games. Sometimes they will even get players, not because they are good, but because they think people will come to see those players for some reason (usually local ties or popularity). Sometimes these are desperate (like Tampa Bay signing Wade Boggs in 1998 because "He's from Tampa!" and "He's a Hall of Famer", nevermind that he's 40 and isn't good). But what actually draws people to baseball games..........BASEBALL! If you want more people to come......be better at baseball! If you want less people to come......be worse at baseball! (Please forget the fact that no one wants fewer people to come.) I think this is incredibly similar the church and especially "church events". We try and organize "fun" things for people to do at the church and things that will "build relationships", but that isn't why people come to church. People come to church for......GOD! See this is why I think churches are declining, church leaders forgot that people come because of God, everything else is secondary and most of everything else is simply superfluous. So churches need to stop trying to "attract" people and need to simply be better at being Christ and talking about God. However, I see where this will be difficult. As one of my friends says, and I agree, "The American church doesn't believe in God." So to all you church people out there, if you're church is dying, maybe it isn't the culture, or the media, or those darned kids, or not having the right events. Maybe it's you.
That was a lengthy rant of a footnote. But we shall soldier on now to the second part of my day. This was the not so good part or at least the frustrating part. After an event at church tonight*chuckles*, a guy came into the church off the streets. His name was Lincoln Ross. He had a story, something about marrying a white girl and her parents being racist and he was from Atlanta. He wanted to go to St. John's*, I said I'd give him a ride, no problem. I forget to mention that during all of this he asks me to pray for him a few times, and I told him I would, and I would help him if I could.
*St. John's is a hospital at 21st and Utica in Tulsa. Don't ask me why he wanted to go to a hospital. I don't know. He said something about the chapel. He mentioned the word atonement, I didn't push for rationale.
So we get in the car and drive towards St. John's. In the car, he tells me that he could stay at the YMCA for $20 a week. I now become suspicious, well to be honest I already was suspicious because that's just how I am. I ask him if he wants me to drive him there, he asks for money, I bristle at the request. You must know, I want to help him, but I don't want to just give him money and leave him. I'll use money to help him, but not unless I know he is legit or I'm paying for somewhere where he can stay.
He then asks me a strange question, "Does the YMCA have rooms?" If he knows how much it costs, shouldn't he know if they have rooms? Now I am openly suspicious, I actually told him that I wanted to help, but didn't really believe him. He protested, of course, giving reasons why he wouldn't lie. I told him I would call and see if the Y had rooms, I really wanted to help. He told me to call the Salvation Army, he knew they had rooms, but he said he didn't think he could stay there because he didn't have a TB card. He then gives me the number (out of his head, kind of odd, I don't know). When I call the person there tells me that he can't stay there because he is DNAFAR. This means "Do Not Admit For Any Reason". I ask when this came in, he says February 2007. Hmmm....Lincoln told me that he had only been in Tulsa for a few months, but a year and a half ago he was kicked out of the Salvation Army shelter. What should I think now? What should I do now?
I decided to drop him off at St. John's, which I had promised I would do. I pulled into the parking lot, told him that I knew he was not being honest. He protested more and eventually tried to manipulate me by asking me what a real Christian would do, and asking me to pray for him. I told him we could pray together, and we did. I asked God to give him strength and help and to give me strength and discernment. He prayed to make me a better person and that someone would give him some money. What should I have done? I talked to Bob afterwards and he said that Lincoln was one of the best users he had ever seen. He said he had a great act and was excellent at pushing all the right buttons.
My heart aches after this episode. I want to help people I do. How am I to help them though? Should I have given Lincoln money even though I knew he was lying to me? Is the act of giving more important than what the person will do with that which is received? I don't know. I do know that money can't solve the problems of the world. Heck, Lincoln admitted that much. So is this just another symptom of the disease that is capitalism? That people are so impoverished that the best they can do is scam the only people who would really be willing to help them? I don't know.
I know that no choice that I made would have been the right one. I know that thought sickens me to the core. I know that money isn't the answer. I know that capitalism is a disease that has infected everything in society today. I know that the care of the poor is the duty of the church. I know that the church, by and large, rejects that duty. I know that I am confused. I know that there must be a better way. I know that Jesus is that way. I know all these things, and yet it seems like I am doing little more than screaming on mute. What do you think?
First, I got to sit and talk with someone today for something on the order of three hours. I had initially gone to meet this guy so that we could go out to lunch and discuss some things about church events*, but we never really made it to lunch or really to the whole church events thing. It was amazing to talk with this guy. Not amazing in that he gave me new insights (which he did) or because of his linguistic skills (which were excellent), but it was amazing because it made me feel validated. It is a special feeling when someone from a completely different background with different outside input comes to the same conclusion on pretty much everything that you believe. It is even better when that person is a respected older man who has lived through much more than myself. I needed this today, I needed someone to make me feel like I wasn't alone, like my ideas were more than youthful ignorance. That's what I got today, it was great.
*I've been using this analogy about baseball for church events and how churches try and get people to attend for awhile and I think it is apt. In baseball, owners and PR people try all kinds of gimmicks to get people to come to games. They will do giveaways, promotions, little games, and all types of other little things to try and get people to games. Sometimes they will even get players, not because they are good, but because they think people will come to see those players for some reason (usually local ties or popularity). Sometimes these are desperate (like Tampa Bay signing Wade Boggs in 1998 because "He's from Tampa!" and "He's a Hall of Famer", nevermind that he's 40 and isn't good). But what actually draws people to baseball games..........BASEBALL! If you want more people to come......be better at baseball! If you want less people to come......be worse at baseball! (Please forget the fact that no one wants fewer people to come.) I think this is incredibly similar the church and especially "church events". We try and organize "fun" things for people to do at the church and things that will "build relationships", but that isn't why people come to church. People come to church for......GOD! See this is why I think churches are declining, church leaders forgot that people come because of God, everything else is secondary and most of everything else is simply superfluous. So churches need to stop trying to "attract" people and need to simply be better at being Christ and talking about God. However, I see where this will be difficult. As one of my friends says, and I agree, "The American church doesn't believe in God." So to all you church people out there, if you're church is dying, maybe it isn't the culture, or the media, or those darned kids, or not having the right events. Maybe it's you.
That was a lengthy rant of a footnote. But we shall soldier on now to the second part of my day. This was the not so good part or at least the frustrating part. After an event at church tonight*chuckles*, a guy came into the church off the streets. His name was Lincoln Ross. He had a story, something about marrying a white girl and her parents being racist and he was from Atlanta. He wanted to go to St. John's*, I said I'd give him a ride, no problem. I forget to mention that during all of this he asks me to pray for him a few times, and I told him I would, and I would help him if I could.
*St. John's is a hospital at 21st and Utica in Tulsa. Don't ask me why he wanted to go to a hospital. I don't know. He said something about the chapel. He mentioned the word atonement, I didn't push for rationale.
So we get in the car and drive towards St. John's. In the car, he tells me that he could stay at the YMCA for $20 a week. I now become suspicious, well to be honest I already was suspicious because that's just how I am. I ask him if he wants me to drive him there, he asks for money, I bristle at the request. You must know, I want to help him, but I don't want to just give him money and leave him. I'll use money to help him, but not unless I know he is legit or I'm paying for somewhere where he can stay.
He then asks me a strange question, "Does the YMCA have rooms?" If he knows how much it costs, shouldn't he know if they have rooms? Now I am openly suspicious, I actually told him that I wanted to help, but didn't really believe him. He protested, of course, giving reasons why he wouldn't lie. I told him I would call and see if the Y had rooms, I really wanted to help. He told me to call the Salvation Army, he knew they had rooms, but he said he didn't think he could stay there because he didn't have a TB card. He then gives me the number (out of his head, kind of odd, I don't know). When I call the person there tells me that he can't stay there because he is DNAFAR. This means "Do Not Admit For Any Reason". I ask when this came in, he says February 2007. Hmmm....Lincoln told me that he had only been in Tulsa for a few months, but a year and a half ago he was kicked out of the Salvation Army shelter. What should I think now? What should I do now?
I decided to drop him off at St. John's, which I had promised I would do. I pulled into the parking lot, told him that I knew he was not being honest. He protested more and eventually tried to manipulate me by asking me what a real Christian would do, and asking me to pray for him. I told him we could pray together, and we did. I asked God to give him strength and help and to give me strength and discernment. He prayed to make me a better person and that someone would give him some money. What should I have done? I talked to Bob afterwards and he said that Lincoln was one of the best users he had ever seen. He said he had a great act and was excellent at pushing all the right buttons.
My heart aches after this episode. I want to help people I do. How am I to help them though? Should I have given Lincoln money even though I knew he was lying to me? Is the act of giving more important than what the person will do with that which is received? I don't know. I do know that money can't solve the problems of the world. Heck, Lincoln admitted that much. So is this just another symptom of the disease that is capitalism? That people are so impoverished that the best they can do is scam the only people who would really be willing to help them? I don't know.
I know that no choice that I made would have been the right one. I know that thought sickens me to the core. I know that money isn't the answer. I know that capitalism is a disease that has infected everything in society today. I know that the care of the poor is the duty of the church. I know that the church, by and large, rejects that duty. I know that I am confused. I know that there must be a better way. I know that Jesus is that way. I know all these things, and yet it seems like I am doing little more than screaming on mute. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)