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?
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Back and Also Not Back
So apparently a 2 week lay-off in blog posts makes some people (read: Daniel) a bit antsy. Honestly, I have no idea why I haven't posted anything. I guess I just didn't get around to it. Is that a good enough reason? I suppose not. My apologies to the one or two people who read this semi-regularly.
I don't know what to write about. I have a couple of things that I could talk about, but none of them are hitting me as all that intriguing. I could discuss my personal life and a couple decisions I've made about my future, or I could talk about the minor prophets that I've been studying, or I could talk (a little) about the idea of cheap grace from Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or I could talk about the idea of evil in the world, or I could rant about the church being run as a corporation, or I could bemoan the frustrating discrepancy between church theory and church action, or I could even rant about the uselessness of right action if it isn't accompanied by a love of the "weightier matters of the law". But I honestly don't know what I want to talk about. I have a bunch of ideas all piled up. Maybe that's the problem, there is too much to write about. Or maybe its that all of those topics have at least a hint of cynicism and negativity and I'm becoming increasingly tired of my critical and negative self. Maybe that's it. Maybe it's the fact that I feel frustrated that little of what I say will come to any avail as few people are interested in changing their minds about what they think*.
*Actually this very thought is why I decided to give up what was left of my ambition to become a lawyer (Surprise!). See, I was always told that I would be a good lawyer because I could argue. In retrospect I hate that people told me that because that is a backhanded compliment. That's like saying "Hey, you're good at being stubborn, use that!" It has only been recently that I realized why I like discussion and argument (in the non-angry, debate sense) so much. I like to confronted with other points of view. I like to, not necessarily change, but alter my thoughts and beliefs based on the input of others. I finally realized that being a lawyer means that I take one side and make that one side win, no matter what. I can't do that. Add in the fact that I'm not about working 80 hour weeks and not having a life and the decision was pretty easy. So, I think I may try and teach (college) or write or something completely different.
So with all that said, I don't have anything big to write about today. Well, I have things to write about, but I'm blocked by something. I don't know what it is, just something. I just wanted ya'll to know, I'm still thinking, I'm just not writing. However, I will try and get back to writing in the near future (like tomorrow or Tuesday).
Peace and love,
Ben
I don't know what to write about. I have a couple of things that I could talk about, but none of them are hitting me as all that intriguing. I could discuss my personal life and a couple decisions I've made about my future, or I could talk about the minor prophets that I've been studying, or I could talk (a little) about the idea of cheap grace from Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or I could talk about the idea of evil in the world, or I could rant about the church being run as a corporation, or I could bemoan the frustrating discrepancy between church theory and church action, or I could even rant about the uselessness of right action if it isn't accompanied by a love of the "weightier matters of the law". But I honestly don't know what I want to talk about. I have a bunch of ideas all piled up. Maybe that's the problem, there is too much to write about. Or maybe its that all of those topics have at least a hint of cynicism and negativity and I'm becoming increasingly tired of my critical and negative self. Maybe that's it. Maybe it's the fact that I feel frustrated that little of what I say will come to any avail as few people are interested in changing their minds about what they think*.
*Actually this very thought is why I decided to give up what was left of my ambition to become a lawyer (Surprise!). See, I was always told that I would be a good lawyer because I could argue. In retrospect I hate that people told me that because that is a backhanded compliment. That's like saying "Hey, you're good at being stubborn, use that!" It has only been recently that I realized why I like discussion and argument (in the non-angry, debate sense) so much. I like to confronted with other points of view. I like to, not necessarily change, but alter my thoughts and beliefs based on the input of others. I finally realized that being a lawyer means that I take one side and make that one side win, no matter what. I can't do that. Add in the fact that I'm not about working 80 hour weeks and not having a life and the decision was pretty easy. So, I think I may try and teach (college) or write or something completely different.
So with all that said, I don't have anything big to write about today. Well, I have things to write about, but I'm blocked by something. I don't know what it is, just something. I just wanted ya'll to know, I'm still thinking, I'm just not writing. However, I will try and get back to writing in the near future (like tomorrow or Tuesday).
Peace and love,
Ben
Monday, June 9, 2008
An Honest Hope for a New Perspective
How many problems in the world would be solved if we let love be love, if we let truth be truth, if we let beauty be beauty, if we let hope be hope? There is so much greatness swirling around us, so much holiness swirling around us, so many of the things that we strive for are present in our lives. I want us to save the world, but I don't us want to miss out on the parts that have already been saved. We can't keep trying to save the world with a sneer. No, that won't work. I hope that we will be a part of the renewal of heaven and earth with a smile on our faces, with hope in our spirit, and with peace in our souls.
*And yes, Daniel, I do plan to respond to your rebuttal of the Bible as love story idea. But as you can tell from above, my heart just wouldn't have been in it today.
*When I initially wrote this post, I put everything in first person singular. Or for those non-English people, I said I a lot. I decided to change this to plural because I wanted this to be a prayer for all of us, because we are all one whether we care to admit it or not. We can not survive apart from each other. So, my brothers, my sisters, let us love another and be holy. Amen.
*And yes, Daniel, I do plan to respond to your rebuttal of the Bible as love story idea. But as you can tell from above, my heart just wouldn't have been in it today.
*When I initially wrote this post, I put everything in first person singular. Or for those non-English people, I said I a lot. I decided to change this to plural because I wanted this to be a prayer for all of us, because we are all one whether we care to admit it or not. We can not survive apart from each other. So, my brothers, my sisters, let us love another and be holy. Amen.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is...42. (aka Bad Answers to the Wrong Questions)
So today in the Tulsa newspaper there was a full page ad from some church in Elk City blaring the headline "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" Now, it should be no surprise that I not only did not agree with the ad, I disagreed with the premise of the ad*. But, this wasn't the biggest problem that I had with the ad. Nor was my problem with the publicness of the statement, even though I found that aspect appalling. No, my problem was in the bluntness of the discussion. The article actually did an excellent job (well as good as can be done from this viewpoint) of not condemning the sinner, they did attempt to work in the idea of grace. Yet it was like bludgeoning someone with God, and I don't think this is way that things are supposed to go.
*I am of the idea, by way of many others, that we need to stop reading our culture into the Bible. By this, I mean we stop asking questions like "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" or "Is abortion wrong?" when the Bible isn't commenting on these issues. The Bible is not a handbook in political decision-making. It is not a rulebook. It is not an owner's manual or anything else along this line of thinking. The Bible is a story. More to the point, its a love story. Now, as in any good love story, there is conflict and discord, but there is an eventual reconciliation. That's what the Bible is, a story telling of God's mission to save the people he loves, the people he created. The Bible's discussion about homosexuality is not a discourse on the correctness or incorrectness of one act, but is part of the larger story. To rip this one item from its larger context and make it a discussion unto itself is an affront to the whole love story. To me, this discussion is the equivalent of reading a love letter and pontificating over the correct usage of grammar used therein. It isn't, nor will it ever be, the point of the letter. Thus it is with the Bible.
Controversy exists primarily because there is no easy answer. If there was an easy answer, there would be no controversy. However, the harshest controversies exist because the discussion has been tabbed with two greatly opposing positions. Further, these positions are cast as the ONLY positions that can be taken. You are allowed to choose option A or option B. The problem that exists is that the answer is, inveritably, neither. In fact, it seems obvious to me, that if controversies exist because the answer is not easy, and that the two existant answers prove no solution, then perhaps neither are the correct response. This is definitely the case with the homosexuality issue, just as it is with so many issues of both our times, and all time.
I say all this to say, that the correct Christian response to controversy is almost always nuanced. The answer is not an obvious "Yes" or "No". In fact, the correct response lies in the formation of the question. Simple questions can be answered with a simple answer, but complex questions require something more. For example, the question "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?", actually presupposes numerous other questions, and presents itself as a formation of these answers. For instance this question asks:
What is appropriate sexual activity?
How do we define appropriate sexual activity?
Does the Bible discuss sexual activity?
Is the Bible an authority on appropriate sexual activity?
Does the Bible have an opinion on sexual activity?
Is the point of the Bible to point out appropriate sexual activity?
Does the Bible condemn certain actions unilaterally?
Is the condemnation of an act in the Bible the point of the Bible?
Do practicing homosexuals care?
Does any of this matter?
Those are just a few of the questions I can pick up from this "simple" question. Well, I think this makes it plain that it is not a "simple" question and therefore necessitates a bit more nuanced response*.
*By the way, my view on homosexuality is really complex. And by really complex, I mean I do not completely understand it. Therefore, I am not going to answer the above question. Additionally, I think that its the wrong question. I guess to me a lot of the questions of morality in culture to me are like a messed up multiple choice tests where you have a question and a bunch of answers that obviously don't match the question. I would say in the Bible, in Jesus, in the Holy Spirit, and the Christian tradition we have the answers the we need (note need, not want). The problem is we can't answer the wrong questions.
The way Christians normally go about responding to controversy often reminds me of that little wood block game where you had to roll a little metal ball perfectly to settle in a small divot. It took the proper amount of balance, timing, skill, and patience to achieve the goal of the game. Most Christians remind me of little kids playing that game. They just roll the ball back and forth really fast and jerky and hope that they get lucky, but they won't. Or perhaps its more like a surgeon trying to do heart surgery with a pointy stick instead of a scalpel, it might work eventually, but you'll kill off more people than you save.
All in all, I don't know how we are supposed to respond to controversial issues. I advocate the thoughtful nuanced approach, but then I realize that very few on either side will take the time to listen. Why? Because most people don't want answers, they want validation. So perhaps these controversies are more a symptom of a disease than a disease in and of themselves*. I wish I had an easy answer, but its not an easy question.
*One of my favorite responses to the problems in the world is pulled from an episode of House. House makes a statement akin to, "We can treat the symptoms and she'll keep dying, or we can find the disease and she can live, you're choice?" I think this is a really insightful statement for problems. I think the church, and society in general, are always scrambling to relieve the latest symptom of a much larger disease. The problem, however, is that 1) we rarely relieve the symptom and 2) there is always another, and oftentimes worse, symptom to come along. I have no idea what the underlying disease is that affects the failures of our culture (I could say sin, but I think Daniel might scoff at me), but we, as a society, have completely ignored it. And this is yet another example of the short-sightedness of the world today. We have no scope, no perspective, we are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Well that was a depressing ending. Have a nice day.
*I am of the idea, by way of many others, that we need to stop reading our culture into the Bible. By this, I mean we stop asking questions like "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" or "Is abortion wrong?" when the Bible isn't commenting on these issues. The Bible is not a handbook in political decision-making. It is not a rulebook. It is not an owner's manual or anything else along this line of thinking. The Bible is a story. More to the point, its a love story. Now, as in any good love story, there is conflict and discord, but there is an eventual reconciliation. That's what the Bible is, a story telling of God's mission to save the people he loves, the people he created. The Bible's discussion about homosexuality is not a discourse on the correctness or incorrectness of one act, but is part of the larger story. To rip this one item from its larger context and make it a discussion unto itself is an affront to the whole love story. To me, this discussion is the equivalent of reading a love letter and pontificating over the correct usage of grammar used therein. It isn't, nor will it ever be, the point of the letter. Thus it is with the Bible.
Controversy exists primarily because there is no easy answer. If there was an easy answer, there would be no controversy. However, the harshest controversies exist because the discussion has been tabbed with two greatly opposing positions. Further, these positions are cast as the ONLY positions that can be taken. You are allowed to choose option A or option B. The problem that exists is that the answer is, inveritably, neither. In fact, it seems obvious to me, that if controversies exist because the answer is not easy, and that the two existant answers prove no solution, then perhaps neither are the correct response. This is definitely the case with the homosexuality issue, just as it is with so many issues of both our times, and all time.
I say all this to say, that the correct Christian response to controversy is almost always nuanced. The answer is not an obvious "Yes" or "No". In fact, the correct response lies in the formation of the question. Simple questions can be answered with a simple answer, but complex questions require something more. For example, the question "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?", actually presupposes numerous other questions, and presents itself as a formation of these answers. For instance this question asks:
What is appropriate sexual activity?
How do we define appropriate sexual activity?
Does the Bible discuss sexual activity?
Is the Bible an authority on appropriate sexual activity?
Does the Bible have an opinion on sexual activity?
Is the point of the Bible to point out appropriate sexual activity?
Does the Bible condemn certain actions unilaterally?
Is the condemnation of an act in the Bible the point of the Bible?
Do practicing homosexuals care?
Does any of this matter?
Those are just a few of the questions I can pick up from this "simple" question. Well, I think this makes it plain that it is not a "simple" question and therefore necessitates a bit more nuanced response*.
*By the way, my view on homosexuality is really complex. And by really complex, I mean I do not completely understand it. Therefore, I am not going to answer the above question. Additionally, I think that its the wrong question. I guess to me a lot of the questions of morality in culture to me are like a messed up multiple choice tests where you have a question and a bunch of answers that obviously don't match the question. I would say in the Bible, in Jesus, in the Holy Spirit, and the Christian tradition we have the answers the we need (note need, not want). The problem is we can't answer the wrong questions.
The way Christians normally go about responding to controversy often reminds me of that little wood block game where you had to roll a little metal ball perfectly to settle in a small divot. It took the proper amount of balance, timing, skill, and patience to achieve the goal of the game. Most Christians remind me of little kids playing that game. They just roll the ball back and forth really fast and jerky and hope that they get lucky, but they won't. Or perhaps its more like a surgeon trying to do heart surgery with a pointy stick instead of a scalpel, it might work eventually, but you'll kill off more people than you save.
All in all, I don't know how we are supposed to respond to controversial issues. I advocate the thoughtful nuanced approach, but then I realize that very few on either side will take the time to listen. Why? Because most people don't want answers, they want validation. So perhaps these controversies are more a symptom of a disease than a disease in and of themselves*. I wish I had an easy answer, but its not an easy question.
*One of my favorite responses to the problems in the world is pulled from an episode of House. House makes a statement akin to, "We can treat the symptoms and she'll keep dying, or we can find the disease and she can live, you're choice?" I think this is a really insightful statement for problems. I think the church, and society in general, are always scrambling to relieve the latest symptom of a much larger disease. The problem, however, is that 1) we rarely relieve the symptom and 2) there is always another, and oftentimes worse, symptom to come along. I have no idea what the underlying disease is that affects the failures of our culture (I could say sin, but I think Daniel might scoff at me), but we, as a society, have completely ignored it. And this is yet another example of the short-sightedness of the world today. We have no scope, no perspective, we are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Well that was a depressing ending. Have a nice day.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Funny Thing (But not that Funny)
You know what's funny? When it takes you four days to finally realize that there is a typo in your blog address! Oy vey! So the address was supposed to be optimisticcynicism.com, but in my infinite wisdom I typed optismisticcynicism.com. Whoops! That sucks. Guess I have to live with it.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
This Too Shall Be Made Right
I have been around churches for a long time. And when I say that, I don't mean that I've gone to church for a long time. I mean that I have a father who was a preacher, so I hung out in the office a lot, and I presently work for a church and have worked for a church, at least a little, in the past. During all this time around churches, something has always bothered me above all else. Above all the discussions about all the little gossipy discussions about people in the church (which I have engaged in), above all the church politics and infighting (which I at times have helped fuel), above all this one thing always bothered me more: how the church, and more importantly church employees*, treat people who ask for help.
*I definitely have a lengthy rant inside of me about the idea of church employees. And this rant, would at the very least, be an effort in self-mutilation. I just don't know how to feel about different people being employed by a church. I think it stems from my distaste with the idea of a church being like a business. I have the same distaste for churches having budget meetings, posting their attendance, and posting the amount of contribution. It seems at times that we have more faith in the methods of capitalism and commerce than we do in the Lord. I know this isn't a conscious choice, but it is a choice that has been made.
I have noticed that most churches refuse to help people outside of an organized program of some kind. They refuse, usually passive aggressively, to give out assistance to those in need. The reason is usually obvious, the person is probably lying and we don't want them to take advantage of our kindness. But does this absolve us of our Christian duty to aid those who are suffering? Are we to be less kind just because people won't take our kindness the right way, just because they will use and abuse us?
I am not saying that I have an answer to this and I am not implying that I have no guilt in the matter (I look down on these people just as much as everyone else). I am only asking the cliched, but oft forgotton question, What Would Jesus Do?* Did Jesus teach us about giving to the poor? Yes, and it was a high priority for people during Jesus ministry. Did Jesus teach us about people being ungrateful towards kindness? Yes, twice at the very least. Once when 10 lepers were cleansed and one came back and thanked Jesus (at least that was the point all the sermons tried to make) and two, and most notably, when Jesus GAVE HIS LIFE FOR THE VERY PEOPLE WHO WERE KILLING HIM!! (Look what you made me do, now Jenna's gonna be mad because I used two exclamation points, darn you!)
*Let it be said that the What Would Jesus Do? movement was the epitomy of irony in Western Christendom. The question spawned a capitalist empire of things for Christians to consume, and when Christians consumed them they took the money they could have used to help the poor and the broken and instead it was spent on propaganda which proudly spouted our the primary question of our Christian endeavor. Let me summarize, by buying a WWJD product, we probably all did the exact opposite of what Jesus would have done. We all took part in a commercial venture which did a good bit of damage in Christianity be making people feel good, while at the same time accomplishing NOTHING!
Now with this said, does Jesus ever mention cutting off kindness just because "we don't know what people will do with the money*?" I do not know what the solution to the problem is, but it is a problem. Churches are INTENTIONALLY cutting themselves off from the very people that Jesus told us to help and protect. Church offices are now routinely behind locked doors and complex security systems. Have we turned Christ into nothing more than an expensive jewel with a complex safe, only to be taken out and admired on Sunday (and various other days depending on the tradition)? Jesus tells three parables about people finding that which was lost and then throwing huge celebrations in response. We have done the same, but our celebration has a bouncer at the door. We wouldn't want anything bad to happen now would we, we wouldn't want to be beaten (like Paul), or abused (like Stephen) or imprisoned (like everybody) or killed (like Jesus). Haha, we aren't even acting to avoid those ends, we just don't want to be inconvenienced.
*Yet another point about capitalism in this context. Mark Twain once made the comment "To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail." I think this applies to our capitalistic society, to a society with money, every problem is an economic one. We had a man come in to our building today who needed to get to Bartlesville, who knows if he was legit or not thats not the point. Automatically, everyone's mind in this situation went to money, why didn't I think about offering him a ride? Yeah, it was out of my way and I had other things to do, but what could be better than helping a stranger in need? What could I possibly have that was more important? Did I have a 2:30 appointment to find the cure for cancer or to save a little kid in the street? No, I did not. But I didn't even think about it until later and it bothered me a lot. We are so blinded by our society that we have lost our sense of creativity. We have become a blunt object that just hits things until they do what we want them to. And when they don't do what we want, we just hit them harder. It is said that insanity is repeating the same action over again and expecting different results. Is our capitalistic society insane?
And no, after all of that ranting I have no solution. Maybe we just need to be more creative. Maybe we need to be more trusting. Maybe we need to be more naive. Maybe we need to have higher expectations. Maybe higher expectations breed responsibility. Maybe we could preach the message without agenda. Maybe we could love as an ends and not as a means. Maybe we could hope for things unseen. Maybe we could begin to live like Christ. Then again, maybe we would end up just like him and so many of his other followers. Dead, having lost everything. And for a group of people who say that we aren't afraid of death, we seem to give up an awful lot to stay alive. But maybe we're just dying a different death.
-We say we're just tryin' to stay alive, but it looks so much more like a way to do die. And this too shall be made right. (Derek Webb, "This Too Shall Be Made Right")
P.S. To anyone reading this from South Brooke. I am not singling you out, almost every church I know does this. I have seen it in dozens of places, and it sickens me every time.
*I definitely have a lengthy rant inside of me about the idea of church employees. And this rant, would at the very least, be an effort in self-mutilation. I just don't know how to feel about different people being employed by a church. I think it stems from my distaste with the idea of a church being like a business. I have the same distaste for churches having budget meetings, posting their attendance, and posting the amount of contribution. It seems at times that we have more faith in the methods of capitalism and commerce than we do in the Lord. I know this isn't a conscious choice, but it is a choice that has been made.
I have noticed that most churches refuse to help people outside of an organized program of some kind. They refuse, usually passive aggressively, to give out assistance to those in need. The reason is usually obvious, the person is probably lying and we don't want them to take advantage of our kindness. But does this absolve us of our Christian duty to aid those who are suffering? Are we to be less kind just because people won't take our kindness the right way, just because they will use and abuse us?
I am not saying that I have an answer to this and I am not implying that I have no guilt in the matter (I look down on these people just as much as everyone else). I am only asking the cliched, but oft forgotton question, What Would Jesus Do?* Did Jesus teach us about giving to the poor? Yes, and it was a high priority for people during Jesus ministry. Did Jesus teach us about people being ungrateful towards kindness? Yes, twice at the very least. Once when 10 lepers were cleansed and one came back and thanked Jesus (at least that was the point all the sermons tried to make) and two, and most notably, when Jesus GAVE HIS LIFE FOR THE VERY PEOPLE WHO WERE KILLING HIM!! (Look what you made me do, now Jenna's gonna be mad because I used two exclamation points, darn you!)
*Let it be said that the What Would Jesus Do? movement was the epitomy of irony in Western Christendom. The question spawned a capitalist empire of things for Christians to consume, and when Christians consumed them they took the money they could have used to help the poor and the broken and instead it was spent on propaganda which proudly spouted our the primary question of our Christian endeavor. Let me summarize, by buying a WWJD product, we probably all did the exact opposite of what Jesus would have done. We all took part in a commercial venture which did a good bit of damage in Christianity be making people feel good, while at the same time accomplishing NOTHING!
Now with this said, does Jesus ever mention cutting off kindness just because "we don't know what people will do with the money*?" I do not know what the solution to the problem is, but it is a problem. Churches are INTENTIONALLY cutting themselves off from the very people that Jesus told us to help and protect. Church offices are now routinely behind locked doors and complex security systems. Have we turned Christ into nothing more than an expensive jewel with a complex safe, only to be taken out and admired on Sunday (and various other days depending on the tradition)? Jesus tells three parables about people finding that which was lost and then throwing huge celebrations in response. We have done the same, but our celebration has a bouncer at the door. We wouldn't want anything bad to happen now would we, we wouldn't want to be beaten (like Paul), or abused (like Stephen) or imprisoned (like everybody) or killed (like Jesus). Haha, we aren't even acting to avoid those ends, we just don't want to be inconvenienced.
*Yet another point about capitalism in this context. Mark Twain once made the comment "To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail." I think this applies to our capitalistic society, to a society with money, every problem is an economic one. We had a man come in to our building today who needed to get to Bartlesville, who knows if he was legit or not thats not the point. Automatically, everyone's mind in this situation went to money, why didn't I think about offering him a ride? Yeah, it was out of my way and I had other things to do, but what could be better than helping a stranger in need? What could I possibly have that was more important? Did I have a 2:30 appointment to find the cure for cancer or to save a little kid in the street? No, I did not. But I didn't even think about it until later and it bothered me a lot. We are so blinded by our society that we have lost our sense of creativity. We have become a blunt object that just hits things until they do what we want them to. And when they don't do what we want, we just hit them harder. It is said that insanity is repeating the same action over again and expecting different results. Is our capitalistic society insane?
And no, after all of that ranting I have no solution. Maybe we just need to be more creative. Maybe we need to be more trusting. Maybe we need to be more naive. Maybe we need to have higher expectations. Maybe higher expectations breed responsibility. Maybe we could preach the message without agenda. Maybe we could love as an ends and not as a means. Maybe we could hope for things unseen. Maybe we could begin to live like Christ. Then again, maybe we would end up just like him and so many of his other followers. Dead, having lost everything. And for a group of people who say that we aren't afraid of death, we seem to give up an awful lot to stay alive. But maybe we're just dying a different death.
-We say we're just tryin' to stay alive, but it looks so much more like a way to do die. And this too shall be made right. (Derek Webb, "This Too Shall Be Made Right")
P.S. To anyone reading this from South Brooke. I am not singling you out, almost every church I know does this. I have seen it in dozens of places, and it sickens me every time.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The Devil and Keyser Soze
Before, I say anything I must warn you that if you have never seen the movie "The Usual Suspects" and you hope to watch it in the future, do not read this post. I will spoil the ending and this is a movie worthwhile enough to not spoil. With that said, on to the show.
Here is a refresher, or for those not inclined to listen to the above warning, a primer, on "The Usual Suspects". The movie centers around five men who are brought together in a lineup at a police station, they range from petty criminals to former masterminds. From this meeting, the five eventually begin to work together doing odd crimes. Eventually, the find themselves working for a mysterious man named Keyser Soze. Soze is not shown and is cast as a type of criminal myth, a man who is never seen, never heard, and only legends are known about him. He is a story told to scare people, but it is unknown whether or not he is real. Soze sends the men on a mission and they are all killed except for one, Verbal Kint, a small time con-artist who is shown to be crippled and none too intelligent. Kint is brought in and questioned by authorities and makes the statement (when referring to Soze), "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled off was convincing the world that he didn't exist." (Spoiler Alert) This line foreshadows the twist ending where, after leaving the police department (he is charged with nothing), Verbal shakes off the limp, lights a cigarette, and reveals himself to be the mythical criminal mastermind Keyser Soze.
So what does this mean. Well, first, it means that this is an awesome movie, but that is neither here nor there. What I really want to get after is how this movie forms an apt metaphor for Satan (we talked about Satan in class tonight, that is where my mind is). Soze is never obvious, he is never seen nor heard, all his orders come through an intermediary, and even then, the principal rarely knows who they are working for. This parallels how Satan is viewed by both our society, and by Christians. We view Satan as a myth and we have conditioned ourselves to believe that myths aren't true. However, this myth is. Satan exists, but not in the sinister garb which we would clothe him in. His presence and his work is not obvious, it has no trademarks which distinguish it, and we never know whether we are under the influence of Satan, or whether our own depraved mind has pushed us to sin. Now is where I begin to ask questions. What does it mean to us to acknowledge the presence of Satan? Some would say that it shifts responsibility, but this shift is futile. God still holds us responsible for our sin, even if the sin was influenced by an outside (is Satan "outside"?) source, thus the necessity for God's grace and mercy.
So herein lies the rub of discussing Satan, does it matter whether Satan exists or not, whether we acknowledge his presence or not? What is the purpose of acknowledging Satan's existence? We still believe in evil even if we do not believe in Satan. Some will argue that Satan is the source of evil, but does evil necessitate a source? Can evil be solely the absence of God, instead of the presence of malevolence?
After much thought (well, much may be an exaggeration) there are two reasons why I believe the acknowledgement of Satan is important. First, the presence of an evil entity such as Satan gives us relief from the counterproductive guilt and accusation cycle which Christianity has fallen into. If we shift the fault from the sinner to the source, then we view the sinner as victim, which strikes me as a more apt and more biblical view of humanity. Additonally, it binds together all Christians in a fight (cringe) against a sole entity. Perhaps the reason for our discourse lies in our blindness to a common enemy. I mean, the United States got along with both France AND Russia when they were fighting against the same enemy (yes, my friends, I have drawn a positive comparison between WWII and the present, does this mean I have to give back my pacifist card?).
Secondly, the presence of Satan keeps us from falling to faulty logic regarding the nature of humanity and the nature of God. If we belief that Satan does not exist, then we must admit that sin came from man. If we admit that sin came from man, then we are faced with a paradox. Man is made in the image of God, sin came from man, doesn't this mean that sin came from God? With this logic, I believe it does. If we resolve that sin came from man, then there must be some deficiency in God that he has passed on to us. However, the presence of Satan alleviates this problem and salvages the true nature of humanity, that is to be the image of God in the flesh. To be fully human is to fully represent the image of God. This idea cannot exist in a world where sin comes from man.
I hope this was intriguing and I hope that some of you can comment and give me more to think about. Peace.
P.S. If being fully human means to be a full representation of God, doesn't this resolve the dilemma of Jesus being both fully human and fully divine? I would say that being fully human would by definition mean that he was fully divine. Perhaps this is not the duality of Christ, but the singularity of Christ.
Here is a refresher, or for those not inclined to listen to the above warning, a primer, on "The Usual Suspects". The movie centers around five men who are brought together in a lineup at a police station, they range from petty criminals to former masterminds. From this meeting, the five eventually begin to work together doing odd crimes. Eventually, the find themselves working for a mysterious man named Keyser Soze. Soze is not shown and is cast as a type of criminal myth, a man who is never seen, never heard, and only legends are known about him. He is a story told to scare people, but it is unknown whether or not he is real. Soze sends the men on a mission and they are all killed except for one, Verbal Kint, a small time con-artist who is shown to be crippled and none too intelligent. Kint is brought in and questioned by authorities and makes the statement (when referring to Soze), "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled off was convincing the world that he didn't exist." (Spoiler Alert) This line foreshadows the twist ending where, after leaving the police department (he is charged with nothing), Verbal shakes off the limp, lights a cigarette, and reveals himself to be the mythical criminal mastermind Keyser Soze.
So what does this mean. Well, first, it means that this is an awesome movie, but that is neither here nor there. What I really want to get after is how this movie forms an apt metaphor for Satan (we talked about Satan in class tonight, that is where my mind is). Soze is never obvious, he is never seen nor heard, all his orders come through an intermediary, and even then, the principal rarely knows who they are working for. This parallels how Satan is viewed by both our society, and by Christians. We view Satan as a myth and we have conditioned ourselves to believe that myths aren't true. However, this myth is. Satan exists, but not in the sinister garb which we would clothe him in. His presence and his work is not obvious, it has no trademarks which distinguish it, and we never know whether we are under the influence of Satan, or whether our own depraved mind has pushed us to sin. Now is where I begin to ask questions. What does it mean to us to acknowledge the presence of Satan? Some would say that it shifts responsibility, but this shift is futile. God still holds us responsible for our sin, even if the sin was influenced by an outside (is Satan "outside"?) source, thus the necessity for God's grace and mercy.
So herein lies the rub of discussing Satan, does it matter whether Satan exists or not, whether we acknowledge his presence or not? What is the purpose of acknowledging Satan's existence? We still believe in evil even if we do not believe in Satan. Some will argue that Satan is the source of evil, but does evil necessitate a source? Can evil be solely the absence of God, instead of the presence of malevolence?
After much thought (well, much may be an exaggeration) there are two reasons why I believe the acknowledgement of Satan is important. First, the presence of an evil entity such as Satan gives us relief from the counterproductive guilt and accusation cycle which Christianity has fallen into. If we shift the fault from the sinner to the source, then we view the sinner as victim, which strikes me as a more apt and more biblical view of humanity. Additonally, it binds together all Christians in a fight (cringe) against a sole entity. Perhaps the reason for our discourse lies in our blindness to a common enemy. I mean, the United States got along with both France AND Russia when they were fighting against the same enemy (yes, my friends, I have drawn a positive comparison between WWII and the present, does this mean I have to give back my pacifist card?).
Secondly, the presence of Satan keeps us from falling to faulty logic regarding the nature of humanity and the nature of God. If we belief that Satan does not exist, then we must admit that sin came from man. If we admit that sin came from man, then we are faced with a paradox. Man is made in the image of God, sin came from man, doesn't this mean that sin came from God? With this logic, I believe it does. If we resolve that sin came from man, then there must be some deficiency in God that he has passed on to us. However, the presence of Satan alleviates this problem and salvages the true nature of humanity, that is to be the image of God in the flesh. To be fully human is to fully represent the image of God. This idea cannot exist in a world where sin comes from man.
I hope this was intriguing and I hope that some of you can comment and give me more to think about. Peace.
P.S. If being fully human means to be a full representation of God, doesn't this resolve the dilemma of Jesus being both fully human and fully divine? I would say that being fully human would by definition mean that he was fully divine. Perhaps this is not the duality of Christ, but the singularity of Christ.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
First Post (aka Initial Ramblings of an Unaware Fool)
So, I decided to start a blog. What an arrogant, egotistical move that was on my part. In so doing, I am assuming that people want to be aware of the often incoherent ramblings which consistently bounce around in my head. I'm just going to continue on in the assumption that I'm right. So if you don't want to hear my incoherent ramblings, well tough I'll probably just call you and tell you if you don't read them here. So on to today's thought.
(Just so you know, I never will intend any offense with my statements. However, even with that knowledge, some of my views will be controversial and may seem harsh. Keep in mind that my goal is to love all people. If my writing does not convey this, then what was written is not a complete representation of my beliefs, or possibly I, like all men, have failed to live up to God's standards of love.)
Today's thought is two fold, and actually it started out as yesterday's thought, but I didn't have a blog yesterday, so it got carried over. Yesterday was Memorial Day. As a pacifist (and for those who didn't know, I'm a pacifist, surprise), Memorial Day is a conflicting holiday. I have always had a difficult time accepting the whole idea of supporting the soldier, but not supporting the war and Memorial Day brings this idea to the forefront. How exactly should I observe a holiday which celebrates men fighting and dying, ostensibly for my country and therefore for me, while at the same time I object to the actions which these men take? Am I ungrateful if I do not show respect to these people? Shall I grant them false gratitude when I know in my heart that I do not mean it? Granted, this wasn't much of a problem seeing that I stayed at home, slept, read, watched lacrosse, and listened to baseball games, but the point still stands, at least in theory. How exactly should I react in response to this kind of expected gratitude (therein lies an irony that I may later probe, perhaps on Independence Day)?
That thought, or to be more descriptive, line of unanswered questions, led me to a deeper and perhaps more revelatory and disturbing set of ideas and questions today. As represented by my above thoughts, have I become too much of a cynic? I feel (if you are a modernist or just don't like feelings, you can skip this section, but you must be aware that you have little or no soul) like I am often looking for the sickness of a certain area of society, I feel as if I am targeting the weaknesses of the world. My reasoning for this is so that I may be able to help fix these weaknesses, that I may help cure these ills, but in so doing have I fallen into a trap from whence there is no escape? Have I, and by extension those in the world like me, become so absorbed in wanting to fix the world that we continually look for flaws without ever fixing the things that we know are broken? Have we become optimistic cynics, missing the point in search of an ideal?
This idea dovetails nicely with a few other thoughts that I have had in the last months, but this is all that I am going to type for now, mainly because I don't want to type much more, and the post is already a little scattershot as is. I hope some of you reading this have some thoughts or insights or perhaps you'll simply laugh at me like Nelson on the Simpsons (Haha! You have unanswerable philosophical quandaries!), whatever, just give me some feedback.
(Just so you know, I never will intend any offense with my statements. However, even with that knowledge, some of my views will be controversial and may seem harsh. Keep in mind that my goal is to love all people. If my writing does not convey this, then what was written is not a complete representation of my beliefs, or possibly I, like all men, have failed to live up to God's standards of love.)
Today's thought is two fold, and actually it started out as yesterday's thought, but I didn't have a blog yesterday, so it got carried over. Yesterday was Memorial Day. As a pacifist (and for those who didn't know, I'm a pacifist, surprise), Memorial Day is a conflicting holiday. I have always had a difficult time accepting the whole idea of supporting the soldier, but not supporting the war and Memorial Day brings this idea to the forefront. How exactly should I observe a holiday which celebrates men fighting and dying, ostensibly for my country and therefore for me, while at the same time I object to the actions which these men take? Am I ungrateful if I do not show respect to these people? Shall I grant them false gratitude when I know in my heart that I do not mean it? Granted, this wasn't much of a problem seeing that I stayed at home, slept, read, watched lacrosse, and listened to baseball games, but the point still stands, at least in theory. How exactly should I react in response to this kind of expected gratitude (therein lies an irony that I may later probe, perhaps on Independence Day)?
That thought, or to be more descriptive, line of unanswered questions, led me to a deeper and perhaps more revelatory and disturbing set of ideas and questions today. As represented by my above thoughts, have I become too much of a cynic? I feel (if you are a modernist or just don't like feelings, you can skip this section, but you must be aware that you have little or no soul) like I am often looking for the sickness of a certain area of society, I feel as if I am targeting the weaknesses of the world. My reasoning for this is so that I may be able to help fix these weaknesses, that I may help cure these ills, but in so doing have I fallen into a trap from whence there is no escape? Have I, and by extension those in the world like me, become so absorbed in wanting to fix the world that we continually look for flaws without ever fixing the things that we know are broken? Have we become optimistic cynics, missing the point in search of an ideal?
This idea dovetails nicely with a few other thoughts that I have had in the last months, but this is all that I am going to type for now, mainly because I don't want to type much more, and the post is already a little scattershot as is. I hope some of you reading this have some thoughts or insights or perhaps you'll simply laugh at me like Nelson on the Simpsons (Haha! You have unanswerable philosophical quandaries!), whatever, just give me some feedback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)