Come visit us at our new location!
Showing posts with label Aric. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aric. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Preview: Many New Voices
The entire goal of the new Two Friars and a Fool is to open the provoke good conversation. To that end we want more voices represented on the site than our own, and we'd like those voices to come from a variety of backgrounds. We hope to continue to attract known speakers and writers like Rev. Carol Howard Merritt, but we also want to provide a space for a host of other individuals who have ideas worth sharing.
We are very proud that in the first two months you are going to be hearing from a wide array of people we find fascinating. Here is just a taste:
Rev. Lia Scholl is an ordained minister and sex work ally. She is the pastor of the Richmond Mennonite Fellowship in Richmond, Virginia. She has worked with people in sex trade for nearly 10 years, most recently as the Client Advocacy Program Manager at HIPS (Helping Individual Prostitutes Survive) in Washington, DC. She is the founder and former executive director of Star Light Ministries, Inc. Originally from Alabama, she earned her M.Div. from Beeson Divinity School at Samford University. Lia blogs at http://www.roguereverend.com and can be found on twitter @roguereverend.
Rev. Dr. Gregory Anderson Love is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at San Francisco Theological Seminary and the Graduate Theological Union. He is an ordained Presbyterian pastor. His first book "Love, Violence and the Cross: How the Nonviolent God Saves Us through the Cross of Christ" explores the atonement in a thorough, sensitive, and surprisingly playful way, opening new possibilities for our understanding of salvation.
Megan Dosher is a 34-yr-old Presbyterian elder living and working in Oklahoma City, OK. She was born in Minnesota and raised both in Minnesota and Washington State. Megan now works as a half-time youth director at Santa Fe Presbyterian Church in Edmond, OK, and as a substitute teacher while she completes her ordination requirements to become a Minister of Word and Sacrament in the PC(USA). She loves volunteering, rabble-rousing, avocados and stripey socks.
Rev. Toby Brown is pastor of Jefferson Center Presbyterian Church, a blogger, and a self-described Classical Presbyterian. He can be found either smoking his pipe, remonstrating against liberal heretics, or here on Two Friars and a Fool doing both.
Heather Reichgott is a mother, a wife, a PhD student, a candidate for ordination to ministry of the Word and Sacrament, a Ballet teacher, a pianist, and many other things. She blogs at Voices of Sophia and has served in the past as a board member for More Light Presbyterians.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Preview: Reverend Tim Carson
We are especially excited about the participation of Rev. Tim Carson. You can read some of his excellent ruminations at his own blog, or see some of the ministry he is doing at Broadway Christian Church. He is a guy who speaks and writes with refreshing vigor and honesty.
We won't divulge yet, what his article is about, but we asked him for something provocative, and boy has he delivered. Stay tuned.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Preview: Reverend Carol Howard Merritt
One of the first month's contributors we are very excited about is Rev. Carol Howard Merritt. She is the author of Tribal Church and Reframing Hope. She blogs at TribalChurch.org and HuffPo and a few other spots. She is the co-host of God Complex Radio and somehow she fits in being pastor at Western Presbyterian Church in Washington D.C.
If you haven't been reading her stuff you've been missing out on some cogent, insightful analysis of where we have come, and where we are going as a church, like her most recent article about local food movements. We can rectify this gross oversight in your education. We are going to be reviewing her most recent book and hosting a new article by Rev. Howard Merritt in March.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Preview: the Right Reverend Landon Whitsitt
The new Two Friars and A Fool is going to play host to some awesome people bringing provocative ideas about church, theology, and life for us to debate. The very first contributor to our site will be the current Vice Moderator of the PC(USA), Rev. Landon Whitsitt. He is, in our opinion, a refreshing voice well worth a listen to. He wrote the free e-book Open Source Gospel, works with God Complex Radio, and is appearing in a bunch of other places as well. We're not going to reveal what he will be talking about when he comes to Two Friars and a Fool on March 1st, but here is one of his recent videos to get a taste:
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Virtual Theology Pub
This site is just a collaborative blog, but we want to be so much more to you. We aspire to be a Virtual Theology Pub.
A what?
We want to be a place where you come to hang out with people you like and have spirited, but friendly conversations about things that matter. To accomplish this we are moving away from the blog format where we spout our opinions and you read them (if you can be bothered). Instead we are soliciting the opinions of people we think are cool on subjects where we can get some traction for a good debate. We are going to be responding to the submissions of the aforementioned cool people with short videos designed to make you laugh, and think, and most importantly jump in with your own opinion into the forums.
Spread the word on your own blogs, on twitter, on facebook, or wherever you make your digital home. This is gonna be fun.
A what?
We want to be a place where you come to hang out with people you like and have spirited, but friendly conversations about things that matter. To accomplish this we are moving away from the blog format where we spout our opinions and you read them (if you can be bothered). Instead we are soliciting the opinions of people we think are cool on subjects where we can get some traction for a good debate. We are going to be responding to the submissions of the aforementioned cool people with short videos designed to make you laugh, and think, and most importantly jump in with your own opinion into the forums.
Spread the word on your own blogs, on twitter, on facebook, or wherever you make your digital home. This is gonna be fun.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Countdown to Launch
As we've said before this blog was always just a temporary measure until we were able to unleash our true plan on an unsuspecting world.
Something big is coming.
As of March 1st we will be directing all traffic to our new home. This blog will stay up for a short while as we figure out what we want to do with all the content here, but it will be a ghost town.
To those of you who have been loyal followers of us at this location: thank you. If you liked what was going on here, though, you are going to be blown away by the next step. It may be annoying to have to redo your links, and RSS feeds and what not, but it will be worth it. We promise.
Stay tuned in the coming days for previews about what we are up to and why you will soon be explaining to all of your friends what a virtual theology pub is.
Something big is coming.
As of March 1st we will be directing all traffic to our new home. This blog will stay up for a short while as we figure out what we want to do with all the content here, but it will be a ghost town.
To those of you who have been loyal followers of us at this location: thank you. If you liked what was going on here, though, you are going to be blown away by the next step. It may be annoying to have to redo your links, and RSS feeds and what not, but it will be worth it. We promise.
Stay tuned in the coming days for previews about what we are up to and why you will soon be explaining to all of your friends what a virtual theology pub is.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Myths Busted
Mubarak resigned this morning.
The entire scenario playing out in Egypt is dispelling popular misconceptions so thoroughly that I hope we can lay some of these unfounded myths to rest forever:
#1 - There is a Culture War on.
Despite the best attempts of some the defining conflicts of our current age are not a continuation of the crusades. The fight is not between the Christian West and the Muslim Orient. Christians and Muslims have been protesting alongside each other in Egypt, and even protecting each other from sectarian violence. The enemy is political oppression, poverty, and injustice. It is an enemy which lives in the United States as well as the Middle East.
#2 - Arabs are backwards and hate-filled.
Egypt is the most populous Arab nation and is 90% Muslim. They have just managed to end 30 years of dictatorship without a war, in what was really a very sophisticated series of targeted protests. This is not a people who can't understand democracy. This is a people with a deep conviction in the authority of the people to hold their government accountable.
#3 - America is a force for spreading Democracy
If democracy is realized in Egypt it will be in spite vast amounts of money, diplomacy, weapons, and political influence expended by the U.S. to uphold a dictatorship there. We have been Mubarak's best friend and are even now working to keep Suleiman, a brutal enforcer, in power. Places in the Middle East where we have attempted to install democracy by force are stuck in a morass of perpetual Civil War. The best thing we can do for the spread of democracy at this point is get the hell out of the way.
#4 - Dictatorships are stable
Mubarak reigned for 30 years it is true. This gives the appearance of stability, but the cost to the region has been so immense and the failure of the regime seems so self-evident now that we must begin to realize that it is not in anyone's long term interest to continue to support oppressive governments. The arc of history bends toward justice. The powers and principalities are in their death throes. Everywhere justice and liberty will break out and take hold. It is past time we stopped putting short term gains ahead of long term peace.
#5 - Nonviolence doesn't work
A little more than two weeks of concerted nonviolent protests have brought down three decades of dictatorship. Who honestly believes an armed revolution or foreign military intervention would have been more effective? Conventional wisdom is that violent megalomaniacs like Mubarak cannot be reasoned with - that violence was our only option with Hitler, and Saddam, and now with Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il. The lesson we should take from Egypt is that peace is infinitely more powerful than war. One man on a cross broke the backbone of an empire. Even large scale geopolitical confrontations with entrenched militarily powerful and violent regimes can be won by unified nonviolent resistance.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Broken Reeds
This was the sermon I preached this last Sunday, January 9th. I had written an entirely different sermon focusing on the Baptism of Jesus in Matthew, but following the events of the week felt compelled to rewrite. Hat tip to George Macdonald whose ideas these were before they were mine
Isaiah 42:1-9
The words God spoke to Jesus at his baptism are echoed in many places through scripture including this passage from Isaiah where God says “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.” Justice to the nations. As Jesus was being ordained, commissioned by God through John and the water of the river Jordan for his ministry of salvation this thought was reverberating in the background – that he would bring justice to the nations. And not just any kind of justice but one that is described as being so gentle it would not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick.
This morning I ask you to meditate on justice. Justice is an ideal everyone will commend and everyone claim to desire and to serve, but I want you to consider whether we have any idea what justice is, in light of recent events in our society.
Yesterday a young white man of 22 years, Jared Loughner, walked into the middle of a meeting in Tucson, Arizona and opened fire on a group of people gathered there to meet their congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords. Representative Giffords was hit in the head and at first believed dead, but is now known to be alive and in intensive care after surgery, and is under sedation as they wait to see if she will survive. Others were injured and six were killed outright including Gabe Zimmerman, an aide to the congresswoman. US District Judge John Roll. Dorothy Morris, 76. Dorwin Stoddard, 76. Phyllis Scheck, 79. Christina Greene, a child of 9.
People are rightly shocked by this horrific violence, which unfortunately is only exceptional in that it targeted a political figure. On the same day 27 people were killed in the ongoing drug war in Mexico. There are 16 casualties on average every day in our conflict in Afghanistan. There are 11 or 12 deaths each day due to violence in Iraq. Given national averages, in our own country, 45 other murders occurred in America yesterday which received no national media attention.
Regardless of the circumstances, the attack on Representative Giffords yesterday was a travesty. We should lift up our prayers on behalf of all of those injured, the families of those murdered, and the whole of our nation as it reflects on the complex dynamics that lead to violence.
We must also pray for Jared Loughner, the man who decided to take a gun and point it at another human being and pull the trigger repeatedly. There will be a lot of over-analysis focusing on young Jared in the media in the coming days. His internet profile will be delved into. His personal life will be examined. His friends and family and acquaintances will be interviewed as everyone tries to come up with some explanation for why he chose to do what he did.
Some people already are blaming the political rhetoric in our country which has gotten so intemperate that attack ads regularly indulge in violent metaphors “targeting” their opponents. We have reached a point where we no longer distinguish between political adversaries and enemies. The hatreds and divisions along ideological lines are stark these days much to our shame. That climate may have contributed to this attack, and it is definitely deplorable behavior, but Jared was still the one who pulled the trigger.
Others will blame this attack on mental illness. They will say that Jared Loughner is a disturbed young man. A lone bad apple. Psychotic. Crazy.
It is probably true that he is suffering from a madness, but if so it is a very mundane, even commonplace madness. It is a delusion that most of humanity suffers from – the delusion that retributive violence is a mechanism of justice.
The servant of God is coming to bring justice to the nations. He will not shout or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth.
Though we do not yet know the specific reasons Jared Loughner did what he did it is guaranteed that in his mind it was justified. He almost certainly did not fire that gun believing himself to be doing evil. He probably believed at the time, and perhaps even now, that his actions were in some way contributing to a just result. A righting of wrongs.
This hysterical delusion has gripped humanity from our beginnings and though we have shaken it in rare and beautiful occasions, too often it has ruled the day. Our courts, our prisons, our armies, our security, our governments, our identities are built on the illusion that evil can be defeated by force, that wrongs can be righted by punishment.
But punishment and retribution have no power to make things right. Violence can never establish peace.
Consider a very basic example. If you have stolen something from me, how can this injustice be made right? If you are caught and sent to jail does this fix my injury? Even if the stolen object is found by the police and returned to me, has justice been accomplished? Won’t the lingering wound of having my privacy invaded, my trust violated remain? How can your punishment fix that? It doesn’t. There is only one way for amends to be made and that is for you to repent and come to me asking for forgiveness. That is it. No judge, no court, no police officer, no lightning bolt from the sky, no punishment of any kind can ever fix my injury. Only the one who injured me has the power to right the wrong. Only I, by forgiving, have the means to restore peace.
But instead of repenting and seeking forgiveness, and instead of offering it to those who have wounded us we keep seeking justice through retribution. We keep hoping the proper application of punishment will heal our wounds. In our personal relationships this is deadly, and when applied to society as a whole, extrapolating our own grievous injuries onto the body politic it results in a massacre. Every time we turn to the sword for justice we end up with broken reeds scattered across the floor. Shattered lives, wrecked hopes, and dismembered dreams are all that remain of our quest for justice.
We must conclude that we know nothing about the nature of justice, least of all God's justice which comes at the hands of one so gentle it does not break even a bruised reed. Justice, as Christ administers it, is not something opposed to forgiveness, not a force tempered by mercy, but mercy itself, forgiveness itself, reconciliation itself made concrete between victim and perpetrator so that not even a smoldering wick would be quenched by its arrival.
Since humanity could reason we have always reasoned the costs of retributive violence justified. They are not, and never can be. No matter how we will it, or legislate it, or excuse it violence will never bring us either justice or peace. It will only heap more broken reeds on the pile.
But there is a way for us to act justly toward one another. There is a way for us to make peace.
In Egypt there is a sect of Christians, the Copts, who are a very small minority in that mostly Muslim country. Furthermore, the government of Egypt has not been protective of their rights, but has too often turned a blind eye to violence and persecution committed against the Copts by others. Recently the violence has been particularly bad with extreme Islamist groups attacking Coptic Christians in their churches. A car bomb just over a week ago on New Years Eve in Alexandria killed 21 Copts. 21 broken reeds. 21 lives cut short. No doubt the bombers believed like Jared Loughner and like all people who have ever committed violence for a cause that they were contributing to a better and more just future.
But a movement sprung up in the wake of this latest bombing. Some Muslims began to say that they would not tolerate the violence. They would not tolerate the attacks supposedly made in their name against their fellow Egyptians. "An attack against one is an attack against us all," they said. Banners went up throughout the city of Alexandria showing a cross inside a crescent - symbolizing the unity of all Egyptians. A plan was formulated. Coptic Christians follow a different calendar than us in the west. Their Christmas holiday is on January 7th. During the mass to celebrate that holiday when Copts would be gathered in their churches and more attacks were feared Muslims began showing up at the doors and outside the churches holding candle-light vigils. They would be human shields, risking their lives, so that if any violence were attempted against the Copts it would kill Muslims too.
Thousands. They stood up by the thousands willing to take a bullet for people very different from them. People with no political power or importance. People their own government wouldn't protect. They arrived like God's justice- quietly, but formidably. Irresistible in its graciousness, and so gentle that not even a bruised reed was broken.
They proved conclusively by their actions that violence can never establish justice. But love can.
Isaiah 42:1-9
The words God spoke to Jesus at his baptism are echoed in many places through scripture including this passage from Isaiah where God says “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.” Justice to the nations. As Jesus was being ordained, commissioned by God through John and the water of the river Jordan for his ministry of salvation this thought was reverberating in the background – that he would bring justice to the nations. And not just any kind of justice but one that is described as being so gentle it would not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick.
This morning I ask you to meditate on justice. Justice is an ideal everyone will commend and everyone claim to desire and to serve, but I want you to consider whether we have any idea what justice is, in light of recent events in our society.
Yesterday a young white man of 22 years, Jared Loughner, walked into the middle of a meeting in Tucson, Arizona and opened fire on a group of people gathered there to meet their congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords. Representative Giffords was hit in the head and at first believed dead, but is now known to be alive and in intensive care after surgery, and is under sedation as they wait to see if she will survive. Others were injured and six were killed outright including Gabe Zimmerman, an aide to the congresswoman. US District Judge John Roll. Dorothy Morris, 76. Dorwin Stoddard, 76. Phyllis Scheck, 79. Christina Greene, a child of 9.
People are rightly shocked by this horrific violence, which unfortunately is only exceptional in that it targeted a political figure. On the same day 27 people were killed in the ongoing drug war in Mexico. There are 16 casualties on average every day in our conflict in Afghanistan. There are 11 or 12 deaths each day due to violence in Iraq. Given national averages, in our own country, 45 other murders occurred in America yesterday which received no national media attention.
Regardless of the circumstances, the attack on Representative Giffords yesterday was a travesty. We should lift up our prayers on behalf of all of those injured, the families of those murdered, and the whole of our nation as it reflects on the complex dynamics that lead to violence.
We must also pray for Jared Loughner, the man who decided to take a gun and point it at another human being and pull the trigger repeatedly. There will be a lot of over-analysis focusing on young Jared in the media in the coming days. His internet profile will be delved into. His personal life will be examined. His friends and family and acquaintances will be interviewed as everyone tries to come up with some explanation for why he chose to do what he did.
Some people already are blaming the political rhetoric in our country which has gotten so intemperate that attack ads regularly indulge in violent metaphors “targeting” their opponents. We have reached a point where we no longer distinguish between political adversaries and enemies. The hatreds and divisions along ideological lines are stark these days much to our shame. That climate may have contributed to this attack, and it is definitely deplorable behavior, but Jared was still the one who pulled the trigger.
Others will blame this attack on mental illness. They will say that Jared Loughner is a disturbed young man. A lone bad apple. Psychotic. Crazy.
It is probably true that he is suffering from a madness, but if so it is a very mundane, even commonplace madness. It is a delusion that most of humanity suffers from – the delusion that retributive violence is a mechanism of justice.
The servant of God is coming to bring justice to the nations. He will not shout or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth.
Though we do not yet know the specific reasons Jared Loughner did what he did it is guaranteed that in his mind it was justified. He almost certainly did not fire that gun believing himself to be doing evil. He probably believed at the time, and perhaps even now, that his actions were in some way contributing to a just result. A righting of wrongs.
This hysterical delusion has gripped humanity from our beginnings and though we have shaken it in rare and beautiful occasions, too often it has ruled the day. Our courts, our prisons, our armies, our security, our governments, our identities are built on the illusion that evil can be defeated by force, that wrongs can be righted by punishment.
But punishment and retribution have no power to make things right. Violence can never establish peace.
Consider a very basic example. If you have stolen something from me, how can this injustice be made right? If you are caught and sent to jail does this fix my injury? Even if the stolen object is found by the police and returned to me, has justice been accomplished? Won’t the lingering wound of having my privacy invaded, my trust violated remain? How can your punishment fix that? It doesn’t. There is only one way for amends to be made and that is for you to repent and come to me asking for forgiveness. That is it. No judge, no court, no police officer, no lightning bolt from the sky, no punishment of any kind can ever fix my injury. Only the one who injured me has the power to right the wrong. Only I, by forgiving, have the means to restore peace.
But instead of repenting and seeking forgiveness, and instead of offering it to those who have wounded us we keep seeking justice through retribution. We keep hoping the proper application of punishment will heal our wounds. In our personal relationships this is deadly, and when applied to society as a whole, extrapolating our own grievous injuries onto the body politic it results in a massacre. Every time we turn to the sword for justice we end up with broken reeds scattered across the floor. Shattered lives, wrecked hopes, and dismembered dreams are all that remain of our quest for justice.
We must conclude that we know nothing about the nature of justice, least of all God's justice which comes at the hands of one so gentle it does not break even a bruised reed. Justice, as Christ administers it, is not something opposed to forgiveness, not a force tempered by mercy, but mercy itself, forgiveness itself, reconciliation itself made concrete between victim and perpetrator so that not even a smoldering wick would be quenched by its arrival.
Since humanity could reason we have always reasoned the costs of retributive violence justified. They are not, and never can be. No matter how we will it, or legislate it, or excuse it violence will never bring us either justice or peace. It will only heap more broken reeds on the pile.
But there is a way for us to act justly toward one another. There is a way for us to make peace.
In Egypt there is a sect of Christians, the Copts, who are a very small minority in that mostly Muslim country. Furthermore, the government of Egypt has not been protective of their rights, but has too often turned a blind eye to violence and persecution committed against the Copts by others. Recently the violence has been particularly bad with extreme Islamist groups attacking Coptic Christians in their churches. A car bomb just over a week ago on New Years Eve in Alexandria killed 21 Copts. 21 broken reeds. 21 lives cut short. No doubt the bombers believed like Jared Loughner and like all people who have ever committed violence for a cause that they were contributing to a better and more just future.
But a movement sprung up in the wake of this latest bombing. Some Muslims began to say that they would not tolerate the violence. They would not tolerate the attacks supposedly made in their name against their fellow Egyptians. "An attack against one is an attack against us all," they said. Banners went up throughout the city of Alexandria showing a cross inside a crescent - symbolizing the unity of all Egyptians. A plan was formulated. Coptic Christians follow a different calendar than us in the west. Their Christmas holiday is on January 7th. During the mass to celebrate that holiday when Copts would be gathered in their churches and more attacks were feared Muslims began showing up at the doors and outside the churches holding candle-light vigils. They would be human shields, risking their lives, so that if any violence were attempted against the Copts it would kill Muslims too.
Thousands. They stood up by the thousands willing to take a bullet for people very different from them. People with no political power or importance. People their own government wouldn't protect. They arrived like God's justice- quietly, but formidably. Irresistible in its graciousness, and so gentle that not even a bruised reed was broken.
They proved conclusively by their actions that violence can never establish justice. But love can.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Mother of God
A sermon for Christmas Eve
Luke 2:1-20
As the bright lights and noise of this anything but silent night began to dwindle into the pre-dawn stillness which is not very still with a newborn lying near you Mary did the best sort of thing you can do in those hours besides sleep – she pondered. She treasured.
The footsteps of the Shepherds and their shouts of alleluia receded into the distance, the angels gave their singing a rest, and I’d wager anyone that Joseph was completely comatose from overload, snoring in a corner. I know because I’ve been there. But Mary sat awake next to her newborn son wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger, pondering. Treasuring.
The tendency of artists, poets, songwriters, theologians and everyone else has been to interpret this attitude of Mary’s as nostalgia. Mary looks down at the child in the manger with the kind of gentle glowy love and amazement that suggests she has just been a part of something miraculous. In our imagination the post-labor glow is a suffix on the end of the annunciation: the resolution of the story which began when Gabriel came to tell a frightened young girl from Nazareth that her life was about to change forever.
But though it makes a nice holiday card to think of the scene this way we can only do so by forgetting who Mary is. This is no shrinking violet. This is the composer of the magnificat, who said that God would cast out the rich and powerful and feed the poor and hungry – and would do so through her. This is the woman who faced a general in the army of Heaven giving her orders that would have seemed impossible to any of us, and said, in essence, “I can do that.” Having traveled 80 miles on foot from Nazareth to Bethlehem while in the last stages of pregnancy, and just toughed out labor and childbirth without any painkillers or even any assistance but her inexperienced and most likely terrified fiancée… she was not now going to sit there and blush at her accomplishment like it caught her by surprise. This is not your meek and mild Disney heroine. This is Theotokos – the Mother of God.
Mary was not pondering what had just happened, so much as she was treasuring what she knew was coming ahead.
You see, though giving birth is a miraculous feat it pales beside what Mary did next. Without choirs of angels, or shepherds or wise men, or strange stars, or kings, or any of these things she would be a mother to God. When Gabriel had announced that she had been chosen it was not for just those 9 months to carry some extra weight around, feel her organs and bones shifting, her womb expanding and then suddenly to end one wild night in Bethlehem. Gabriel was saying in essence that God trusted her to be the person who would take him to her breast when he cried. God trusted her to keep him warm and safe when his eyes couldn’t even see the full spectrum of color, let alone the ends of the universe. When God couldn’t recognize a human face, let alone design one. When God couldn’t conceive of time, or self, or good, or evil… God would trust her to be the person who shelters and sustains and teaches all these things. God would trust her to be his mother.
As Mary looked into that manger, while the world slept, she pondered the job ahead of her. She would be the one to teach Jesus to walk, to play, to love, and to forgive. She would be the one to dust off scraped knees, and scold him for misbehaving. She would help him grow to know himself as a man, as the first man – the human being on which all other human beings are modeled. The word made flesh.
Not only for the role she played on that night in Bethlehem, but for the role she played over decades we have known her as Mary, the Mother of God.
Luke 2:1-20
As the bright lights and noise of this anything but silent night began to dwindle into the pre-dawn stillness which is not very still with a newborn lying near you Mary did the best sort of thing you can do in those hours besides sleep – she pondered. She treasured.
The footsteps of the Shepherds and their shouts of alleluia receded into the distance, the angels gave their singing a rest, and I’d wager anyone that Joseph was completely comatose from overload, snoring in a corner. I know because I’ve been there. But Mary sat awake next to her newborn son wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger, pondering. Treasuring.
The tendency of artists, poets, songwriters, theologians and everyone else has been to interpret this attitude of Mary’s as nostalgia. Mary looks down at the child in the manger with the kind of gentle glowy love and amazement that suggests she has just been a part of something miraculous. In our imagination the post-labor glow is a suffix on the end of the annunciation: the resolution of the story which began when Gabriel came to tell a frightened young girl from Nazareth that her life was about to change forever.
But though it makes a nice holiday card to think of the scene this way we can only do so by forgetting who Mary is. This is no shrinking violet. This is the composer of the magnificat, who said that God would cast out the rich and powerful and feed the poor and hungry – and would do so through her. This is the woman who faced a general in the army of Heaven giving her orders that would have seemed impossible to any of us, and said, in essence, “I can do that.” Having traveled 80 miles on foot from Nazareth to Bethlehem while in the last stages of pregnancy, and just toughed out labor and childbirth without any painkillers or even any assistance but her inexperienced and most likely terrified fiancée… she was not now going to sit there and blush at her accomplishment like it caught her by surprise. This is not your meek and mild Disney heroine. This is Theotokos – the Mother of God.
Mary was not pondering what had just happened, so much as she was treasuring what she knew was coming ahead.
You see, though giving birth is a miraculous feat it pales beside what Mary did next. Without choirs of angels, or shepherds or wise men, or strange stars, or kings, or any of these things she would be a mother to God. When Gabriel had announced that she had been chosen it was not for just those 9 months to carry some extra weight around, feel her organs and bones shifting, her womb expanding and then suddenly to end one wild night in Bethlehem. Gabriel was saying in essence that God trusted her to be the person who would take him to her breast when he cried. God trusted her to keep him warm and safe when his eyes couldn’t even see the full spectrum of color, let alone the ends of the universe. When God couldn’t recognize a human face, let alone design one. When God couldn’t conceive of time, or self, or good, or evil… God would trust her to be the person who shelters and sustains and teaches all these things. God would trust her to be his mother.
As Mary looked into that manger, while the world slept, she pondered the job ahead of her. She would be the one to teach Jesus to walk, to play, to love, and to forgive. She would be the one to dust off scraped knees, and scold him for misbehaving. She would help him grow to know himself as a man, as the first man – the human being on which all other human beings are modeled. The word made flesh.
Not only for the role she played on that night in Bethlehem, but for the role she played over decades we have known her as Mary, the Mother of God.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Why God Breaks God's Rules
Drifting around in a variety of forms in the sea of ideas in our culture is this persistent kernel that there is a big difference between the contents and meaning of the Old Testament, and the contents and meaning of the New Testament. This idea may be expressed in the word Testament itself which suggests there were multiple different contracts God engaged in with human beings which contradict or overlap with one another. This idea may also be imported into the very identity of God as if we have a God of wrath and judgment on the one hand, and a God of love and peace on the other.
At a surface level I simply concede the point that there are indeed differences between parts of the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament. I believe the differences are usually exaggerated in conversation. The roots of all of Jesus' and Paul's preaching can be found all over the place in the Old Testament. Ideas of peace, and forgiveness, and love of neighbor are prevalent in the Torah and the Prophets. Furthermore, many of the real differences are, in my opinion, cosmetic - more a function of the gap in time between the writing of the documents, shifts in the culture, and the audience for whom the authors were writing than a deep theological divide. There are as many or more differences within the Old Testament itself, or within the New Testament as there are between the two testaments, but it is no skin off my nose to concede that one could easily find apparent conflicts between the Old Testament and the New if you wanted to.
This leads to a big problem though, because it puts us in the silly position of asking questions like "Why does God break God's own rules?" In the Torah God is depicted dictating the laws of the covenant to Moses who writes them down and delivers them to the people of Israel. In the New Testament, God is depicted as Jesus the Christ who comes in person and precedes to dismantle a number of the laws of the Old Testament. Paul and Peter follow suit in proclaiming God's covenant open to Gentiles, even those who follow none of the kosher food laws and who are not circumcised. There are a variety of possible (bad) solutions to this contradiction:
#1 - God changed God's mind. This is the solution of Open Theists and others who argue that God evolves over time and can change her opinion on things. There is Biblical support for the idea that God can change her mind- God does it several times in Genesis alone. To my mind this idea is lacking because it raises our understanding of God above God. It suggests that we understood God correctly then, and understand God correctly now and if the situation has changed the factor which is mutable must be God. As though it weren't more likely that it was we humans of limited perception that had misunderstood rather than that God had been unclear or inconsistent.
#2 - God's Laws Had An Expiration Date. This is very similar to solution #1, it is the idea of dominionists who believe that the history of God's providence is divided into eras and certain rules apply only in their respective era. I can agree with the idea that laws and ideas are contextual - ie: they matter to a certain time and culture in ways they may not to other cultures in other times, but I don't think this way of reading scripture really flies. Firstly, it chops the Bible up in ways that scripture doesn't seem to support. Jesus seemed to believe that his mission was the continuation and fulfillment of God's previous covenants with Israel, not a replacement for them. God's promises to Abraham and David didn't contain expiration dates. This ultimately makes God into an Indian Giver who promises things, but then takes them back after some hidden annulment clause triggers.
#3 - Only Some OT Rules Were From God. This solution basically says God is perfectly consistent, but only some parts of the OT were truly divinely inspired. Others were mistakes. Those mistakes got corrected in the NT and now we have it right. While I am agreed that the Bible isn't a "flat" text, meaning not every verse is equally important, I think this idea is ultimately unhelpful. How can we be sure we know exactly which rules were from God and which ones were not? The entire Torah is supposedly dictated by God directly to Moses. If they got that wrong, why should we believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and the others got it so right? We can't start going at our Bible with scissors, that undermines the entire idea of inspiration.
All of these solutions are bad in my opinion because they are using the Bible incorrectly. The assumption behind each one of these approaches is that inspiration is in the text, as though it were a mineral to be mined out of the words on the page. All we have to do is use the right tools and we'll get the answer out of there. The truth (God) is contained in the black ink. That is why the solutions above either entail changing our ideas about God (#1) since the text itself seems contradictory we resolve the contradiction by making God flexible to our interpretation; or they involve adding something into the text (#2) like an entire mythological structure to history which makes sense of the contradictions; or they cut out the parts of the text we don't like (#3) until we can force it to make sense.
A better understanding of inspiration is that it is what occurs when the Holy Spirit intervenes between the believer and the text to reveal something true about God. The text is a dead letter. It is nothing but the human record of various people who had experiences of God through the Holy Spirit and tried to write them down. We return to them because of the witness of millions that they receive the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by faithfully engaging with them as scripture. Believers are what get inspired, not books. So here would be my solution to the apparent contradiction of God breaking God's own rules:
#4 - She Doesn't. The rules in Scripture are not God's rules and they never were. They are rules people of faith have written based on their best understanding of God's will. They are rules that people have sometimes followed and sometimes found that they led to a deeper relationship with God. But they are not "the Truth". Only God, revealed in Jesus is "the Truth" - and she is forever transcendent, forever undomesticated, forever surpassing our comprehension. All of our rules, and words, and images, and beliefs, and theologies, are sand mandalas that should be swept away every so often to remind us how fragile and impermanent our ideas about God are. To borrow a parable from Buddhism, we are standing on the shore of a vast lake and we want to get to the other side. Christianity is a raft that will take us to the other side of the lake. We should get into the raft and trust it to carry us across the lake, but when we get to the other side we're going to leave the raft behind, because the raft was never the goal. The raft was a vehicle to get us to the goal - the other side of the lake.
At a surface level I simply concede the point that there are indeed differences between parts of the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament. I believe the differences are usually exaggerated in conversation. The roots of all of Jesus' and Paul's preaching can be found all over the place in the Old Testament. Ideas of peace, and forgiveness, and love of neighbor are prevalent in the Torah and the Prophets. Furthermore, many of the real differences are, in my opinion, cosmetic - more a function of the gap in time between the writing of the documents, shifts in the culture, and the audience for whom the authors were writing than a deep theological divide. There are as many or more differences within the Old Testament itself, or within the New Testament as there are between the two testaments, but it is no skin off my nose to concede that one could easily find apparent conflicts between the Old Testament and the New if you wanted to.
This leads to a big problem though, because it puts us in the silly position of asking questions like "Why does God break God's own rules?" In the Torah God is depicted dictating the laws of the covenant to Moses who writes them down and delivers them to the people of Israel. In the New Testament, God is depicted as Jesus the Christ who comes in person and precedes to dismantle a number of the laws of the Old Testament. Paul and Peter follow suit in proclaiming God's covenant open to Gentiles, even those who follow none of the kosher food laws and who are not circumcised. There are a variety of possible (bad) solutions to this contradiction:
#1 - God changed God's mind. This is the solution of Open Theists and others who argue that God evolves over time and can change her opinion on things. There is Biblical support for the idea that God can change her mind- God does it several times in Genesis alone. To my mind this idea is lacking because it raises our understanding of God above God. It suggests that we understood God correctly then, and understand God correctly now and if the situation has changed the factor which is mutable must be God. As though it weren't more likely that it was we humans of limited perception that had misunderstood rather than that God had been unclear or inconsistent.
#2 - God's Laws Had An Expiration Date. This is very similar to solution #1, it is the idea of dominionists who believe that the history of God's providence is divided into eras and certain rules apply only in their respective era. I can agree with the idea that laws and ideas are contextual - ie: they matter to a certain time and culture in ways they may not to other cultures in other times, but I don't think this way of reading scripture really flies. Firstly, it chops the Bible up in ways that scripture doesn't seem to support. Jesus seemed to believe that his mission was the continuation and fulfillment of God's previous covenants with Israel, not a replacement for them. God's promises to Abraham and David didn't contain expiration dates. This ultimately makes God into an Indian Giver who promises things, but then takes them back after some hidden annulment clause triggers.
#3 - Only Some OT Rules Were From God. This solution basically says God is perfectly consistent, but only some parts of the OT were truly divinely inspired. Others were mistakes. Those mistakes got corrected in the NT and now we have it right. While I am agreed that the Bible isn't a "flat" text, meaning not every verse is equally important, I think this idea is ultimately unhelpful. How can we be sure we know exactly which rules were from God and which ones were not? The entire Torah is supposedly dictated by God directly to Moses. If they got that wrong, why should we believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and the others got it so right? We can't start going at our Bible with scissors, that undermines the entire idea of inspiration.
All of these solutions are bad in my opinion because they are using the Bible incorrectly. The assumption behind each one of these approaches is that inspiration is in the text, as though it were a mineral to be mined out of the words on the page. All we have to do is use the right tools and we'll get the answer out of there. The truth (God) is contained in the black ink. That is why the solutions above either entail changing our ideas about God (#1) since the text itself seems contradictory we resolve the contradiction by making God flexible to our interpretation; or they involve adding something into the text (#2) like an entire mythological structure to history which makes sense of the contradictions; or they cut out the parts of the text we don't like (#3) until we can force it to make sense.
A better understanding of inspiration is that it is what occurs when the Holy Spirit intervenes between the believer and the text to reveal something true about God. The text is a dead letter. It is nothing but the human record of various people who had experiences of God through the Holy Spirit and tried to write them down. We return to them because of the witness of millions that they receive the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by faithfully engaging with them as scripture. Believers are what get inspired, not books. So here would be my solution to the apparent contradiction of God breaking God's own rules:
#4 - She Doesn't. The rules in Scripture are not God's rules and they never were. They are rules people of faith have written based on their best understanding of God's will. They are rules that people have sometimes followed and sometimes found that they led to a deeper relationship with God. But they are not "the Truth". Only God, revealed in Jesus is "the Truth" - and she is forever transcendent, forever undomesticated, forever surpassing our comprehension. All of our rules, and words, and images, and beliefs, and theologies, are sand mandalas that should be swept away every so often to remind us how fragile and impermanent our ideas about God are. To borrow a parable from Buddhism, we are standing on the shore of a vast lake and we want to get to the other side. Christianity is a raft that will take us to the other side of the lake. We should get into the raft and trust it to carry us across the lake, but when we get to the other side we're going to leave the raft behind, because the raft was never the goal. The raft was a vehicle to get us to the goal - the other side of the lake.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Half-time Reflections
Perhaps you've noticed this blog has taken on a little bit of a theme lately? I wouldn't blame our readers, new or old, from thinking that this was a single-topic blog, when in fact, we hope it will be much more than even a blog. We're in a process of building something we think is quite exciting, which is difficult to explain, but you're free to try and glean what it will be from reading our identity statement.
But for the time being this space is what it is, and it is largely dominated by this conversation about ordination standards in the Presbyterian Church (USA). That is because two of the proprietors here, Doug Hagler, and myself, are ministers in the PC(USA) and have been passionate about this issue for a long time, and now we find ourselves in the midst of a vote on Amendment 10-A and actually in a position to do our small part for greater justice. What you would probably never realize based on our recent activity is that this issue is far from the top of our list of things we are truly passionate about. Circumstances, an observed need, and our own pedantry are responsible for the current flurry of activity on this subject, but it isn't without a tinge of irony that we look at how much time we're dedicating to the subject and sigh.
That doesn't mean we regret having engaged on this course. Far from it. Speaking for myself personally, it has been a fantastic learning experience. The research required to acquit ourselves respectably on this subject has taught me a great deal, sharpened my thinking, and been an exercise in sustained attention to rival most other work I've attempted. More significantly, it has been interesting observing its spread through the very tiny pond of our denomination, and even rippling out into neighboring denominational ponds.
We are at the half-way point in terms of the structure of the original document. We've completed our expanded responses to the arguments against LGBTQ ordination, and are moving into our expansion of the arguments in favor. It is easier from here on out, though. The heavy lifting was mostly in the first half.
So far, I have been pleasantly surprised at the lack of personal attacks directed our way. I don't know if that is because most people just don't care about our tiny corner of the blogosphere, or if we have written the document in such a way as to discourage them, but I'll take it. I have no illusions of our incredible importance, or superior argumentative prowess. I believe we have done as good of a job as we're capable of doing, but whether that is good enough to have any impact is beyond my knowledge.
Due to requests from others we will be releasing a pdf of the entire expanded document with citations for those who are really bored. We will also be producing a non-denominational version of the document which we hope will be useful to fellow mainline denominations having similar conversations. Some churches have discussed using it as a curriculum for adult education, which we are surprised about, but happy to support. We may offer some help in that direction, eventually.
My hopes for this project are the same as they were at the start - that it be useful in any small measure for the accomplishment of inclusive ordination standards. I hope it will be read at presbytery meetings, in committees, in churches, and anywhere else that it may provoke fruitful conversation toward that end. And then I hope we can produce articles on the stuff that we are really passionate about that will generate half as much interest as our posts on this subject have.
But for the time being this space is what it is, and it is largely dominated by this conversation about ordination standards in the Presbyterian Church (USA). That is because two of the proprietors here, Doug Hagler, and myself, are ministers in the PC(USA) and have been passionate about this issue for a long time, and now we find ourselves in the midst of a vote on Amendment 10-A and actually in a position to do our small part for greater justice. What you would probably never realize based on our recent activity is that this issue is far from the top of our list of things we are truly passionate about. Circumstances, an observed need, and our own pedantry are responsible for the current flurry of activity on this subject, but it isn't without a tinge of irony that we look at how much time we're dedicating to the subject and sigh.
That doesn't mean we regret having engaged on this course. Far from it. Speaking for myself personally, it has been a fantastic learning experience. The research required to acquit ourselves respectably on this subject has taught me a great deal, sharpened my thinking, and been an exercise in sustained attention to rival most other work I've attempted. More significantly, it has been interesting observing its spread through the very tiny pond of our denomination, and even rippling out into neighboring denominational ponds.
We are at the half-way point in terms of the structure of the original document. We've completed our expanded responses to the arguments against LGBTQ ordination, and are moving into our expansion of the arguments in favor. It is easier from here on out, though. The heavy lifting was mostly in the first half.
So far, I have been pleasantly surprised at the lack of personal attacks directed our way. I don't know if that is because most people just don't care about our tiny corner of the blogosphere, or if we have written the document in such a way as to discourage them, but I'll take it. I have no illusions of our incredible importance, or superior argumentative prowess. I believe we have done as good of a job as we're capable of doing, but whether that is good enough to have any impact is beyond my knowledge.
Due to requests from others we will be releasing a pdf of the entire expanded document with citations for those who are really bored. We will also be producing a non-denominational version of the document which we hope will be useful to fellow mainline denominations having similar conversations. Some churches have discussed using it as a curriculum for adult education, which we are surprised about, but happy to support. We may offer some help in that direction, eventually.
My hopes for this project are the same as they were at the start - that it be useful in any small measure for the accomplishment of inclusive ordination standards. I hope it will be read at presbytery meetings, in committees, in churches, and anywhere else that it may provoke fruitful conversation toward that end. And then I hope we can produce articles on the stuff that we are really passionate about that will generate half as much interest as our posts on this subject have.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Justice
Wow. This is a sermon by George Macdonald, read by David Baldwin. It is long, but worth it.
h/t Undeception.
Some highlights:
h/t Undeception.
Some highlights:
"If anything be against mercy it cannot be called justice for it is cruelty."
"To say on the authority of the Bible that God does a thing no honourable man would do is to lie against God."
"I will accept no explanation of any way of God which explanation involves what I should scorn as false and unfair in a man."
"Such justice as Dante's keeps wickedness alive in its most terrible forms."
"The notion that a creature born imperfect, nay born with impulses to evil not of his own generating, and which he could not help having, a creature to whom the true face of God was never presented, and by whom it never could have been seen, should be thus condemned (to hell), is as loathsome a lie against God as could find place in a heart too undeveloped to understand what justice is, and too low to look up into the face of Jesus. It never in truth found a place in any heart, though in many a pettifogging brain. There is but one thing lower than deliberately to believe such a lie, and that is to worship the God of whom it is believed."
"Love, and not self-love, is Lord of the universe."
"Our business is not to think correctly, but to live truly."
"One chief cause of the amount of unbelief in the world is, that those who have seen something of the glory of Christ, set themselves to theorize concerning him rather than to obey him."
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Banner Fealty
A sermon for Christ the King Sunday
Oh say can you see, by the waning evening light
What so timidly we followed, from Galilee to Jerusalem.
Whose broad stripes and livid scars, wake the fear in our heart,
That our Lord was a lie, and his death kills our hoping.
From the top of Calvary hill, a place called Golgotha, meaning “the Skull” a flag waves. Planted by centurions, and raised up a staff it declares to the world in Hebrew, Greek and Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum. Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews.
It is a cruel joke. A taunt to the followers of the man crucified under that banner, who had considered him much more than King of the Jews. They had believed him to be the King of the World. They followed him here expecting a great victory, and now they are reduced to weeping, and hiding for shame, for fear. Their victory has become a bloody execution. The King is dead. The war is lost.
And now they have to ask themselves whether they are still loyal to that banner: Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews. Were they ever loyal?
Banner Fealty is an ancient practice. Leaders assembling their army plant a banner, a flag, a symbol on a high place and summon their subjects to swear their allegiance. Those willing to risk their life in battle pledge their “fealty” an oath of service and loyalty to the banner. In ancient warfare fought on a field face to face, the Banner is how you organize and direct the movements of your troops. The banner goes first into battle, leading the loyal warriors against the banner of the enemy. Every soldier hopes that he will follow his banner to victory. That at the end of the day his own banner will be standing tall, while the enemy’s flag is buried with the dead.
This is what a flag is – that symbol you pledge and promise to follow into danger. The thing you hope will lead you to victory.
This ancient practice has not varied to this day. We no longer have kings, but we still have banners. We still swear our fealty to the symbols of our national pride. We pledge allegiance to the flag. And the meaning of this allegiance is precisely the same – it is a promise that if we were to go into battle we would fight for our flag against the flag of our enemy. It is the hope that our flag will be flying high when the flag of our enemy has been brought low. It is a bloody reminder of our commitment to tribal divisions – that we are willing to kill other people to protect those in our clan.
Loyalty is a powerful and dangerous thing. It cannot be divided and remain true. You cannot serve two kings. You cannot follow two different banners into battle. You will either walk with one or the other and either uphold one or the other. Even if you believe these two kings are allied, you must still choose which one you will march with. Which one you trust to lead you to victory.
Flying from the top of that hill in Jerusalem, a lonely flag, which read: Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews. And those who had sworn their allegiance to that banner wondered whether they had won or lost. Caesar believed he had claimed the field, and won the day. The cross is a stand in for Caesar’s banner, a warning to those who march with other kings “this will be your fate.”
But Caesar could not predict, because Caesar could not comprehend, the nature of Christ’s victory. Jesus is a king like no other whose battle plan the enemy cannot defeat, because even in defeat, especially in defeat, the banner of Christ is raised most high. The army of Christ marches unarmed. It bears all cruelty and returns good for evil and so disarms the foe. For you cannot destroy that which is under God’s promise of resurrection and you cannot overcome love with hatred. If I am willing to die for your soul, then you cannot take my life from me. The path of the cross makes the walker invincible.
Invincible. If you have the courage to walk it. Because you cannot follow the banner of Christ and the banner of Caesar both. You cannot pledge allegiance to a flag of blood and warfare and nationalism, and be loyal to the prince of peace. You either put down your sword and accept the cross, or you live by the sword, and die by it also.
Therefore, we have a sanctuary divided, and we will as long as we have both the flag of the United States in the corner, and the cross hanging over the communion table. We are hesitating to commit. It is understandable. We are human. Our affections pull us in different directions. We have always been prone to idolatry. Our idols are subtle and cunning and they tell us that we can serve both masters. That we can worship at the base of both flags. That we can trust our lord and savior, but also put our trust in our military, and our political leaders. There has most likely never been a time in your life when you were asked directly to make this choice. I will understand if you reject what I am saying to you now, therefore.
Jesus, the Nazarene, King of the Jews. That is what the banner said which they hung over his head on the cross. By the light of the resurrection the Church came to understand that the banner actually read: Jesus, the Nazarene, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Prince of Peace. His banner will never fall, but will be raised higher every time one of his disciples has the courage to follow him to the cross, rather than march behind Caesar. And for the rest of us Jesus offers these words: Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Stop Doing Your Part
It is the instantly recognizable thumbnail of a widespread social ethic. The phrase 'do your part' in its various conjugations is universally understood as a good thing. It is an appeal anyone can make with a reasonable expectation it will meet with affirmation. And it needs to stop.Picture a large heavy object with a crowd of people standing around it at even intervals. Divide the weight of that object by the number of individuals and you have the amount of effort it will take each person to lift it. If everyone just 'does their part' a task is accomplished which one person alone or a few people would find difficult or even impossible. It sounds straightforward and fair right?
The problem is that in life people aren't positioned around that object at even intervals. A great many are piled up in certain areas and other spots have only a few people nearby. Furthermore, the object isn't a nice even density. It is heavier at some corners than others and the heavy spots don't always line up where the large groupings of people are. And the people aren't all equally strong. Some of the people can't expend as much effort as others. And it's really foggy and the people can't see each other and no one really knows how much effort another person is putting into lifting the weight. All we know is how much effort WE are putting in.
'Doing your part' is just another way of letting the weight stay on the ground. It is a moral escape clause. It allows you to feel good about yourself and even seek approval from others without having accomplished anything. The truth is that most difficult things in this world are going to be accomplished by a minority of people doing much more than their part. This is partly because life is unfair. Partly because some people are gifted in ways others are not, and partly because some people get off their ass and get to work while everyone else is doing their part.
An apocryphal statistic that floats about in churches is that 20% of the people do 80% of the work. Usually this is said as a lament. "If only we could get those other 80% to do their part, wouldn't it be wonderful!" Without a doubt life would be improved if everyone was equally motivated, talented, and provided equal opportunities to work on the projects that are important to me. But none of those projects are ever going to get completed if I wait for that miraculous day to arrive, or if I keep putting in mediocre effort expecting everyone else to meet me halfway.
Here is what Jesus has to say about doing your part: "Some workers arrived at dawn. Some later in the morning. Some in the afternoon. Some workers arrived just before the end of the day. All the workers got paid the same wage." Deal.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Talking Like Adults
With the exception of Jon Stewart, the smartest and most interesting commentators in the media are bloggers. Network television is a cesspit of sensationalist drivel. Newspapers are calcified institutions. Most reporters are now nothing but the mouthpiece of their government or corporate "sources". Radio is a bunch of neanderthals grunting at each other. There is precious little reason to read, listen to, or watch any of the mainstream media out there.
Some bloggers though? Some of them are keeping the fire burning.
Allow me to give you an example of some bright minds having a public conversation on matters of substance in a way that edifies everyone.
Hopefully you know by now that President Obama has publicly announced his intention to target certain individuals he designates as enemies of the United States for elimination. On the list of targets are at least four US citizens. One in particular, Anwar al-Awlaki, is the focus of this particular debate, because he is the only one whose identity we know.
This debate began, because al-Awlaki's father sued to get a court order to ban the government from assassinating his son without due process. In response, the Department of Justice on behalf of the White House filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the case without hearing the merit of the claims on the basis of "state secrets". In other words, to quote Glenn Greenwald, "not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality."
Glenn Greenwald, who blogs at Salon, is a persistent progressive civil libertarian. He was joined by Alex Massie at the Spectator in arguing that this represented a massive power grab by the president and a serious threat to constitutionally guaranteed liberties. And here is where it became a true conversation - Andrew Sullivan of The Dish at the Atlantic cited both men and argued briefly against them, saying essentially that this doesn't amount to an assassination, but rather a normal act of war in the context of the global war on terror. Sullivan, having been a vocal critic of the Bush administration torture policies was immediately called out all over the internet for being a hypocrite.
Proving the libertarian strain awkwardly straddles the liberal/conservative divide in this country Sullivan got hit from both sides. Daniel Larison of Eunomia at The American Conservative hit back that Obama defenders who shy from the word "assassination" are no better than the Bush defenders who wanted us all to choke down that Enhanced Interrogation bullshit. Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine used his legal expertise to delve into the issues behind this argument and show why Ex Parte Quirin, the case being used as the major precedent for presidential authority to kill American citizens still requires due process, and probably doesn't even apply in this instance. Greenwald came back the most emphatically with questions for Sullivan to answer, such as would Sullivan be comfortable with a future President Palin having the established authority to assassinate US Citizens without judicial oversight or due process?
They were important, hard-hitting questions. The kind you don't see on CNN or Fox News. Andrew Sullivan took the time to reply, but unfortunately only stoked the fire more since his principal defense seemed to be to reiterate the assertion in the title of his post "We are at war!" as if this justified presidential power-grabs for Obama that he deplored under Bush. Novelist and blogger Barry Eisler took that opportunity to chime in with one of the best essays in the entire conversation tearing Sullivan's arguments to shreds without hyperbole. Greenwald also responded using a parallel example from a current situation in Kenya to drive home how far the United States has gone down the road of authoritarianism when small impoverished countries contending with serious terrorist threats have a higher respect for the rule of law than we do.
The debate may continue, but I think the major points have already been elucidated. Sullivan, unfortunately has not responded to the diversity or strength of the arguments of his opponents, but has chosen instead to rehash his "we're at war" line, which is unpersuasive to say the least. My sympathies lie with Greenwald in this. I can't believe we are even debating whether assassination is a legal option for the President of the USA, but I really appreciate the way this whole conversation has unfolded. No one stooped to ad hominem or hyperbole. Everyone, including Sullivan who I think has got the worst of it, attempted to present reasoned argument for their point of view with relevant factual support. Amazing to see journalists talking like adults.
Some bloggers though? Some of them are keeping the fire burning.
Allow me to give you an example of some bright minds having a public conversation on matters of substance in a way that edifies everyone.
Hopefully you know by now that President Obama has publicly announced his intention to target certain individuals he designates as enemies of the United States for elimination. On the list of targets are at least four US citizens. One in particular, Anwar al-Awlaki, is the focus of this particular debate, because he is the only one whose identity we know.
This debate began, because al-Awlaki's father sued to get a court order to ban the government from assassinating his son without due process. In response, the Department of Justice on behalf of the White House filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the case without hearing the merit of the claims on the basis of "state secrets". In other words, to quote Glenn Greenwald, "not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality."
Glenn Greenwald, who blogs at Salon, is a persistent progressive civil libertarian. He was joined by Alex Massie at the Spectator in arguing that this represented a massive power grab by the president and a serious threat to constitutionally guaranteed liberties. And here is where it became a true conversation - Andrew Sullivan of The Dish at the Atlantic cited both men and argued briefly against them, saying essentially that this doesn't amount to an assassination, but rather a normal act of war in the context of the global war on terror. Sullivan, having been a vocal critic of the Bush administration torture policies was immediately called out all over the internet for being a hypocrite.
Proving the libertarian strain awkwardly straddles the liberal/conservative divide in this country Sullivan got hit from both sides. Daniel Larison of Eunomia at The American Conservative hit back that Obama defenders who shy from the word "assassination" are no better than the Bush defenders who wanted us all to choke down that Enhanced Interrogation bullshit. Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine used his legal expertise to delve into the issues behind this argument and show why Ex Parte Quirin, the case being used as the major precedent for presidential authority to kill American citizens still requires due process, and probably doesn't even apply in this instance. Greenwald came back the most emphatically with questions for Sullivan to answer, such as would Sullivan be comfortable with a future President Palin having the established authority to assassinate US Citizens without judicial oversight or due process?
They were important, hard-hitting questions. The kind you don't see on CNN or Fox News. Andrew Sullivan took the time to reply, but unfortunately only stoked the fire more since his principal defense seemed to be to reiterate the assertion in the title of his post "We are at war!" as if this justified presidential power-grabs for Obama that he deplored under Bush. Novelist and blogger Barry Eisler took that opportunity to chime in with one of the best essays in the entire conversation tearing Sullivan's arguments to shreds without hyperbole. Greenwald also responded using a parallel example from a current situation in Kenya to drive home how far the United States has gone down the road of authoritarianism when small impoverished countries contending with serious terrorist threats have a higher respect for the rule of law than we do.
The debate may continue, but I think the major points have already been elucidated. Sullivan, unfortunately has not responded to the diversity or strength of the arguments of his opponents, but has chosen instead to rehash his "we're at war" line, which is unpersuasive to say the least. My sympathies lie with Greenwald in this. I can't believe we are even debating whether assassination is a legal option for the President of the USA, but I really appreciate the way this whole conversation has unfolded. No one stooped to ad hominem or hyperbole. Everyone, including Sullivan who I think has got the worst of it, attempted to present reasoned argument for their point of view with relevant factual support. Amazing to see journalists talking like adults.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Children in Public
I don't know whether it is because of the growing DINK (double income no kids) phenomenon, or lingering Victorian ideas of kids being seen/not heard, but our society is pretty inhospitable to children in public.As it relates to children the public sphere is intensely segregated. There are places specially set aside where kids are welcome - matinees of an animated movie, playgrounds, schools, family-friendly restaurants and fast-food joints. But step outside those boundaries and you will hear about it.
I have a pretty rebellious attitude and a thick skin and even I am constantly aware of the rolling-of-eyes, the impatient sighs, and the cruel looks that get shot my way when Curran decides to sing a song in the middle of dinner at a nice restaurant, or Avery turns to ask me a question about the plot during a movie or at a play. To sensitive parents like my wife the scorn is a palpable barrier to participation in adult life. Plenty of parents choose not to go where they know they aren't welcome.
In the short and the long run this attitude is very destructive. Being a parent is hard. No, being a parent is impossibly hard, and we have compounded that difficulty by isolating parents. While we approvingly quote generic proverbs like "it takes a village to raise a child", in fact, we have made children just another individual choice - a commodity. Some people "choose" to have children. Others don't. Since it is an individual choice the individual bears the cost. Why should the single, the childless, and the retired have to endure your parenting trials, the noise, the smells, the inconvenience with you?
I implore everyone to realize that however much the baby on the airplane is making you suffer, the parent is suffering 100x more. If you're conscious of a child making noise in a movie theater, the parent is completely consumed by it. Think it's hard to enjoy your dinner with the rugrats in the next booth bouncing around? Try being the parent.
The solution can't be segregation either. Some people want parents to keep their kids to "family-friendly" environments not just to avoid the awkwardness of having to put up with children, but also to protect the children. The result of this kind of thinking though is to consign parents and kids to ghettos where everything is primary colors and cheesy music all the time. It is bad for the parents, the kids, and society.
First, the parents. Having children doesn't mean we stopped liking music and wanting to go to concerts, or museums, or the theater or whatever activity you think is too adult for us to be bringing our kids to. For sanity's sake we need to continue to engage our interests and passions. Doing so makes us better people and better parents. Leaving the kids at home is not always an option and even if it was, one of the worst things a parent can do is exclude their kids from everything they like to do in life. Not everyone has the same ideas as you about what is "kid-appropriate" (an idea I think is flawed to begin with). Try being less judgmental about what a parent should or shouldn't be exposing their kid to - especially if you're not a parent yourself.
Next, the kids. Segregating kids from adult activities is bad for them. Kids learn to like and understand adult activities by being exposed to them. If you think it is an inappropriate environment for a child, instead of making a snide remark about bad parents, try doing your part to make the environment better. Talk to kids. Explain what is going on. Look out for them and help them, rather than ignoring them. You know what makes an environment unsafe for kids? Adults. But we could just as easily make things better rather than worse.
Finally, society. No matter what you think, raising the next generation is your responsibility as much as anyone else's. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we continue to cut parents and children off from the elderly, the single, the young, the employed, and so on. We should be doing the opposite. We should have children in the workplace observing and apprenticing. Children should be present at every important meeting of government and business transaction, in every dance club, bar, theater, museum, warehouse, and factory. Far from us teaching them bad habits (which we already do quite well), they might actually teach us a bit of restraint and compassion. There might be less corruption, greed, lust, and hatred if we had to do it in front of innocent eyes.
Jesus said "let the children come to me." We say, "yes, let them go to Sunday School, or Day Care, or the playground or somewhere else away from me." Children are loud, and inconvenient. They don't follow the social rules. They interrupt our lives. They are inconsiderate. They get hurt and they cry. They find something funny and they laugh without regard for who else is listening. They are also people. Not someone else's responsibility. Not someone else's choice. Human beings. Who are especially in need of your care and attention. Quit rolling your eyes and say hello.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The Liquid Network
This is what we're talking about. This is why we want to launch TFF as something new and fecund:
We want to be a place where good ideas about theology come together to have sex.
We want to be a place where good ideas about theology come together to have sex.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Rumblings of Progress
For over two years now Doug Hagler, Nick Larson, and myself have been plotting to take over the internet. Going back even farther than that we have been friends who also happen to use computers. We are none of us cutting edge, though Nick has some actual know-how that is a few years out of date. So our conquest is inching along at a hard-to-see-it's-so-slow rate.
Recently though we have been gathering steam to attempt something pretty ambitious, which will be the next evolution of Two Friars and a Fool. The website, already in development, will be a virtual pub - a space for convivial debate and argument about things that matter. We hope to stimulate good conversation by hosting and creating high quality content. Articles, videos, and interviews by and with some great thinkers will be posted at regular intervals along with video responses from we three fools. We want you to get into the argument too by delving into the forums and engaging in direct debate with theologians, authors, speakers, and trolls from every corner of the internet.
We are still a few months away from this being a reality, but already we're laying the ground work. Building a Facebook Page to spread the word and provide updates. Starting a twitter feed for the "TwoFriars", which will give you the no-nonsense notifications of new content. A separate twitter feed "AndaFool" will let you in on our twisted sense of humor. News is slow coming at the moment, but you can be an early adopter and use the power of social media to feed us ideas about how we should assemble a casual, lively home for drunken theological debate online.
Recently though we have been gathering steam to attempt something pretty ambitious, which will be the next evolution of Two Friars and a Fool. The website, already in development, will be a virtual pub - a space for convivial debate and argument about things that matter. We hope to stimulate good conversation by hosting and creating high quality content. Articles, videos, and interviews by and with some great thinkers will be posted at regular intervals along with video responses from we three fools. We want you to get into the argument too by delving into the forums and engaging in direct debate with theologians, authors, speakers, and trolls from every corner of the internet.
We are still a few months away from this being a reality, but already we're laying the ground work. Building a Facebook Page to spread the word and provide updates. Starting a twitter feed for the "TwoFriars", which will give you the no-nonsense notifications of new content. A separate twitter feed "AndaFool" will let you in on our twisted sense of humor. News is slow coming at the moment, but you can be an early adopter and use the power of social media to feed us ideas about how we should assemble a casual, lively home for drunken theological debate online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)