People don’t seem to be reading my blog as much lately (numbers of hits are down), so I thought that I’d post something controversial and see how that works for me…
I was quoted in an article in The Daily Northwestern. This was in a special insert in Friday's edition about Roe vs. Wade.
While nothing in the article in which I am quoted is incorrect, the article doesn’t have the nuances of my true theology and feelings. I am totally against the illegalization of abortion – I don’t think that that will be helpful to us at all. However, I wouldn’t encourage women to do it. I think that education is key. Northwestern reporters found that there hadn’t been a lot of abortions on campus lately (1 out of over 300 women surveyed), but I wonder if that has to do with the ease with which people can get contraception. That of course cuts down on abortions.
But doesn’t cut down on sex, which seems to be very abundant on college campuses now. Several campus ministers have been talking about this lately. My generation was coming of age with the beginning of understanding AIDS. The story was: if you have sex, you will die. That’s it – it’s that basic. That’s not the story any more. So, there is lots of sex. But luckily, not many abortions.
So – anyway – that’s the big article for the day. Hopefully serving as a resource for students at NU…Not sure how to not get labeled in the two campus that seem to be the only options in the world that requires one to choose a pole…
The one thing that all of the people in Time’s December 26 issue had in common was passion. People walked into situations where they could have felt pity (or fear) but instead felt anger at the system and wanted to do something about it.
One of the best paragraphs comes from the introduction of Bono, Melinda, and Bill:
“This is not about pity. It’s more about passion. Pity sees suffering and wants to ease the pain; passion sees injustice and wants to settle the score. Pity implores the powerful to pay attention; passion warns them about what will happen if they don’t. the risk of pity is that it kills with kindness; the promise of passion is that it builds on the hope that the poor are fully capable of helping themselves if given the chance. In 2005 the world’s poor needed no more condolences; they needed people to get interested, get mad, and then get to work” (45).
What will you be passionate about in 2006? What will you do with that passion?
The “Partners of the Year” can also serve as a power example of reconciliation for the US and the world. This idea struck me while reading the interviews and story in the December 26 issue of Time. I had heard about their travels and the good work that they were doing, but had not spent much time reflecting on it…
But they are men from the opposite spectrum coming together to make a difference in the world – to point out issues and help people get the help that they need. I think that this example is a great one for the people of the United States who have been spending an awful lot of time in separate camps. It’s not about “can’t we all just get along?” but about making alliances with people who used to be our enemies. It’s about coming back to say, “I have been hurt by you in the past, but we can make a difference in our world.” It’s about apologizing for the past – those things done wrong to us and the wrong that we have done – and choosing to live differently.
I have had the opportunity for reconciliation recently – a long standing separation with a long time friend. I also look forward to an opportunity to reconcile with another person with whom I’ve lost contact.
But the anger that I hold against these people doesn’t do me or others any good.
Power is a tricky issue that is dealt with most often in the political sphere, but can also be found in the church. Time (December 26, 2005) spent many pages talking about the power that people have and how they use it – sometimes to the detriment of others, but often times to the benefit of the world. The “Partners of the Year” are George Bush and Bill Clinton for the work that they have been doing in, what started as, disaster relief. They have enormous amounts of power even out of office. They are able to make things happen and get things moving and create results. I understand that this is after years of hard work and making connections and keeping in contact with people. It’s all part of the political game.
People in the church have power. How do we use the power and not be embarrassed by it? Several people were talking recently about the power that people in the church could claim – if they would just reach out and claim it. There seems to be an aversion to claiming that one has power. This is seen in lay people and in clergy – women and men. It seems that if one is a Christian, one doesn’t have power.
Over the last year, I have worked hard to claim power as a woman priest. I know that there are points when I should claim this power in order to begin change and I also need to treat this power carefully. I believe that I should use my power to help change things for the better for people. I need to help systems become healthy, help people feel comfortable, and encourage others to make change.
What power do you have and how are you using it?
So – Bono is out to save the world. He has the money, he has the audience (thanks to U2’s continued support of his work), and he is getting the contacts together to make a change. Angelina Jolie is working on saving the world. She has the money and the power to travel and bring light to some of the darkness in the world.
Time calls this last year the “Year of Charitainment” (93): the year where a bunch of celebrities picked and issue and started doing something. James Poniewozik writes the two pages that point out how hard it is to know which issue to pick to support – natural disasters, medical issues, hunger, clean water. And we can easily look at the celebrities and scoff at their work, “Why would they pick that one over all the other issues.” But Poniewozik says that we may see the celebrity as ridiculous, but only because we also are. “She has reminded us that we spend so much time on trivia that we ignore the matters of life and death to other people” (94). Yes, the star mags all have the info, but we sit around and read it…
Of course, I’m not saying “throw out all entertainment and work all the time.” I think that it’s another opportunity to look at balance in our lives. As I look at how I’m spending my time, do I think that it is a good way to do it? (Personally, I spend a lot of time watching movies because I like them - they are great entertainment.)
I think that celebrity brings with it a lot of power and for those who get famous quickly with little work, they have a harder time dealing with that. But those who can use the power for good can make a lasting change in how things are done.
But the question for the less famous – to whom will we listen? What are celebrities saying to us about being involved and helping with change?
Time, December 26, highlights the Persons of the Year: Bono, Melinda and Bill Gates. An amazing issue that highlights the many issues that these three have been working on addressing. World health is such a huge problem and people have continued to be overwhelmed at considering a solution for it. There is a comment about how Melinda and Bill could be the ones to save the world. While I don’t use or appreciate Bill’s work in the computer world, I do greatly admire the work that Melinda and Bill are doing and the passion that they bring to helping people. They seem to make a balanced team to address the complexity of the various situations with press, foreign powers, and the poor that they visit.
All of my life I have wanted to save the world. It’s a long-standing issue – at which many of you will not be shocked. Over time, I have started to get over it – people telling me that it can never be done, trying to say that it’s too much stress or too much work or just impossible. One person can do a small part that is good – but nothing so grand as saving the world. So, I’ve found ways to help people near me and support organizations that are doing good work.
The last Sunday of the term (Dec. 4), I preached on imagination. I talked about how Advent is a time of waiting – and when we can sit and be quiet, invite the Holy Spirit in to inspire us, our imaginations can run wild. In these times, we can imagine amazing things – things that might be miracles or things that can change the world. Mary could imagine the fulfillment of God’s promise, and so carried God into the world. I encouraged the students to use the last 2 weeks of Advent (the first two weeks were filled with reading week and finals) to take time off and let their imaginations run – to be inspired to find solutions to the world’s problems – AIDS, environmental damange, homelessness, hunger. In that moment of making a list, I was inspired by the Holy Spirit – that any of the people sitting in the congregation could have the answers to these questions…
And then I wonder if I should give up my dream of saving the world. How am I called to imagine a different future? Bill, Melinda, and Bono are doing it now. Yes, the have star power and celebrity, and a whole lot of money. But I have passion and drive and perhaps a calling. What I am going to do with it?
How will you save the world?
Blogging has been a bit sporadic lately – due to some travel and being distracted. I’m now on the way to Arizona for a week of visiting more relatives. I hope to do a series of posts based on the December 26, 2005 issue of Time. There are several things that were of interest to me and made me want to write and process some of the information. I hope that you’ll read and respond – where are you at with these things?
Also in the July/August 2005 Utne, there was an interesting article called “Hell is Other iPods” by Caspar Melville. There was the comment: “There is no zeal like the zeal of an Apple Mac user; just try asking one innocently, as I once did, if there really is any substantial difference between a Mac and a PC.” Well – yeah…
However, then there’s a paragraph that talks about iPods adding to social fagmentation. It takes away from “community” and any sort of interactions that might happen between people in public places.
Being a person who is always about community, I’ve wondered about how the iPod will change life for us – in negative ways. I do not own an iPod, but not because I’m opposed to them. I think that they are very cool and always was jealous of Phil listening to books on his.
Other thoughts? What are the bonuses to the technology? How can we work on community? Or, is it already too late?
A group of clergy meet to discuss Radical Orthodoxy. This last time, we talked about the chapter by Gerard Loughlin dealing with the Erotic. Unfortunately, he didn’t really make a great case. He rambled about things that he disagreed with, but then never outlined his case with strong support.
But one of the good lines was “It would seem that our culture always takes us unawares” (158). I think that we (the Church) could really look at the cultural stuff that we are surrounded by. I would really like to be ahead of the curve. What can we do that helps us address the issues without being surprised by them? Obviously, talking about sex in church (or in church circles) is one of the things that I feel is missing. I think that the church should be leading discussions about sexuality. We discussed responding to divorce, which would be another taboo topic. Miscarriage and abortion would also count as things that the church has not responded to well.
How can we stand over and against the culture, so that we seem to know what’s going on and make healthy responses to what is happening?
Thanks to Beth, I was able to read A Song to Sing, a Life to Live by Don and Emily Saliers. I love Indigo Girls and have liked other stuff that Don has written, so it was great to read this.
There are some pieces that really caught my attention and resonated with me.
“Expanding musical boundaries is a challenge because at first it feels like you have to give up an identity that has become comfortable. It is easier for most people to sing what they know – in a sense, to sing what they have already become – than to venture into something new” (89). It’s amazing to me how often I have seen this – in parishes, in seminary, in friends, in myself. Like liturgy, music is tied directly to our identities. It’s hard to be open to something else and to experience something new. When we do, we often find that something unexpected and wonderful happens (might I be bold enough to call it grace?). Or even if we don’t in ourselves feel any different after having heard it, we can talk with others who have been touched by the experience. We can realize that just because we don’t connect doesn’t make it worthless. (This goes for liturgy or music.)
In talking about congregations having fights about music, the comment is made that “all language about God is limited; the divine reality requires a wide range of music if we even begin to express our awe and wonder. The conflicts will be deep and divisive as long as people do not listed to one another in love” (110). It takes time and concentration to be willing to share identity questions. I think that it also takes a strong leader to walk people through the process. The first challenge is to help people see that the music (liturgy) is really about their identities. Once they can have some sort of recognition about it, they might be able to breathe a little more deeply and open up to the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of another.
“Hymns that sing of justice and freedom ought to agitate and disturb many of us. Such songs can bring us face to face with truths we might rather not know” (146). It makes me ask, “How am I doing that in my the worship that I help plan? How can I bring these to students and help them become open to the hurts and injustice in the world? How can we together work for justice after being inspired by song?”
A great book and I’m so glad that I read it.
I’m at Interim Ministry training this week. We ended up in a multi-denominational discussion about the call process and the agreements that are reached between the rector/pastor and the parish/congregation. One of the people talked about how the covenant is like a marriage. The priest and the parish get married and when the priest leaves, it’s like a divorce. This then means that when one is on a new search that there is a flirtation or affair going on.
What do you all think of this? I see some really unhealthy things that happen with that much “commitment” between what I see as more of a contract. What does that say about theology of the roles?
So – the parish that I went to today celebrated Christmas in July. All that it really affected were the hymns (all from Christmas) and we skipped the confession. It was fine, but I’m not quite sure how I feel about it. Why would we do it? What does it mean to move seasons around? I guess that it could be a way to emphasize the "incarnation" and switch things up a bit. Of course, I'm always happy to sing Christmas carols. They are great, and we get to use them so little.
Anyone else know of places that use this? What do you think about it?
So – is life all fate? Si and I started an interesting discussion about destiny. So – what do you think? Is there fate? Destiny? And how do we distinguish between having something happen because of “fate” and “God’s ‘coincidence’”? An example: I was sitting at my desk one day at work, doing some computer stuff. For whatever reason, I wasn’t comfortable; I was tired of sitting and needed to get up and move around. I decide to go for a walk, thinking that I would do an errand. As I start walking in that direction, I run into 3 people connected to Canterbury. We had a great discussion. Random? God’s guidance? Fate?
I have started to use the term “moments of grace.” But is there a difference between what I call “grace” and what another person calls “fate.” Is it the difference of language between a believer in God and an atheist?
My other problem is that movies like this make us wander around looking for the “perfect” person. (Really probably not the time for me watching a “romantic comedy”…) And “life partner” of course seems to be the only discussion that involves “destiny.”
But, also makes me ask – in times of divorce rates at 50% - how can we frame love and relationships realistically? Who are the people with good relationships and how can we portray that better in the media. Sure, there may be some special stuff that happens when two people meet, but then there’s always the “ever after” part.
In the deleted scenes, there was a great game called “cubing” that they play. That’s great! I really like that. It was a great game. Reminds me of another one that involved walking in the woods and a cup. Should probably find that one also.
So – I’ve gotten to the sermon that I’ve been dreading. I need some help.
2 questions:
1. If a person gets laying on of hands for healing and doesn’t get well, what does that say? If we pray for healing of illness, and it doesn’t happen, does that mean that God doesn’t listen? Or that we didn’t pray hard enough? (what are we asking for in "healing" - and of course we're told to "pray unceasingly" but what if someone does and it still doesn't "fix the problem" in his/her eyes?)
2. so, then we if think about being 'whole in body, mind, and spirit'... if we pray for wholeness – can one be whole and still human? Not perfect – just whole. what is wholeness? can we be "ill" and still "whole"?
I have some thoughts to work with, but would appreciate some help and reflection on this.
I’m still trying to recover from being away at Nat Gat and coming back to the term starting. But this was a story too cool to miss.
Getting out of Denver too MUCH longer than we expected. Train delay after train delay. There was a hotel room to help with the tired children and tired adults. Most of the college students did just fine…though, we didn’t find this shocking…
Once we finally got started (5 am Chicago time, when it should have been 8:30 pm), we knew that it would be a long trip. Several of us thought that doing church would be a good idea (it was Sunday, after all). So, we gathered below the coach seats in an old smoking car.
It was the coolest service EVER! The music was amazing (being Christmas, we sang the appropriate songs)! Everyone singing in harmony – and reverberating really well. The Spirit was definitely moving throughout the car.
After the service, we sang the rest of the Christmas hymns from the hymnal and the rest of the contemporary songs out of the songbook that we had. And then we sang…and sang…and sang… Very, very awesome.
So, even though it was long and exhausting, I really appreciated doing church with the training Prov V group.
So, a friend suggested that I read The Garden. I was excited – I’m all about midrash. I was interested to see what someone might have to say about the Garden of Eden and Genesis 3. However, once I started reading, I was disappointed. Adam was painted as a simple idiot – totally uninterested in learning and living, accepting all of God’s words as truth. Eve was painted as fun and adventurous, interested in learning and exploring. A totally sexist take on the beginning of humanity.
That’s not even to the portrayal of God – rigid and unchanging, mean and harsh. Imposing God’s will on the world without consideration of anyone or care of creation. It turned from “The devil made me to it” to “God made me do it”. It was God who caused humanity to rebel and make poor choices. Because God is self-centered and uncaring, Adam and Eve make the choices to leave God’s protection in the Garden.
I was excited, but cannot offer this as a good book to read. Perhaps something to look at for a view of the world, but not something that I think adds to my life and spiritual development in God.
I was watching Days of our Lives. Suddenly, people pulled out hatchets and other weapons and started hacking each other to bits. It was not implied violence, either – I saw it all. Suddenly, the characters changed and I was right there – it was very close. The carnage was everywhere. I was not hacking or being hacked, but it was all right there. Very graphic, very horrific. Awful.
Someone paralleled US politics with Israel. The person claimed that when the US has been supportive of restoration of Israel, the economy has improved. When the support has been taken away, the economy goes down. I thought this sounded awfully close to Christian Zionism (see Ryan for more info). The person quoted “Those who bless you are blessed, those who curse you are cursed” and interpreted it as the US blessing Israel receives a blessing then.
And what about the idea of “God bless America”? Does God bless us as a country or just as individuals?
So – I’m not really sure how much time I’ve ever spent thinking about angels, but I was challenged with a new thought the other day. I’m still not sure what I think about it, but thought that I’d throw it out there and see what feedback you might have…
Someone said, “Angels are not human.” (okay, I’m good with that so far) “They were created to serve God. To fly around the throne and worship singing ‘holy, holy, holy’ all day long and to serve as messengers or helpers. Right now, they are above us, but later they will be below us. They are just another created thing and not particularly special.” This is a paraphrase, but the person insinuated that angels are just another object to be used by God. Now, I understand that angels may not be blessed with “souls” and therefore are different than humans, I’m not sure how I feel about the person’s disregarding angels as part of the created order. That they are simply to be used by God like we use cars, computers, Kleenex. I felt that the person might then take that attitude toward other created stuff. Doesn’t God care for all of creation? Isn’t there a deep love that God has for creation and we are also supposed to care for it?
Any help on this would be appreciated.