Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Who Decides Who Is Expendable?
Earlier this week in Portland, Jack Collins, a homeless man going through a mental health crisis, was shot four times by Officer Jason Walters. Jack bled to death. An Oregon public radio show, Think Out Loud discussed the issue, wondering about police force. My response is this:
The problem I see is not with a policeman in a particular situation, but how police are trained in general. They are trained to offer security, both for "citizens" and themselves. But they are also trained to fire on any threats, or "bad guys". I am simplifying a great deal here, but I have seen a number of police at work in different situations with the homeless. The homeless are not treated as citizens. As a pastor whose congregation is homeless, I have had a police officer tell me, "We don't care about these people, we just want to make sure that you and your staff are safe."
Thus, some people are expendable. Police officers aren't, because they "contribute." But the homeless and the mentally ill are. So if it comes down to an officer dealing with fear or with killing a homeless man, there is no option. The homeless man is expendable and there is a slight risk to the officer, therefore the homeless man must be shot four times.
They need to train officers to not fear such situations, but to be ready for them. They need to be trained to treat all people with respect, even if they don't understand what they are doing. They need to be trained to be flexible.
I could have gotten the knife off of that man without anyone being hurt, in all probability. The officer perhaps couldn't have, certainly not with him shouting at him. The only difference is our training and experience. If the officer had different training, perhaps another citizen could still be alive.
The problem I see is not with a policeman in a particular situation, but how police are trained in general. They are trained to offer security, both for "citizens" and themselves. But they are also trained to fire on any threats, or "bad guys". I am simplifying a great deal here, but I have seen a number of police at work in different situations with the homeless. The homeless are not treated as citizens. As a pastor whose congregation is homeless, I have had a police officer tell me, "We don't care about these people, we just want to make sure that you and your staff are safe."
Thus, some people are expendable. Police officers aren't, because they "contribute." But the homeless and the mentally ill are. So if it comes down to an officer dealing with fear or with killing a homeless man, there is no option. The homeless man is expendable and there is a slight risk to the officer, therefore the homeless man must be shot four times.
They need to train officers to not fear such situations, but to be ready for them. They need to be trained to treat all people with respect, even if they don't understand what they are doing. They need to be trained to be flexible.
I could have gotten the knife off of that man without anyone being hurt, in all probability. The officer perhaps couldn't have, certainly not with him shouting at him. The only difference is our training and experience. If the officer had different training, perhaps another citizen could still be alive.
Healthcare Bill
I'm not a big one for politics. In my opinion, it's all a bunch of compromise or bull****. I will say this, though. If this healthcare bill gets passed and through the gauntlet of legislation, then every street person will have health insurance by 2014. Every one.
This will mean a lot as many folks are not gaining health care because they don't have money to pay for it, and they don't want to be in debt. It's a good thing.
This will mean a lot as many folks are not gaining health care because they don't have money to pay for it, and they don't want to be in debt. It's a good thing.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Atheism and Homelessness
Some reflections on Facebook of a cart pushed by a homeless man with a sign that says, "There is no God."
"When I initially saw this, my first thought was what the.... Then my thought was what was it that brought this man to this place. Then realized, he needed to experience love, especially the love of God that at times seems so void to many." -Mike Furches
"Indeed he does need to experience love, God's love. As does everyone who has concluded that there is no God. God's word does say "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" One can be a rich fool or a poor fool. Everyone experiences trials and hardships in life, to which one can react with bitterness and blame God or deny his existence, or by recognizing their dependence on God and crying out to him for help. Some people's hardships and sorrows are more visible to others, but all have them. A poor homeless person who denies God is as lost as a rich, apparently comfortable one, and neither has any more of an excuse in God's eyes than the other. Both are headed to Hell. But God doesn't want anyone to be lost that way. As He says in Ezekiel 33:11, "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways!" Someone who is a declared enemy of God, IMO is far more likely to be turned than someone who is complacent and believes he is "just as good as anyone else." As a former atheist, I'm an example. Understanding why someone feels bitter toward God can help you to connect with someone to help guide them to God, but it doesn't give them an excuse. It also smacks of condescension to imply that it does, and that they can't help it." -John Culp
To say that someone has a reason for their irrationality is not to excuse it, but to give us an opportunity to get to know the person rather than reject them outright. On the other hand, to call someone a fool or hell bound separates us from this person, where we no longer see them as human and it gives US an excuse to ignore them. Even as a man has no excuse before God for denying Him, we who claim to believe in God have no excuse before God for ignoring and not loving His enemies, even as He does. -Steve Kimes
"Okay so I wanted to weigh in on this one because I feel I kinda need to. I was homeless once and if someone approached me with my negative mindset towards God at that moment and quoted what John said, I would've turned even FURTHER away from God then I already was. John I know what God's word says, but He also speaks about His lovingkindness and compassion. Homeless people do NOT need to be condemned for things like this. What they need is someone to come alongside them and be the hands and feet of Jesus THEN share the Gospel with them. Let he who has committed no wrongs cast the first stone. We don't stone people with rocks so much anymore, but we DO stone them with our judgemental attitudes." -Jenny Baker
"When I initially saw this, my first thought was what the.... Then my thought was what was it that brought this man to this place. Then realized, he needed to experience love, especially the love of God that at times seems so void to many." -Mike Furches
"Indeed he does need to experience love, God's love. As does everyone who has concluded that there is no God. God's word does say "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" One can be a rich fool or a poor fool. Everyone experiences trials and hardships in life, to which one can react with bitterness and blame God or deny his existence, or by recognizing their dependence on God and crying out to him for help. Some people's hardships and sorrows are more visible to others, but all have them. A poor homeless person who denies God is as lost as a rich, apparently comfortable one, and neither has any more of an excuse in God's eyes than the other. Both are headed to Hell. But God doesn't want anyone to be lost that way. As He says in Ezekiel 33:11, "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways!" Someone who is a declared enemy of God, IMO is far more likely to be turned than someone who is complacent and believes he is "just as good as anyone else." As a former atheist, I'm an example. Understanding why someone feels bitter toward God can help you to connect with someone to help guide them to God, but it doesn't give them an excuse. It also smacks of condescension to imply that it does, and that they can't help it." -John Culp
To say that someone has a reason for their irrationality is not to excuse it, but to give us an opportunity to get to know the person rather than reject them outright. On the other hand, to call someone a fool or hell bound separates us from this person, where we no longer see them as human and it gives US an excuse to ignore them. Even as a man has no excuse before God for denying Him, we who claim to believe in God have no excuse before God for ignoring and not loving His enemies, even as He does. -Steve Kimes
"Okay so I wanted to weigh in on this one because I feel I kinda need to. I was homeless once and if someone approached me with my negative mindset towards God at that moment and quoted what John said, I would've turned even FURTHER away from God then I already was. John I know what God's word says, but He also speaks about His lovingkindness and compassion. Homeless people do NOT need to be condemned for things like this. What they need is someone to come alongside them and be the hands and feet of Jesus THEN share the Gospel with them. Let he who has committed no wrongs cast the first stone. We don't stone people with rocks so much anymore, but we DO stone them with our judgemental attitudes." -Jenny Baker
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Destruction of the World Corporate Structure
Injustice reigns in the earth. Capitalism is corrupt, only granting freedom to the wealthy, while the poor get ground in the dust. The 200 wealthiest people in the world, all heads of corporations, control 40% of the world’s wealth, while the poorest 20% of the world live on 1% of the world’s wealth. The 40 wealthiest Western nations have 85% of the world’s wealth.
Perhaps such disparity in the world today wouldn’t be so bad if the governments and corporations of the world were concerned with justice in the world and providing equity for the poor. Instead, the wealthy of the world use their economic power as the whip on the backs of the oppressed.
The developing countries of the world are required to pay a huge amount of interest on loans, and so unable to pay back the loans, and thus their people starve. On the other hand, the United States has a trillion-dollar debt that they can refuse to pay, if they want. The corporations of the West use Chinese labor to do the menial tasks that the workers of the West find demeaning or that don’t pay enough. Then the Chinese oppress their people, telling them where to work, how to worship, where to live and how many children to have. The world corporations are creating oppression as well in Vietnam, Mexico, Haiti, Bangladesh, Singapore, and multitudes of other developing nations. And all this, while not discouraging them to cease the oppression of ethnic, religious and political minorities.
The governments of the West, especially the United States, are controlled by the corporations, who gain benefits in how much taxes they pay, what tariffs are to be imposed on imports and which developing nations are to be given benefits and which governments are to be destroyed by the U.S. military. And even the nations that receive benefits, they receive it with a price tag that requires them to act in the benefit of the West. Colonization may be dead, but the North American and European nations are controlling the world economically through the UN, the WTO and through their diplomatic carrots and sticks.
In the twenty-first century, economic power is absolute power. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The poor are crying out in opposition to the world corporate structure. Protests are happening all over the world. The world press is decrying the controls of the West- although the American press never acknowledges a peep of the worldwide outcry.
What will happen? Will the poor rise up and overthrow their oppressors? Will there be unification among the workers who will overcome the wealth and power of the corporations? Will a great class war happen that will change the economic structure of the world and set all people free economically? Will there be real change in humanity that will provide justice for everyone?
Give me a break.
Let’s look at this historically. Those who were truly poor have never been successful in rising up against their oppressors. From the rise of the Lombards in the 1400s to the Peasants’ War in the early 1500s to the Rebellion of John Brown in the mid 1800s to the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda in the late 1900s, when the truly poor violently rise up against their oppressors, it only ends in tragedy and in the oppressors having an example of why they need to oppress.
Violence and resistance can create an economic change, such as the French Revolution, the Labor Parties, the Communist Revolutions of Russia and China. But the economic benefits are limited to a particular class of people, usually the middle class. Thus, the poor are not assisted at all, but only those who had enough power to enact change themselves.
This is not real change. It is just trading one set of oppressors for another. And this is a summary of the history of the world, for the last 10,000 years.
There is, however, another way for real change to occur. There is a way for the world corporate system to be destroyed and to be replaced by justice. But it requires much more than most people are willing to give. It does not require power, but humility. Not control, but persecution and death.
We need to recognize that the only force that will change things in the world for good is God. God alone has the power and authority to change the world permanently. God alone has the compassion and desire to help the poor, the lowest of the low (Check it out in the Bible- Exodus 22:21-27). God alone, of all the powers that have ever existed, has dedicated himself to helping those who are truly in need (Psalm 146:3-9). And he has promised that any governmental, corporate or religious power that oppressed the poor, he will destroy (Psalm 82:1-8; Revelation 18:1-24).
However, God requires the poor to do one most important thing- to cry out to him for help. The poor must recognize his authority over them and then cry out to him (Exodus 22:23; II Chronicles 7:14; Psalm 18:6-17; Psalm 34:17; Psalm 107). They must turn from the evil things they do- from oppressing their neighbor and do good to all, and then God will listen to them (Micah 3:4; Hosea 8:2-3; Ezekiel 18:27). And those who are poor must ask God persistently for God’s deliverance from oppression and he will give it (Luke 18:2-8). Such humility is required from God to gain freedom from oppression (Luke 18:10-14).
And this way of life needs to be given to others who are poor. Many need to be shown and taught this way of life in order for the oppression of the world corporate structure to be destroyed. If a single person cries out against an oppressor, then that one will be delivered from the one oppressor. If a multitude of poor, all around the world, cry out against the world corporate structure, then the whole world will be changed. This means that we need a multitude of people dedicated to God and to cry out to him for justice to change the world.
But even the humility and the training of others is not enough. We need to prove the oppression. We need to show that oppression really is occurring- for no power overthrows another without proof. This means that we need to put ourselves in the front lines of oppression. We need to show God and the world that the world corporate structure is willing to sacrifice and kill others, but not itself.
How do we do this? Through non-violent, public outcry against oppression. Through standing in front of the violent and haters of the poor, and telling them to stop or they will be destroyed by God. Through praying for God’s justice in their presence.
And then letting them oppress us.
When they want to arrest us, we let them. When they want to punish us, we let them. When they want to hit us, we let them and we do not hit back. Instead, we make a public spectacle of their oppression. We give them an opportunity to show how evil they really are.
And they will be destroyed. By God. By someone God appoints. But the world will change.
Some say, How can you know this? This has never happened before! It can never succeed!
Wrong. It has succeeded. And the poor have been released by this very method. Martin Luther King Jr. used this method against those oppressing the black communities, even allowing himself to be martyred. Gandhi used this method, systematically destroying the power of the British. The Anabaptists of the Sixteenth Century used this method- thousands dying for the Truth- and changed the face of Christianity. The Waldensians used this method, and caused there to be a resurgence of concern for the poor, including the powerful Franciscan movement. And all of these successful movements were sourced from one person- Jesus.
Jesus himself came to assist the poor. He brought them freedom and stood against the oppressive authorities that used their power for injustice. But rather than begin a violent revolution, he suffered and was executed as a rebel. And it was because of this that a movement sprang up among the poor that changed the ethical outlook of the world- Christianity. And through Jesus the Jewish government was destroyed and the Roman government was changed forever. And while Christianity has been used for many evils throughout the centuries, the teaching and life of Jesus has been used as an example of the most positive world changers that has existed.
Jesus’ method of world change is just as outlined above-
Do no evil, but do good to the needy according to God’s love (Mark 1:15; Matthew 7:12);
Cry out to God for justice (Luke 18:1-8);
Declare to the oppressors the judgment they will face from God (Matthew 10:7, 28)
Allow them to oppress you to display their evil (Matthew 5:38-48)
Teach the poor the message of freedom from oppression through the way of Jesus (Matthew 28:19-20)
And justice will prevail through the power of God! (Matthew 10:24-27)
The world system will be changed! but only through the way of Jesus.
Perhaps such disparity in the world today wouldn’t be so bad if the governments and corporations of the world were concerned with justice in the world and providing equity for the poor. Instead, the wealthy of the world use their economic power as the whip on the backs of the oppressed.
The developing countries of the world are required to pay a huge amount of interest on loans, and so unable to pay back the loans, and thus their people starve. On the other hand, the United States has a trillion-dollar debt that they can refuse to pay, if they want. The corporations of the West use Chinese labor to do the menial tasks that the workers of the West find demeaning or that don’t pay enough. Then the Chinese oppress their people, telling them where to work, how to worship, where to live and how many children to have. The world corporations are creating oppression as well in Vietnam, Mexico, Haiti, Bangladesh, Singapore, and multitudes of other developing nations. And all this, while not discouraging them to cease the oppression of ethnic, religious and political minorities.
The governments of the West, especially the United States, are controlled by the corporations, who gain benefits in how much taxes they pay, what tariffs are to be imposed on imports and which developing nations are to be given benefits and which governments are to be destroyed by the U.S. military. And even the nations that receive benefits, they receive it with a price tag that requires them to act in the benefit of the West. Colonization may be dead, but the North American and European nations are controlling the world economically through the UN, the WTO and through their diplomatic carrots and sticks.
In the twenty-first century, economic power is absolute power. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The poor are crying out in opposition to the world corporate structure. Protests are happening all over the world. The world press is decrying the controls of the West- although the American press never acknowledges a peep of the worldwide outcry.
What will happen? Will the poor rise up and overthrow their oppressors? Will there be unification among the workers who will overcome the wealth and power of the corporations? Will a great class war happen that will change the economic structure of the world and set all people free economically? Will there be real change in humanity that will provide justice for everyone?
Give me a break.
Let’s look at this historically. Those who were truly poor have never been successful in rising up against their oppressors. From the rise of the Lombards in the 1400s to the Peasants’ War in the early 1500s to the Rebellion of John Brown in the mid 1800s to the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda in the late 1900s, when the truly poor violently rise up against their oppressors, it only ends in tragedy and in the oppressors having an example of why they need to oppress.
Violence and resistance can create an economic change, such as the French Revolution, the Labor Parties, the Communist Revolutions of Russia and China. But the economic benefits are limited to a particular class of people, usually the middle class. Thus, the poor are not assisted at all, but only those who had enough power to enact change themselves.
This is not real change. It is just trading one set of oppressors for another. And this is a summary of the history of the world, for the last 10,000 years.
There is, however, another way for real change to occur. There is a way for the world corporate system to be destroyed and to be replaced by justice. But it requires much more than most people are willing to give. It does not require power, but humility. Not control, but persecution and death.
We need to recognize that the only force that will change things in the world for good is God. God alone has the power and authority to change the world permanently. God alone has the compassion and desire to help the poor, the lowest of the low (Check it out in the Bible- Exodus 22:21-27). God alone, of all the powers that have ever existed, has dedicated himself to helping those who are truly in need (Psalm 146:3-9). And he has promised that any governmental, corporate or religious power that oppressed the poor, he will destroy (Psalm 82:1-8; Revelation 18:1-24).
However, God requires the poor to do one most important thing- to cry out to him for help. The poor must recognize his authority over them and then cry out to him (Exodus 22:23; II Chronicles 7:14; Psalm 18:6-17; Psalm 34:17; Psalm 107). They must turn from the evil things they do- from oppressing their neighbor and do good to all, and then God will listen to them (Micah 3:4; Hosea 8:2-3; Ezekiel 18:27). And those who are poor must ask God persistently for God’s deliverance from oppression and he will give it (Luke 18:2-8). Such humility is required from God to gain freedom from oppression (Luke 18:10-14).
And this way of life needs to be given to others who are poor. Many need to be shown and taught this way of life in order for the oppression of the world corporate structure to be destroyed. If a single person cries out against an oppressor, then that one will be delivered from the one oppressor. If a multitude of poor, all around the world, cry out against the world corporate structure, then the whole world will be changed. This means that we need a multitude of people dedicated to God and to cry out to him for justice to change the world.
But even the humility and the training of others is not enough. We need to prove the oppression. We need to show that oppression really is occurring- for no power overthrows another without proof. This means that we need to put ourselves in the front lines of oppression. We need to show God and the world that the world corporate structure is willing to sacrifice and kill others, but not itself.
How do we do this? Through non-violent, public outcry against oppression. Through standing in front of the violent and haters of the poor, and telling them to stop or they will be destroyed by God. Through praying for God’s justice in their presence.
And then letting them oppress us.
When they want to arrest us, we let them. When they want to punish us, we let them. When they want to hit us, we let them and we do not hit back. Instead, we make a public spectacle of their oppression. We give them an opportunity to show how evil they really are.
And they will be destroyed. By God. By someone God appoints. But the world will change.
Some say, How can you know this? This has never happened before! It can never succeed!
Wrong. It has succeeded. And the poor have been released by this very method. Martin Luther King Jr. used this method against those oppressing the black communities, even allowing himself to be martyred. Gandhi used this method, systematically destroying the power of the British. The Anabaptists of the Sixteenth Century used this method- thousands dying for the Truth- and changed the face of Christianity. The Waldensians used this method, and caused there to be a resurgence of concern for the poor, including the powerful Franciscan movement. And all of these successful movements were sourced from one person- Jesus.
Jesus himself came to assist the poor. He brought them freedom and stood against the oppressive authorities that used their power for injustice. But rather than begin a violent revolution, he suffered and was executed as a rebel. And it was because of this that a movement sprang up among the poor that changed the ethical outlook of the world- Christianity. And through Jesus the Jewish government was destroyed and the Roman government was changed forever. And while Christianity has been used for many evils throughout the centuries, the teaching and life of Jesus has been used as an example of the most positive world changers that has existed.
Jesus’ method of world change is just as outlined above-
Do no evil, but do good to the needy according to God’s love (Mark 1:15; Matthew 7:12);
Cry out to God for justice (Luke 18:1-8);
Declare to the oppressors the judgment they will face from God (Matthew 10:7, 28)
Allow them to oppress you to display their evil (Matthew 5:38-48)
Teach the poor the message of freedom from oppression through the way of Jesus (Matthew 28:19-20)
And justice will prevail through the power of God! (Matthew 10:24-27)
The world system will be changed! but only through the way of Jesus.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Hunger (2009, Steve McQueen director)
Hunger is the story of Bobby Sands, an Irish Republican put in prison for political violence against the British. While in prison, he leads protests, demanding to be treated as political prisoners—POWs— instead of just criminals. As the British refuse, he and his co-prisoners suffer the filthiest existence at their own hands. And then they endure forced bathings and the most inhumane searches. Finally, Bobby Sands decides on a hunger strike, for him and his comrades. And the horror of that fast is depicted gruesomely.
Obviously, this is not a movie for everyone. By the end of this film I began to wonder why I was putting myself through this torturous movie. Then I wondered why the director put in all of this amazing effort, with some of the greatest filmmaking talent ever, to put us through this experience with Bobby. It seems that Bobby is going through some of the most terrible self-torture, and for what? Political recognition? For the recognition of human rights, most of which were in their grasp at any point? To make some petty point?
But I realized that this was not a political film. The director depicts the suffering of the guards as well as the prisoners. The fact how everyone’s life involved was simply miserable because of this system, because of the determination of these men.
Finally, I realized what the movie is about. Endurance. It doesn’t matter what Bobby Sands was fighting for, or what methods he used. The point is simple—he was willing to go to whatever extent to obtain his goals. He had the steadfastness to put his body through any degradation, to suffer whatever the cost, to go through any pain or mutilation in order to achieve his goals. The ethic nature of the goals weren’t significant. But his determination was.
And, honestly, that’s what makes any cause great. Not the rightness of the cause, but the stark determination of the promoters of the cause. This is what made the civil rights movement great, as well as the Indian freedom protests—they were willing to suffer all, while not causing the suffering of anyone. This is what made the early Anabaptists great, the early Franciscans, the first century church. They all promoted their cause to the death, while never harming another.
I am ashamed of our modern day church. How little determination we have. How we speak so much about “balance” and “cycles”, as if the main text of Scripture we should be living out is not the Sermon on the Mount, but Ecclesiastes 3. We speak of the “discipline” of rest, but the fact is our lives are full of rest and we do little work for those who honestly need it. Pastors are the ultimate compromisers, seeking salaries and retirements and office hours, instead of trusting and giving.
I know true endurance. I once lived it. For fifteen years, I worked hard for the people on the street until my body, slowly but decidedly gave up on me—until my stress levels exploded. Surely, people would say, that is the need for balance. And I will say, no one’s body is meant to endure terrible stress for twelve or fifteen years. We just can’t keep doing it. Even Jesus only dealt with daily suffering for three years or so.
And this kind of endurance isn’t for everyone. It is a saintly life to support the spiritual athletes and soldiers—those who lay down their lives for the cause. But, honestly, we are in a time of the church where those who are willing to lay their lives down for the gospel are few. Very few.
What is the task? To love others, even if it means our own death.
What is the cost? Our lives, our sanity, our family, our “balance.
Who is willing to endure?
Who is willing to endure?
Obviously, this is not a movie for everyone. By the end of this film I began to wonder why I was putting myself through this torturous movie. Then I wondered why the director put in all of this amazing effort, with some of the greatest filmmaking talent ever, to put us through this experience with Bobby. It seems that Bobby is going through some of the most terrible self-torture, and for what? Political recognition? For the recognition of human rights, most of which were in their grasp at any point? To make some petty point?
But I realized that this was not a political film. The director depicts the suffering of the guards as well as the prisoners. The fact how everyone’s life involved was simply miserable because of this system, because of the determination of these men.
Finally, I realized what the movie is about. Endurance. It doesn’t matter what Bobby Sands was fighting for, or what methods he used. The point is simple—he was willing to go to whatever extent to obtain his goals. He had the steadfastness to put his body through any degradation, to suffer whatever the cost, to go through any pain or mutilation in order to achieve his goals. The ethic nature of the goals weren’t significant. But his determination was.
And, honestly, that’s what makes any cause great. Not the rightness of the cause, but the stark determination of the promoters of the cause. This is what made the civil rights movement great, as well as the Indian freedom protests—they were willing to suffer all, while not causing the suffering of anyone. This is what made the early Anabaptists great, the early Franciscans, the first century church. They all promoted their cause to the death, while never harming another.
I am ashamed of our modern day church. How little determination we have. How we speak so much about “balance” and “cycles”, as if the main text of Scripture we should be living out is not the Sermon on the Mount, but Ecclesiastes 3. We speak of the “discipline” of rest, but the fact is our lives are full of rest and we do little work for those who honestly need it. Pastors are the ultimate compromisers, seeking salaries and retirements and office hours, instead of trusting and giving.
I know true endurance. I once lived it. For fifteen years, I worked hard for the people on the street until my body, slowly but decidedly gave up on me—until my stress levels exploded. Surely, people would say, that is the need for balance. And I will say, no one’s body is meant to endure terrible stress for twelve or fifteen years. We just can’t keep doing it. Even Jesus only dealt with daily suffering for three years or so.
And this kind of endurance isn’t for everyone. It is a saintly life to support the spiritual athletes and soldiers—those who lay down their lives for the cause. But, honestly, we are in a time of the church where those who are willing to lay their lives down for the gospel are few. Very few.
What is the task? To love others, even if it means our own death.
What is the cost? Our lives, our sanity, our family, our “balance.
Who is willing to endure?
Who is willing to endure?
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Food Inc.
My daughter, Nikki, was radically offended by a movie they showed in school a couple weeks ago. I would have thought that my son would have been offended by his school showing Sweeney Todd to his stagecraft class (I know I was), but he was fine by that. But my daughter had a real problem with the film Food Inc.
Honestly, she had problems with food, as it is, because she's such a picky eater. She doesn't eat most meat, not because she has a moral problem with it-- she does eat hot dogs and chicken nuggets-- but because she doesn't like it. Well, this movie sent her right to the edge of being a full vegetarian. She decried the abuse of chickens and was horrified at the brief shots of slaughterhouses.
I went ahead and watched Food Inc. myself, with the rest of my family going in and out of watching it with me. I hope that doesn't come back to bite me. So to speak.
Food, Inc. is a documentary that is basically presenting some of the more radical points of two books, Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser and The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. It is a shame that some of the more interesting points of the second book weren't presented, but the documentary was more focused. It was concentrating on how the incorporation of the food industries have caused problems for both animals and humans.
It presents it's points well, having extensive interviews with the authors of the books as well as farmers and organic food producers. Interestingly, it isn't completely against incorporation, giving a more balanced perspective of the relationship between the organic dairy company Stoneybrook Farms and Wall-Mart. It shows that it is possible for customers to vote with their pocketbook, by purchasing food that is raised better.
However, and more realistically, it also shows that purchasing good food that is healthy for both humans and animals isn't possible for a large percentage of Americans. It shows a family who is just making ends meet because of health costs and time constraints, and so they are forced to eat fast food and cannot buy vegetables. If you've only got a few dollars and you want to feed your family in a hurry, you can either get each of them a hamburger-- made from unhealthy beef, encouraging horrible animal care practices-- or you can buy your kids Little Debbies and soda.
This is my family's reality. I've had doctors and others tell us what we should be eating, but the fact is, we can't afford it. Vegetables are expensive, even your basic lettuce. Last night, I wanted to buy a salad for the meal we were serving to the homeless, so I figured I could pick up a couple heads of iceberg lettuce and a bunch of romaine to mix it up. However, when I got there I found that this store switched to all organic produce and it carried the organic price tag. Smaller heads of lettuce cost twice as much as they would have regularly, and to add romaine to that was out of my price range. I ended up paying more for bagged lettuce, but at least I had a salad. But this means that I have fewer options for other meals.
Donated food is also problematic. The far majority of donated food is bread and other high carb options. Protein is difficult to get, and organic options are laughable. The non-profit groups, like our own, do our best to serve healthy, balanced, and tasty meals, but our resources are limited.
People wonder why the poor are fat. It's not because they are lazy or because they make terrible choices with their limited food dollars. It's because their food dollars won't allow them to eat nutritionally.
And why is that? Primarily because the government subsidizes corn products, but not more nutritious items like broccoli or spinach. They regulate meat to a certain degree, but not with an eye to the over all health of their nation. The government nutrition guidelines are a joke-- they recommend way too much carbs and way too little veggies. Now, I know why they do that. They are trapped between the two pincers of the reality of what is available to most Americans and the powerful food industry lobbies.
But until the government makes serious practice changes, the food industry won't change. The food industry, honestly, is giving us what we buy. We are addicted to addictive foods, which are bad for us. And so our addictions are controlling the market, making the bad foods cheaper and the good foods more expensive.
If the government subsidizes healthy food, then the poor will be required to change their eating practices. If the poor have more veggies and fewer carbs, then their systems will be less stressed and they will make better life choices. The whole of society will benefit.
However, we know how government works. They don't do anything unless they are demanded of. They continue to vote for immigration bills that they know-- both Republicans and Democrats-- that are bad for the economy. George Bush presented a balanced immigration bill to a Republican congress, but it failed because of the outcry of the American people. Healthcare will continue to be stalled because the American people are nervous about losing what they have. If the Farm Bill-- the main policy map that determined government subsidy of food-- isn't changed by the voice of the American people, it will be determined by the lobbyists. The American people must demand better food for all the people, not just those who are able to afford it.
For this reason, I wish that every American could see this documentary, Food Inc. Not because all of it's points are good, but until people realize there is a problem, they will never try to create solutions.
Honestly, she had problems with food, as it is, because she's such a picky eater. She doesn't eat most meat, not because she has a moral problem with it-- she does eat hot dogs and chicken nuggets-- but because she doesn't like it. Well, this movie sent her right to the edge of being a full vegetarian. She decried the abuse of chickens and was horrified at the brief shots of slaughterhouses.
I went ahead and watched Food Inc. myself, with the rest of my family going in and out of watching it with me. I hope that doesn't come back to bite me. So to speak.
Food, Inc. is a documentary that is basically presenting some of the more radical points of two books, Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser and The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. It is a shame that some of the more interesting points of the second book weren't presented, but the documentary was more focused. It was concentrating on how the incorporation of the food industries have caused problems for both animals and humans.
It presents it's points well, having extensive interviews with the authors of the books as well as farmers and organic food producers. Interestingly, it isn't completely against incorporation, giving a more balanced perspective of the relationship between the organic dairy company Stoneybrook Farms and Wall-Mart. It shows that it is possible for customers to vote with their pocketbook, by purchasing food that is raised better.
However, and more realistically, it also shows that purchasing good food that is healthy for both humans and animals isn't possible for a large percentage of Americans. It shows a family who is just making ends meet because of health costs and time constraints, and so they are forced to eat fast food and cannot buy vegetables. If you've only got a few dollars and you want to feed your family in a hurry, you can either get each of them a hamburger-- made from unhealthy beef, encouraging horrible animal care practices-- or you can buy your kids Little Debbies and soda.
This is my family's reality. I've had doctors and others tell us what we should be eating, but the fact is, we can't afford it. Vegetables are expensive, even your basic lettuce. Last night, I wanted to buy a salad for the meal we were serving to the homeless, so I figured I could pick up a couple heads of iceberg lettuce and a bunch of romaine to mix it up. However, when I got there I found that this store switched to all organic produce and it carried the organic price tag. Smaller heads of lettuce cost twice as much as they would have regularly, and to add romaine to that was out of my price range. I ended up paying more for bagged lettuce, but at least I had a salad. But this means that I have fewer options for other meals.
Donated food is also problematic. The far majority of donated food is bread and other high carb options. Protein is difficult to get, and organic options are laughable. The non-profit groups, like our own, do our best to serve healthy, balanced, and tasty meals, but our resources are limited.
People wonder why the poor are fat. It's not because they are lazy or because they make terrible choices with their limited food dollars. It's because their food dollars won't allow them to eat nutritionally.
And why is that? Primarily because the government subsidizes corn products, but not more nutritious items like broccoli or spinach. They regulate meat to a certain degree, but not with an eye to the over all health of their nation. The government nutrition guidelines are a joke-- they recommend way too much carbs and way too little veggies. Now, I know why they do that. They are trapped between the two pincers of the reality of what is available to most Americans and the powerful food industry lobbies.
But until the government makes serious practice changes, the food industry won't change. The food industry, honestly, is giving us what we buy. We are addicted to addictive foods, which are bad for us. And so our addictions are controlling the market, making the bad foods cheaper and the good foods more expensive.
If the government subsidizes healthy food, then the poor will be required to change their eating practices. If the poor have more veggies and fewer carbs, then their systems will be less stressed and they will make better life choices. The whole of society will benefit.
However, we know how government works. They don't do anything unless they are demanded of. They continue to vote for immigration bills that they know-- both Republicans and Democrats-- that are bad for the economy. George Bush presented a balanced immigration bill to a Republican congress, but it failed because of the outcry of the American people. Healthcare will continue to be stalled because the American people are nervous about losing what they have. If the Farm Bill-- the main policy map that determined government subsidy of food-- isn't changed by the voice of the American people, it will be determined by the lobbyists. The American people must demand better food for all the people, not just those who are able to afford it.
For this reason, I wish that every American could see this documentary, Food Inc. Not because all of it's points are good, but until people realize there is a problem, they will never try to create solutions.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Why My Son Won't Drive A Car
It is sometimes a mistake to give children the full truth. They might act on it. When my son was very young, I taught him about the problems of an automobile society, the inherent danger and the environmental impact. I also told him how our societies are built around the necessity of cars. This is summarized in Rusty Pritchard's article below.
Because of this, my son refuses to learn to drive, to get a license. He'll ride with me-- beg me to drive him sometimes-- but he won't drive himself. Someday he'll learn consistency between ideals and actions (maybe as soon as I do?), but in the meantime I am still the only one in my large household that drives. Dang, why do I shoot myself in the foot like this?
Anyway, read Rusty's article. It's excellent. This was copied from Evangelicals For Social Action's website:
Toyotas (and Fords) 600 Times More Dangerous than Media Report
by Rusty Pritchard
An estimated 19 people have died in crashes related to unexpected acceleration in Toyota-made vehicles over the last decade. This has led to a national uproar, dominating the news cycle and flooding dealers with recalled autos to repair.
I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations to put the problem in perspective. In a year, Toyota drivers, if they are like other drivers, put about 11,400 miles on their vehicle. Ten years of driving (114,000 miles, give or take), times the number of vehicles involved in the recall (8 million), equals the total miles driven by recalled vehicles over 10 years (912 billion miles; that’s 9.12 x 10^11 for you exponentially-minded people).
So dividing the number of deaths (19) by the total miles driven gives an estimated risk of death from sudden acceleration: 2 deaths per 100 billion vehicle miles traveled.
To put that in perspective, in 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration calculates your risk of dying from an automobile accident at 1270 deaths per 100 billion vehicle miles traveled.
Hmmm. That means that you are over 600 times more likely to die in an automobile fatality in ANY make of car than you are to die from a Toyota flawed acceleration system. Statistically speaking, stuck accelerators and faulty floor mats just don’t matter.
Getting in a car is inherently dangerous.
But it is worse than that. By building our cities the way we have since World War II, we in the US are virtually forcing our citizens to make very dangerous choices, if they want to work, go to school, go to the doctor, or shop. Relatively few Americans live in neighborhoods where they can choose not to have a car, largely because we’ve built our cities on the cheap, failing to provide public transportation alternatives, outlawing mixed-use developments through perverse zoning policies, and subsidizing development on the margins of our cities with public money. In the case of land use and transportation, we get exactly the system our policies promote.
Getting in a car is dangerous, and it’s hard to avoid getting in a car. It’s even dangerous for people who aren’t in the cars.
While we’ve abandoned the American landscape to the automobile, the death rate from traffic fatalities in the US, for passengers, drivers, and pedestrians, has leapfrogged past every other cause of death for children over the age of one, and it remains the leading cause of death even for young adults.
Citizens in the US are twice as likely to die from automobiles as citizens in the UK, to take another developed world example; we have the highest risk of any developed country, not because our roads are more dangerous, or our cars more deadly. Our death rate is sky-high because we expect people to drive everywhere, and therefore we spend much more time in cars than folks in other countries. We’ve built a landscape in which no one is seriously expected to walk or bike to any destination. This has an effect on our obesity rate and on all the diseases driven by being overweight (diabetes, heart disease, stroke, stress, cancer). But the main health effect is on the number of Americans who die in the traffic epidemic.
But we take this deadly epidemic (and the corresponding injury rates) without blinking, having become convinced that it is somehow natural to have 35,000 Americans die each year on the road.
There are alternatives: It is possible to design healthy places that are not only safe but which also cultivate community, flourishing economies, and happy families. For ideas, check out the Healthy Places section of the CDC website, or the other resources on healthy places for community developers at Flourish’s website.
Because of this, my son refuses to learn to drive, to get a license. He'll ride with me-- beg me to drive him sometimes-- but he won't drive himself. Someday he'll learn consistency between ideals and actions (maybe as soon as I do?), but in the meantime I am still the only one in my large household that drives. Dang, why do I shoot myself in the foot like this?
Anyway, read Rusty's article. It's excellent. This was copied from Evangelicals For Social Action's website:
Toyotas (and Fords) 600 Times More Dangerous than Media Report
by Rusty Pritchard
An estimated 19 people have died in crashes related to unexpected acceleration in Toyota-made vehicles over the last decade. This has led to a national uproar, dominating the news cycle and flooding dealers with recalled autos to repair.
I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations to put the problem in perspective. In a year, Toyota drivers, if they are like other drivers, put about 11,400 miles on their vehicle. Ten years of driving (114,000 miles, give or take), times the number of vehicles involved in the recall (8 million), equals the total miles driven by recalled vehicles over 10 years (912 billion miles; that’s 9.12 x 10^11 for you exponentially-minded people).
So dividing the number of deaths (19) by the total miles driven gives an estimated risk of death from sudden acceleration: 2 deaths per 100 billion vehicle miles traveled.
To put that in perspective, in 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration calculates your risk of dying from an automobile accident at 1270 deaths per 100 billion vehicle miles traveled.
Hmmm. That means that you are over 600 times more likely to die in an automobile fatality in ANY make of car than you are to die from a Toyota flawed acceleration system. Statistically speaking, stuck accelerators and faulty floor mats just don’t matter.
Getting in a car is inherently dangerous.
But it is worse than that. By building our cities the way we have since World War II, we in the US are virtually forcing our citizens to make very dangerous choices, if they want to work, go to school, go to the doctor, or shop. Relatively few Americans live in neighborhoods where they can choose not to have a car, largely because we’ve built our cities on the cheap, failing to provide public transportation alternatives, outlawing mixed-use developments through perverse zoning policies, and subsidizing development on the margins of our cities with public money. In the case of land use and transportation, we get exactly the system our policies promote.
Getting in a car is dangerous, and it’s hard to avoid getting in a car. It’s even dangerous for people who aren’t in the cars.
While we’ve abandoned the American landscape to the automobile, the death rate from traffic fatalities in the US, for passengers, drivers, and pedestrians, has leapfrogged past every other cause of death for children over the age of one, and it remains the leading cause of death even for young adults.
Citizens in the US are twice as likely to die from automobiles as citizens in the UK, to take another developed world example; we have the highest risk of any developed country, not because our roads are more dangerous, or our cars more deadly. Our death rate is sky-high because we expect people to drive everywhere, and therefore we spend much more time in cars than folks in other countries. We’ve built a landscape in which no one is seriously expected to walk or bike to any destination. This has an effect on our obesity rate and on all the diseases driven by being overweight (diabetes, heart disease, stroke, stress, cancer). But the main health effect is on the number of Americans who die in the traffic epidemic.
But we take this deadly epidemic (and the corresponding injury rates) without blinking, having become convinced that it is somehow natural to have 35,000 Americans die each year on the road.
There are alternatives: It is possible to design healthy places that are not only safe but which also cultivate community, flourishing economies, and happy families. For ideas, check out the Healthy Places section of the CDC website, or the other resources on healthy places for community developers at Flourish’s website.
Arrested for Taking Your Kid To Church?
From Religion Today Summaries:
Chicago Man Could Face Trial for Taking Child to Church
Religion News Service reports that a Chicago man could face prosecution for violating a restraining order by taking his 3-year-old daughter to church. Joseph Reyes, 35, converted from Catholicism to Judaism when he married his wife, Rebecca. According to Rebecca Reyes, they agreed to raise their daughter Jewish. But when the couple filed for divorce, Joseph baptized his daughter as a Catholic without his estranged wife's consent. Following the baptism, Rebecca Reyes filed for and was granted a restraining order to keep Joseph Reyes from exposing their daughter, Ela, to any religion other than Judaism. On Jan. 17, Joseph Reyes entered Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago with his daughter and a television news crew in tow. Joseph Reyes's attorney, Joel Brodsky, said the restraining order violated the First Amendment by choosing one religion over another
Perhaps a case can be made for him that the restraining order was wrong. However, to invite a news crew to church with you means that it isn't about how he should raise his child, but about him using his child to make a point. How different is this than "balloon boy's" dad? Children should be treated with respect, not a pawn in one's hateful relationship squabbles, or to promote one's own agenda, whatever it is.
Jesus said that a father should train up a child in the way of the Lord. Is not that way sacrifice and respect? Certainly going to church this way is not acting in accordance with Jesus' way. He should learn the humility of the Lord before using the church to insist upon his rights.
Chicago Man Could Face Trial for Taking Child to Church
Religion News Service reports that a Chicago man could face prosecution for violating a restraining order by taking his 3-year-old daughter to church. Joseph Reyes, 35, converted from Catholicism to Judaism when he married his wife, Rebecca. According to Rebecca Reyes, they agreed to raise their daughter Jewish. But when the couple filed for divorce, Joseph baptized his daughter as a Catholic without his estranged wife's consent. Following the baptism, Rebecca Reyes filed for and was granted a restraining order to keep Joseph Reyes from exposing their daughter, Ela, to any religion other than Judaism. On Jan. 17, Joseph Reyes entered Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago with his daughter and a television news crew in tow. Joseph Reyes's attorney, Joel Brodsky, said the restraining order violated the First Amendment by choosing one religion over another
Perhaps a case can be made for him that the restraining order was wrong. However, to invite a news crew to church with you means that it isn't about how he should raise his child, but about him using his child to make a point. How different is this than "balloon boy's" dad? Children should be treated with respect, not a pawn in one's hateful relationship squabbles, or to promote one's own agenda, whatever it is.
Jesus said that a father should train up a child in the way of the Lord. Is not that way sacrifice and respect? Certainly going to church this way is not acting in accordance with Jesus' way. He should learn the humility of the Lord before using the church to insist upon his rights.
Monday, February 08, 2010
Cultural Hijacking
Concerning the American missionaries accused of "kidnapping" children from Haiti they were trying to adopt:
I understand that the missionaries were only trying to do what was right. Haiti right now is a hell, and they were trying to save these children from hell. They're heart was in the right place.
However, children are the heritage of our future. They are the ones to perpetuate our culture, our traditions, our hopes. Each society has its own set of standards and ideals that we place on our children. To take children away is to steal a culture's future. If a parent chooses to move a child from one nation to another, that parent is making a choice against one society in favor of another.
But no one can make the choice for another society's children. For the Haitians, yes, their country is a hell, but that is partly the result of a disaster, partly the result of France that dismantled their government, and partly the result of American economic imperialism throughout the globe. Yes, many Americans think we have a better way of life, but for much of the world it is simply a wealthier way of life, not better at all.
I have never met these missionaries and I cannot make a judgement of them. But it makes me wonder if they have a cultural superiority in their hearts. Do they think that America will truly be better for those children? Economically, surly, but would that be truly better? To take them away from their Haitian cultural heritage? To live as Americans-- who are eating up the world's resources faster than it can accept?
It also makes me wonder about those involved in the Sanctuary movement for immigrants to the U.S. A number of Christian liberals are speaking about the U.S. as if it were the kingdom of God. As if immigrating to the U.S. is the best thing that could happen to those immigrants and they have the right to live here. Now, I know that where a number of these folks come from are places that are difficult to live and that they have gone through many struggles to arrive in the U.S. out of necessity. However, should we be pouring money into something that the citizens of the U.S. are clearly opposed to, or should we put our resources into making the rest of the world a better place to live, where one can feed the children? If money was already going from the U.S. to build up the immigrant communities, they wouldn't need to come to the U.S.
The U.S. is not the best culture in the world. Nor is it the worst. It is just one of many. Let's keep things in perspective and deny the cultural imperialism that we can so easily get caught up in.
I understand that the missionaries were only trying to do what was right. Haiti right now is a hell, and they were trying to save these children from hell. They're heart was in the right place.
However, children are the heritage of our future. They are the ones to perpetuate our culture, our traditions, our hopes. Each society has its own set of standards and ideals that we place on our children. To take children away is to steal a culture's future. If a parent chooses to move a child from one nation to another, that parent is making a choice against one society in favor of another.
But no one can make the choice for another society's children. For the Haitians, yes, their country is a hell, but that is partly the result of a disaster, partly the result of France that dismantled their government, and partly the result of American economic imperialism throughout the globe. Yes, many Americans think we have a better way of life, but for much of the world it is simply a wealthier way of life, not better at all.
I have never met these missionaries and I cannot make a judgement of them. But it makes me wonder if they have a cultural superiority in their hearts. Do they think that America will truly be better for those children? Economically, surly, but would that be truly better? To take them away from their Haitian cultural heritage? To live as Americans-- who are eating up the world's resources faster than it can accept?
It also makes me wonder about those involved in the Sanctuary movement for immigrants to the U.S. A number of Christian liberals are speaking about the U.S. as if it were the kingdom of God. As if immigrating to the U.S. is the best thing that could happen to those immigrants and they have the right to live here. Now, I know that where a number of these folks come from are places that are difficult to live and that they have gone through many struggles to arrive in the U.S. out of necessity. However, should we be pouring money into something that the citizens of the U.S. are clearly opposed to, or should we put our resources into making the rest of the world a better place to live, where one can feed the children? If money was already going from the U.S. to build up the immigrant communities, they wouldn't need to come to the U.S.
The U.S. is not the best culture in the world. Nor is it the worst. It is just one of many. Let's keep things in perspective and deny the cultural imperialism that we can so easily get caught up in.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
The Lord's Supper and the Poor
Interesting article on the Lord's Supper I found here:
In a tragic twist of irony, the venue in the Christian faith that was intended to unify believers of diverse stripes and beliefs has actually divided and split the church in untold ways.
I’m referring to Communion. The Lord’s Supper. The Eucharist. The Table.
It goes by many names, and has been practiced many ways. It began with Jesus and his disciples, the night before the Christ would be betrayed, assembled around the Passover table with a meal with some bread to eat and wine to drink. You could make a strong case that it really began centuries earlier with the original Passover celebration, ordered by God to prepare the Israelites for their impending exile from Egypt.
This is part of the account of the Last Supper from Luke’s gospel:
When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!” They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.
Fast-forward roughly 2,000 years. Today, 38,000 unique denominations exist in Christianity, many of them set apart by how they have observed the Lord’s Supper. Some use unleavened bread, some do not. Some drink wine (from one cup or many), some prefer grape juice. Some serve the wine and the bread separately, some practice intinction. Some observe it annually, others quarterly, and still others weekly. Some believe the bread and wine to be symbolic of Jesus’ body and blood, and others believe in the mysterious transubstantiation of the emblems into flesh and blood.
Disputes over the practice of the Lord’s Supper have created more divisions than perhaps any other tradition in Christianity. So much so that we refer to many of these diverse denominations as “communions.”
But what if we – the church – missed the point? What if Jesus’ Last Supper was, well, just a meal? A Passover meal, yes, but never intended to be institutionalized as a religious sacrament. What if he was simply observing the Passover like a good Jew would, but telling his disciples (then and now) through his words and actions that he was now the fulfillment of the Jewish law and would now be the centerpiece of table fellowship when his followers came together?
What if Jesus was reminding his disciples and us that some of the most radical moments of his ministry occurred around the dinner table?
I do not challenge 2,000 years of Christian history lightly. I come from a tradition that takes the Lord’s Supper seriously. Very seriously. Churches of Christ take communion weekly, even on youth trips and campouts, and some among us even insist on drinking the grape juice (never wine) from a single cup. On our better days, we were a family that puts Christ and his meal at the center of our fellowship, and on our worst days, we are bitterly sectarian and exclude certain groups for not seeing things our way. I grew up with an appreciation for the centrality of the Table to Christian assembly (all Christian assembly; not just Sunday), but with a nagging suspicion that other groups weren’t Hell-bound for doing things differently.
And to be honest, I’m glad the tradition of the Supper has stuck around. It’s a good thing to remember that Christ is in our midst when we gather around the table, a table that welcomes every kind of person to it.
Lately, however, I’ve wondered whether the ritual was legit. I’ve wondered if Christ’s primary intent was to ordain a new church tradition or just demonstrate a way of being in the world. I’ve wondered if Jesus is saddened by how far some would take their insistence on a certain way of observing the tradition they had turned from an ordinary Passover meal into a holy sacrament, excluding others on that basis.
Jesus ate so many meals. Of the numerous meal stories that are recorded in the gospels, ten are in Luke; one scholar quipped that Jesus is eating his way through the book. I think that as Jesus’ disciples looked back on their last meal with their Lord before his crucifixion, they would have remembered the meals Jesus enjoyed during the previous three years. His first healing of Simon’s mother, who recovered from her fever and began serving Jesus and Simon food. (Lk 4:38-44) A sinful woman anointing Jesus’ feet while he was at dinner with a Pharisee. (7:36-50) The feeding of the 5,000 from five loaves and two fish. (9:10-17) His meal with Mary and Martha. (10:38-42) Not washing before eating with Pharisees and experts in the law. (11:37-53) Healing on the Sabbath in front of the Pharisees and a teaching on whom we are to invite to luncheons and dinners. (14:1-13) Jesus parable of the Great Banquet. (14:15-23) Eating with tax collectors and sinners. (15:1-7; 19:1-10)
My point is this: More important than “getting right” the practice of the Eucharist on Sunday is our willingness to dine with sinful and marginalized people on Monday. I heard someone say recently that our celebration of the Lord’s Table on Sunday is practice for the openness of our own tables on Monday. In those radical acts of hospitality, our plain, store-bought dinner tables mysteriously transubstantiate into a Jesus Table, and our meal into the Lord’s Supper.
I need to be honest right here: I write this as one more inclined to plan a banquet and invite those friends who possess the means to turn around and invite me to their banquet, instead of inviting the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.
I’d do well to meditate on the Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:40, as would we all:
“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
My response:
Interesting article and discussion.
Although I agree that The Sheep and the Goats is specifically speaking about disciples, Jesus spoke generally about feasting with the poor in other contexts, not least in Luke 14. And Paul's message in I Cor 11 is about a eucharistic meal which is a feast in which some did not get to eat because of the greed of the first in line. We must be aware of the body of Christ, and allow the lowest in the body to gain as much as the greatest.
In Anawim, we have two sacramental meals: a. A meal that is for everyone, especially the poor and hungry, without excluding anyone because of religious preferences. We have these meals every time we worship, four times a week. b. Twice a year-- New Year's and Resurrection Day-- we hold a Lord's Supper with the bread and wine. These are special times of commitment to Jesus as Lord, remembering His sacrifice for our sins.
People come to Anawim with different theological ideas of what the Eucharist means, but we all share in the unity of it, as long as we recognize Jesus as our Lord and we are committed to Him.
In a tragic twist of irony, the venue in the Christian faith that was intended to unify believers of diverse stripes and beliefs has actually divided and split the church in untold ways.
I’m referring to Communion. The Lord’s Supper. The Eucharist. The Table.
It goes by many names, and has been practiced many ways. It began with Jesus and his disciples, the night before the Christ would be betrayed, assembled around the Passover table with a meal with some bread to eat and wine to drink. You could make a strong case that it really began centuries earlier with the original Passover celebration, ordered by God to prepare the Israelites for their impending exile from Egypt.
This is part of the account of the Last Supper from Luke’s gospel:
When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!” They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.
Fast-forward roughly 2,000 years. Today, 38,000 unique denominations exist in Christianity, many of them set apart by how they have observed the Lord’s Supper. Some use unleavened bread, some do not. Some drink wine (from one cup or many), some prefer grape juice. Some serve the wine and the bread separately, some practice intinction. Some observe it annually, others quarterly, and still others weekly. Some believe the bread and wine to be symbolic of Jesus’ body and blood, and others believe in the mysterious transubstantiation of the emblems into flesh and blood.
Disputes over the practice of the Lord’s Supper have created more divisions than perhaps any other tradition in Christianity. So much so that we refer to many of these diverse denominations as “communions.”
But what if we – the church – missed the point? What if Jesus’ Last Supper was, well, just a meal? A Passover meal, yes, but never intended to be institutionalized as a religious sacrament. What if he was simply observing the Passover like a good Jew would, but telling his disciples (then and now) through his words and actions that he was now the fulfillment of the Jewish law and would now be the centerpiece of table fellowship when his followers came together?
What if Jesus was reminding his disciples and us that some of the most radical moments of his ministry occurred around the dinner table?
I do not challenge 2,000 years of Christian history lightly. I come from a tradition that takes the Lord’s Supper seriously. Very seriously. Churches of Christ take communion weekly, even on youth trips and campouts, and some among us even insist on drinking the grape juice (never wine) from a single cup. On our better days, we were a family that puts Christ and his meal at the center of our fellowship, and on our worst days, we are bitterly sectarian and exclude certain groups for not seeing things our way. I grew up with an appreciation for the centrality of the Table to Christian assembly (all Christian assembly; not just Sunday), but with a nagging suspicion that other groups weren’t Hell-bound for doing things differently.
And to be honest, I’m glad the tradition of the Supper has stuck around. It’s a good thing to remember that Christ is in our midst when we gather around the table, a table that welcomes every kind of person to it.
Lately, however, I’ve wondered whether the ritual was legit. I’ve wondered if Christ’s primary intent was to ordain a new church tradition or just demonstrate a way of being in the world. I’ve wondered if Jesus is saddened by how far some would take their insistence on a certain way of observing the tradition they had turned from an ordinary Passover meal into a holy sacrament, excluding others on that basis.
Jesus ate so many meals. Of the numerous meal stories that are recorded in the gospels, ten are in Luke; one scholar quipped that Jesus is eating his way through the book. I think that as Jesus’ disciples looked back on their last meal with their Lord before his crucifixion, they would have remembered the meals Jesus enjoyed during the previous three years. His first healing of Simon’s mother, who recovered from her fever and began serving Jesus and Simon food. (Lk 4:38-44) A sinful woman anointing Jesus’ feet while he was at dinner with a Pharisee. (7:36-50) The feeding of the 5,000 from five loaves and two fish. (9:10-17) His meal with Mary and Martha. (10:38-42) Not washing before eating with Pharisees and experts in the law. (11:37-53) Healing on the Sabbath in front of the Pharisees and a teaching on whom we are to invite to luncheons and dinners. (14:1-13) Jesus parable of the Great Banquet. (14:15-23) Eating with tax collectors and sinners. (15:1-7; 19:1-10)
My point is this: More important than “getting right” the practice of the Eucharist on Sunday is our willingness to dine with sinful and marginalized people on Monday. I heard someone say recently that our celebration of the Lord’s Table on Sunday is practice for the openness of our own tables on Monday. In those radical acts of hospitality, our plain, store-bought dinner tables mysteriously transubstantiate into a Jesus Table, and our meal into the Lord’s Supper.
I need to be honest right here: I write this as one more inclined to plan a banquet and invite those friends who possess the means to turn around and invite me to their banquet, instead of inviting the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.
I’d do well to meditate on the Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:40, as would we all:
“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
My response:
Interesting article and discussion.
Although I agree that The Sheep and the Goats is specifically speaking about disciples, Jesus spoke generally about feasting with the poor in other contexts, not least in Luke 14. And Paul's message in I Cor 11 is about a eucharistic meal which is a feast in which some did not get to eat because of the greed of the first in line. We must be aware of the body of Christ, and allow the lowest in the body to gain as much as the greatest.
In Anawim, we have two sacramental meals: a. A meal that is for everyone, especially the poor and hungry, without excluding anyone because of religious preferences. We have these meals every time we worship, four times a week. b. Twice a year-- New Year's and Resurrection Day-- we hold a Lord's Supper with the bread and wine. These are special times of commitment to Jesus as Lord, remembering His sacrifice for our sins.
People come to Anawim with different theological ideas of what the Eucharist means, but we all share in the unity of it, as long as we recognize Jesus as our Lord and we are committed to Him.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Letter To A Young Activist
A great essay by Thomas Merton to anyone who is more interested in social action than words. I found it here:
"Do not depend on the hope of results. When you are doing the sort of work you have taken on, essentially an apostolic work, you may have to face the fact that your work will be apparently worthless and achieve no result at all, if not perhaps results opposite to what you expect. As you get used to this idea, you start more and more to concentrate not on the results but on the value, the truth of the work itself. And there, too, a great deal has to be gone through, as gradually as you struggle less and less for an idea, and more and more for specific people. The range tends to narrow down, but it gets much more real. In the end, it is the reality of personal relationships that saves everything.
"You are fed up with words, and I don’t blame you. I am nauseated by them sometimes. I am also, to tell you the truth, nauseated by ideals and with causes. This sounds like heresy, but I think you will understand what I mean. It is so easy to get engrossed with ideas and slogans and myths that in the end one is left holding the bag, empty, with no trace of meaning left in it. And then the temptation is to yell louder than ever in order to make the meaning be there again by magic. Going through this kind of reaction helps you to guard against this. Your system is complaining of too much verbalizing, and it is right.
"…The big results are not in your hands or mine, but they suddenly happen, and we can share in them, but there is no point in building our lives on this personal satisfaction, which may be denied us and which after all is not that important.
"The next step in the process is for you to see that your even thinking about what you are doing is crucially important. You are probably striving to build yourself an identity in your work, out of your work and witness. You are using it, so to speak, to protect yourself against nothingness, annihilation. That is not the right use of your work. All the good that you will do will come, not from you but from the fact that you have allowed yourself, in the obedience of faith, to be used by God’s love. Think of this more and gradually you will be free from the need to prove yourself, and you can be more open to the power that will work through you without your knowing it.
"The great thing after all is to live, not to pour out your life in the service of a myth; and we turn the best things into myths. If you can get free from the domination of causes and just serve Christ’s truth, you will be able to do more and will be less crushed by the inevitable disappointments. Because I see nothing whatever in sight but much disappointment, frustration, and confusion.
"The real hope, then, is not in something we think we can do, but in God who is making something good out of it in some way we cannot see. If we can do His will, we will be helping in this process. But we will not necessarily know all about it beforehand . . . "
"Do not depend on the hope of results. When you are doing the sort of work you have taken on, essentially an apostolic work, you may have to face the fact that your work will be apparently worthless and achieve no result at all, if not perhaps results opposite to what you expect. As you get used to this idea, you start more and more to concentrate not on the results but on the value, the truth of the work itself. And there, too, a great deal has to be gone through, as gradually as you struggle less and less for an idea, and more and more for specific people. The range tends to narrow down, but it gets much more real. In the end, it is the reality of personal relationships that saves everything.
"You are fed up with words, and I don’t blame you. I am nauseated by them sometimes. I am also, to tell you the truth, nauseated by ideals and with causes. This sounds like heresy, but I think you will understand what I mean. It is so easy to get engrossed with ideas and slogans and myths that in the end one is left holding the bag, empty, with no trace of meaning left in it. And then the temptation is to yell louder than ever in order to make the meaning be there again by magic. Going through this kind of reaction helps you to guard against this. Your system is complaining of too much verbalizing, and it is right.
"…The big results are not in your hands or mine, but they suddenly happen, and we can share in them, but there is no point in building our lives on this personal satisfaction, which may be denied us and which after all is not that important.
"The next step in the process is for you to see that your even thinking about what you are doing is crucially important. You are probably striving to build yourself an identity in your work, out of your work and witness. You are using it, so to speak, to protect yourself against nothingness, annihilation. That is not the right use of your work. All the good that you will do will come, not from you but from the fact that you have allowed yourself, in the obedience of faith, to be used by God’s love. Think of this more and gradually you will be free from the need to prove yourself, and you can be more open to the power that will work through you without your knowing it.
"The great thing after all is to live, not to pour out your life in the service of a myth; and we turn the best things into myths. If you can get free from the domination of causes and just serve Christ’s truth, you will be able to do more and will be less crushed by the inevitable disappointments. Because I see nothing whatever in sight but much disappointment, frustration, and confusion.
"The real hope, then, is not in something we think we can do, but in God who is making something good out of it in some way we cannot see. If we can do His will, we will be helping in this process. But we will not necessarily know all about it beforehand . . . "
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Culture of Oppression
I got this response to my post on the movie District 9 (edited):
Steve, this is very sad. the movie was very sad, inhumane, & cruel. I didn't like the movie, because it was inhumane & cruel & very brutal. I didn't like the guy who was in charge of trying to get the aliens out of their own homes & such. not until the very end, when he did what he did at the very end. i can't watch that movie again....I also saw Inglorious bastards, again, another movie that was way too brutal for my liking, and again, I saw that one because my friend had wanted to see it. I didn't care for it, nor was I interested in seeing that movie. I really don't like movies that are that kind of brutal. makes me sad & mad at the same time to see such cruelty at the hands of those humans that make me wish I wasn't part of their race. just like in Avatar. not all of the humans, but the majority of the humans, or the ones who worked for the RDA, made me sick....made me wish I wasn't part of their race. I actually found myself wishing I could be part of the Na'vi, the Omaticaya clanthat Truly sickens me to beyond words. to be part of the race that wants to wipe out what is pure & good, for the sake of greed....makes me sick to my stomache. why do those kind have to always try to destroy what is beautiful, pure, & natural? I just don't understand. there is No need to be cruel. I wish our world was like the Pandora world. minus the devastation & the greed of the real savages.
My response:
You make a good point about all three of the films mentioned. They all depict cruelty and insensitivity to a larger group of people. But in all of them, they are intended to display that cruelty so that we do not participate in it. In Avatar, it was clear that it is the U.S. cruelty against Native Americans, the Iraqis and others that are targeted. In District 9, it is apartheid that is targeted, but all kinds of racism is included-- any type of segregation, in fact. In Inglourious Basterds, the audience itself is shown as being cruel for wanting to see a gorefest of one particular group, even if they are Nazis. All three movies target us as the ones being cruel and unkind, as participants in our government, in purchasing the products of corporations that take advantage of indigenous peoples, as taking the fruits of years of racism and as moviegoers lusting after the death of our enemies. They all call us to repent of our own segregationism and racism and cruelty.
Steve, this is very sad. the movie was very sad, inhumane, & cruel. I didn't like the movie, because it was inhumane & cruel & very brutal. I didn't like the guy who was in charge of trying to get the aliens out of their own homes & such. not until the very end, when he did what he did at the very end. i can't watch that movie again....I also saw Inglorious bastards, again, another movie that was way too brutal for my liking, and again, I saw that one because my friend had wanted to see it. I didn't care for it, nor was I interested in seeing that movie. I really don't like movies that are that kind of brutal. makes me sad & mad at the same time to see such cruelty at the hands of those humans that make me wish I wasn't part of their race. just like in Avatar. not all of the humans, but the majority of the humans, or the ones who worked for the RDA, made me sick....made me wish I wasn't part of their race. I actually found myself wishing I could be part of the Na'vi, the Omaticaya clanthat Truly sickens me to beyond words. to be part of the race that wants to wipe out what is pure & good, for the sake of greed....makes me sick to my stomache. why do those kind have to always try to destroy what is beautiful, pure, & natural? I just don't understand. there is No need to be cruel. I wish our world was like the Pandora world. minus the devastation & the greed of the real savages.
My response:
You make a good point about all three of the films mentioned. They all depict cruelty and insensitivity to a larger group of people. But in all of them, they are intended to display that cruelty so that we do not participate in it. In Avatar, it was clear that it is the U.S. cruelty against Native Americans, the Iraqis and others that are targeted. In District 9, it is apartheid that is targeted, but all kinds of racism is included-- any type of segregation, in fact. In Inglourious Basterds, the audience itself is shown as being cruel for wanting to see a gorefest of one particular group, even if they are Nazis. All three movies target us as the ones being cruel and unkind, as participants in our government, in purchasing the products of corporations that take advantage of indigenous peoples, as taking the fruits of years of racism and as moviegoers lusting after the death of our enemies. They all call us to repent of our own segregationism and racism and cruelty.
Monday, February 01, 2010
President Slam!
No matter who the president is, there are many who will find fault with him. I just read a list of slams on President Obama, from him "looking nervous" to him "holding the country in a stranglehold" to the alleged idea that he wasn't born in the U.S. I am not an Obama supporter, even as I was not a Bush supporter. However, we do have the requirement to show respect to those in office. As believers in Jesus, we are commanded to be submitted to the government. Of course this idea can be carried too far, but we have some basic requirements as toward our leaders-- whether we like them or not.
-We should be respectful of the office, which means insults are not allowed.
-We should allow our critiques to be thoughtful and helpful, not just a generalized statement that the leader is doing a bad job.
-We should never spread rumors or unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Followers of Jesus shouldn't be involved in gossip.
-Most of all, if you are concerned about the direction of the government, spend less time complaining and more time praying.
To be submissive to the government, we are commanded to:
Show respect
Pay our taxes
Follow the law (as long as it does not limit our love for others)
Pray that our leaders would bring peace to the land
Let's not get so carried away in worldly politics that we forget that we are actually citizens of the kingdom of God. Let's act appropriately as ambassadors, not as rebels.
-We should be respectful of the office, which means insults are not allowed.
-We should allow our critiques to be thoughtful and helpful, not just a generalized statement that the leader is doing a bad job.
-We should never spread rumors or unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Followers of Jesus shouldn't be involved in gossip.
-Most of all, if you are concerned about the direction of the government, spend less time complaining and more time praying.
To be submissive to the government, we are commanded to:
Show respect
Pay our taxes
Follow the law (as long as it does not limit our love for others)
Pray that our leaders would bring peace to the land
Let's not get so carried away in worldly politics that we forget that we are actually citizens of the kingdom of God. Let's act appropriately as ambassadors, not as rebels.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
True Christian Love in Haiti
Haitian Orphanage Refuses to Turn People Away
Baptist Press reports that one orphanage in Haiti has found itself caring for the wider community after last week's earthquake. Cabaret Children's Home, located 30 miles north of Port-au-Prince, has welcomed hundreds of people who have lost their homes in the Jan. 12 earthquake. "When people come to us, we cannot cross our arms, meaning, we cannot turn them away," Haitian worker Pierre Prinvil said through translator David Garret. "Obviously feeding is going on for displaced folks [at the compound]," said Garrett, a church and community director with the Southern Baptist Convention. "They are sharing their food with people who have nowhere else to be." The orphanage's older students have helped feed younger children outside the compound, and the orphanage has used its own supplies to feed famished the famished Haitians who keep arriving. "They are such a resilient people," Garrett said.
-From Religion Today Summaries
Baptist Press reports that one orphanage in Haiti has found itself caring for the wider community after last week's earthquake. Cabaret Children's Home, located 30 miles north of Port-au-Prince, has welcomed hundreds of people who have lost their homes in the Jan. 12 earthquake. "When people come to us, we cannot cross our arms, meaning, we cannot turn them away," Haitian worker Pierre Prinvil said through translator David Garret. "Obviously feeding is going on for displaced folks [at the compound]," said Garrett, a church and community director with the Southern Baptist Convention. "They are sharing their food with people who have nowhere else to be." The orphanage's older students have helped feed younger children outside the compound, and the orphanage has used its own supplies to feed famished the famished Haitians who keep arriving. "They are such a resilient people," Garrett said.
-From Religion Today Summaries
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Spiritual Principles of Avatar
After two viewings of Avatar, I realized that there are some deep spiritual principles to be found in this film. If all you see is a tree-god and anti-American sentiment or a pretty weak statement about race, you're missing the deeper message. If you've seen the movie, read through these principles and see if they resonate with you, or your understanding of the film:
There is a empire, ruling the world, and its focus is to increase the wealth of a limited few, even if that hurts others. Everyone within the empire is a part of this system of greed, even if they superficially attempt to oppose it.
There is an alternative system which focuses on relationships, community and spiritual power.
The secret of the spiritual community is empathy. It is the sign that one is a part of the spiritual community, the unifying principle as well as the power. One has empathy with all life. Even if one must kill to survive, empathy requires that one feels the death of the other, and give it the respect that one would demand. The minimal amount of empathy is treating other’s life as one would be treated.
All empathy begins with understanding, with listening. Eventually, one can “see” another, deeply understanding the other, placing them as an equal in importance to oneself. Those who do not have the ability to understand, to empathize, are insane and cannot exist in the spiritual community.
But some relationships have deeper empathy, a full bond. In those relationships, two share their minds, their lives, their souls. And once bonded, the bond cannot be broken except through death. This is love.
The opposite to empathy, to bonding, is fear. To fear the other is to separate from the other. To listen to the other, one must receive the other; to accept the other, one must trust; to bond with the other one must unite.
Those of the empire cannot empathize. Yes, they can understand intellectually the other different from oneself, but they cannot truly see them as equals to themselves. They are so caught up in building their own empire for those like themselves, that they cannot see the other. So they outcast those who truly empathize, because the desires of empathy is opposite to the greed of the empire.
The evil empire wants the resources of the spiritual community and will ignore all the concerns of the spiritual community to get it. On the surface, the evil empire is more powerful than the spiritual community, and the spiritual community is in threat of extinction.
For the spiritual community to survive, there must be a mediator—one who knows what it is to be spiritual and one who has lived amidst the empire. He or she must be born of both worlds, but the Mediator does not straddle the fence. The Mediator must be on the side of the spiritual community, the weak, the oppressed, if they are to survive.
In the end, there will be conflict—disasterous conflict—between the empire and the spiritual community. And although the empire seems to have the greater power, the fact is that the spiritual community has a source that is at the core of all life. The only way to connect to that Source is through prayer. Thus, though the Mediator may use many different resources, the true power is found in prayer. Prayer is what changes the course for the spiritual community.
One must recognize, however, that the Source does not take sides between the empire and the spiritual community. The Source is on the side of all life, of order and balance. However, as long as the spiritual community is on the side of the Source, then the Source will act for them. And this action is more powerful than anything else they might conceive themselves.
Eventually, the spiritual community of empathy will rule the world and force the empire out. But this will only happen when the truly are united in Empathy. Only then will many in the Empire become united with the Source of all life, and seek balance.
There is a empire, ruling the world, and its focus is to increase the wealth of a limited few, even if that hurts others. Everyone within the empire is a part of this system of greed, even if they superficially attempt to oppose it.
There is an alternative system which focuses on relationships, community and spiritual power.
The secret of the spiritual community is empathy. It is the sign that one is a part of the spiritual community, the unifying principle as well as the power. One has empathy with all life. Even if one must kill to survive, empathy requires that one feels the death of the other, and give it the respect that one would demand. The minimal amount of empathy is treating other’s life as one would be treated.
All empathy begins with understanding, with listening. Eventually, one can “see” another, deeply understanding the other, placing them as an equal in importance to oneself. Those who do not have the ability to understand, to empathize, are insane and cannot exist in the spiritual community.
But some relationships have deeper empathy, a full bond. In those relationships, two share their minds, their lives, their souls. And once bonded, the bond cannot be broken except through death. This is love.
The opposite to empathy, to bonding, is fear. To fear the other is to separate from the other. To listen to the other, one must receive the other; to accept the other, one must trust; to bond with the other one must unite.
Those of the empire cannot empathize. Yes, they can understand intellectually the other different from oneself, but they cannot truly see them as equals to themselves. They are so caught up in building their own empire for those like themselves, that they cannot see the other. So they outcast those who truly empathize, because the desires of empathy is opposite to the greed of the empire.
The evil empire wants the resources of the spiritual community and will ignore all the concerns of the spiritual community to get it. On the surface, the evil empire is more powerful than the spiritual community, and the spiritual community is in threat of extinction.
For the spiritual community to survive, there must be a mediator—one who knows what it is to be spiritual and one who has lived amidst the empire. He or she must be born of both worlds, but the Mediator does not straddle the fence. The Mediator must be on the side of the spiritual community, the weak, the oppressed, if they are to survive.
In the end, there will be conflict—disasterous conflict—between the empire and the spiritual community. And although the empire seems to have the greater power, the fact is that the spiritual community has a source that is at the core of all life. The only way to connect to that Source is through prayer. Thus, though the Mediator may use many different resources, the true power is found in prayer. Prayer is what changes the course for the spiritual community.
One must recognize, however, that the Source does not take sides between the empire and the spiritual community. The Source is on the side of all life, of order and balance. However, as long as the spiritual community is on the side of the Source, then the Source will act for them. And this action is more powerful than anything else they might conceive themselves.
Eventually, the spiritual community of empathy will rule the world and force the empire out. But this will only happen when the truly are united in Empathy. Only then will many in the Empire become united with the Source of all life, and seek balance.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Why I Absolutely Despise Inglorious Basterds
I am a grudging fan of Quentin Tarantino.
His films are over-gory and glorify violence. They take the most dispicable characters and make you think about their motivations, which may not be the best kind of meditation. As a follower of Jesus, they made me uncomfortable, at best.
But after watching Pulp Fiction, I had to admit, he's amazing. The script is sparkling, brilliant, like a philosophy of religion class dressed as a 70s B movie. The characters revel in their hypocrisy, and allows us to look at our own, and as they explain their philosophy of life, they cause us to reflect on our own.
Kill Bill, especially Part 2, is the same. It was a Hollywood version of a Hong Kong violence fest, and then it becomes a reflection of life and motherhood and relationships and... wow. So much there to think about. And the possible connection to Buddhism is fantastic, even if Tarantino never meant to put that in.
Reservoir Dogs is intense, and the characters are perfect. And Deathproof? Well, it's a salute to 70's B movies and while revenge isn't my thing, it was cool to see women take charge in an action flick.
But after Inglorious Basterds I need to keep my distance away from Tarantino again.
Again, the script is brilliant, the dialog witty and sometimes deep and the film impossible to not look at in wonder. It begins with a teen fantasy premise, as Tarantino films often do-- a group of Jewish Americans in a created WWII scenario dropped in the middle of occupied France to do one thing-- kill as many Nazis as possible. And they do this task with glee.
However, compared to other Tarantino films, there is much less violence and gore. Most of the action takes place off the screen, which will disappoint some, I'm sure. But I was pleased, and was just waiting for the twist he often puts in his films, the moral glimpse at these violent purposes.
It never happened. (Here's the part where if you want to see the film, you stop reading, because I'm going to ruin it for you, if you continue) Sure, there was a twist. Unlike most WWII films, even the fantasy ones, they give a nod to reality, trying to fit their script to fit history as we know it. Not Tarantino. He shrugs off reality and gives us the end of the war as most Americans wished it would be like: A bloody, savage destruction of all the leaders of the Nazi party, including Hitler, with them all knowing that they are being killed by a Jew.
In the most amazing scene in the film, the climax, the beautiful face of Shoshanna is displayed on a screen of smoke, coming up from the fire that will burn down the theatre that all of the leaders of the Nazi party are locked in, and she is gleefully, almost Satanically, mocking them, "This is the face of Jewish vengeance!"
In this film, Tarantino goes back to an older form of the war epic-- there are good guys and there are bad guys. And the good guys, no matter how bloody they are or how many people they kill, they remain on the side of justice. And the bad guys are always bad and they always deserve to die. This fits a certain modern concept of war. Sure, the Nazis have been replaced with terrorists (read: Muslims) and the bad guys don't wear uniforms any more, but war is to create justice, and eventually to create peace because once you get rid of the bad guys then the world is free to do right again.
However, I've always been put off by that kind of movie, and Tarantino's is the most obvious example of it. This is because war doesn't just kill the bad guys-- some of them-- but a lot of misguided good people too. And both the "good" side and the "bad" side kill innocents-- on purpose at times. And what war really does is take the people interested in justice and peace and makes them the bad guys. People interested in doing evil to the other side, no matter what the cost, no matter what the personal moral sacrifice. They turn themselves into the very people they think they are destroying.
The best films on war recognize this. Both Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now delve into the self-destruction of the one who participates in war, morally, spiritually and mentally. Saving Private Ryan and The Hurt Locker, while more subtle and realistic, clearly speak of a cost of war, of the personal sacrifice, and of a situation that any sane person would find impossible to live with.
Inglorious Basterds, however, is a full-on glorification of the worst of war. Although it is the company of Jews that are named the title, it is truly the Nazis themselves Tarantino sees as the inglorious bastards and they deserve to be killed in the most gruesome, bloody, horrific manner-- and Tarantino is going to give them violent justice in a way reality never did.
And he expects us to glory in it. To joyfully revel in shooting Hitler up to such a degree that his face couldn't even be pieced back together. I don't know how many people realize, however, that in sitting before this movie, reveling in all their deaths, that makes us just the same as those Nazis, reveling and chortling and shouting in glee over the hundreds of deaths of Americans.
Maybe I spoke too soon. Maybe Tarantino is more subtle than I realized. Maybe he truly is making that point. "If you enjoy this scene-- you are a Nazi too". It is true, really true. If we leave this movie happy to see this vengeance taken, then we are a Nazi, glorifying in the horrific destruction of our enemies. If, however, we are horrified, disgusted by the blood bath, then maybe there is some hope for us. Maybe it is simply a litmus test of our morality.
But somehow, I doubt it.
His films are over-gory and glorify violence. They take the most dispicable characters and make you think about their motivations, which may not be the best kind of meditation. As a follower of Jesus, they made me uncomfortable, at best.
But after watching Pulp Fiction, I had to admit, he's amazing. The script is sparkling, brilliant, like a philosophy of religion class dressed as a 70s B movie. The characters revel in their hypocrisy, and allows us to look at our own, and as they explain their philosophy of life, they cause us to reflect on our own.
Kill Bill, especially Part 2, is the same. It was a Hollywood version of a Hong Kong violence fest, and then it becomes a reflection of life and motherhood and relationships and... wow. So much there to think about. And the possible connection to Buddhism is fantastic, even if Tarantino never meant to put that in.
Reservoir Dogs is intense, and the characters are perfect. And Deathproof? Well, it's a salute to 70's B movies and while revenge isn't my thing, it was cool to see women take charge in an action flick.
But after Inglorious Basterds I need to keep my distance away from Tarantino again.
Again, the script is brilliant, the dialog witty and sometimes deep and the film impossible to not look at in wonder. It begins with a teen fantasy premise, as Tarantino films often do-- a group of Jewish Americans in a created WWII scenario dropped in the middle of occupied France to do one thing-- kill as many Nazis as possible. And they do this task with glee.
However, compared to other Tarantino films, there is much less violence and gore. Most of the action takes place off the screen, which will disappoint some, I'm sure. But I was pleased, and was just waiting for the twist he often puts in his films, the moral glimpse at these violent purposes.
It never happened. (Here's the part where if you want to see the film, you stop reading, because I'm going to ruin it for you, if you continue) Sure, there was a twist. Unlike most WWII films, even the fantasy ones, they give a nod to reality, trying to fit their script to fit history as we know it. Not Tarantino. He shrugs off reality and gives us the end of the war as most Americans wished it would be like: A bloody, savage destruction of all the leaders of the Nazi party, including Hitler, with them all knowing that they are being killed by a Jew.
In the most amazing scene in the film, the climax, the beautiful face of Shoshanna is displayed on a screen of smoke, coming up from the fire that will burn down the theatre that all of the leaders of the Nazi party are locked in, and she is gleefully, almost Satanically, mocking them, "This is the face of Jewish vengeance!"
In this film, Tarantino goes back to an older form of the war epic-- there are good guys and there are bad guys. And the good guys, no matter how bloody they are or how many people they kill, they remain on the side of justice. And the bad guys are always bad and they always deserve to die. This fits a certain modern concept of war. Sure, the Nazis have been replaced with terrorists (read: Muslims) and the bad guys don't wear uniforms any more, but war is to create justice, and eventually to create peace because once you get rid of the bad guys then the world is free to do right again.
However, I've always been put off by that kind of movie, and Tarantino's is the most obvious example of it. This is because war doesn't just kill the bad guys-- some of them-- but a lot of misguided good people too. And both the "good" side and the "bad" side kill innocents-- on purpose at times. And what war really does is take the people interested in justice and peace and makes them the bad guys. People interested in doing evil to the other side, no matter what the cost, no matter what the personal moral sacrifice. They turn themselves into the very people they think they are destroying.
The best films on war recognize this. Both Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now delve into the self-destruction of the one who participates in war, morally, spiritually and mentally. Saving Private Ryan and The Hurt Locker, while more subtle and realistic, clearly speak of a cost of war, of the personal sacrifice, and of a situation that any sane person would find impossible to live with.
Inglorious Basterds, however, is a full-on glorification of the worst of war. Although it is the company of Jews that are named the title, it is truly the Nazis themselves Tarantino sees as the inglorious bastards and they deserve to be killed in the most gruesome, bloody, horrific manner-- and Tarantino is going to give them violent justice in a way reality never did.
And he expects us to glory in it. To joyfully revel in shooting Hitler up to such a degree that his face couldn't even be pieced back together. I don't know how many people realize, however, that in sitting before this movie, reveling in all their deaths, that makes us just the same as those Nazis, reveling and chortling and shouting in glee over the hundreds of deaths of Americans.
Maybe I spoke too soon. Maybe Tarantino is more subtle than I realized. Maybe he truly is making that point. "If you enjoy this scene-- you are a Nazi too". It is true, really true. If we leave this movie happy to see this vengeance taken, then we are a Nazi, glorifying in the horrific destruction of our enemies. If, however, we are horrified, disgusted by the blood bath, then maybe there is some hope for us. Maybe it is simply a litmus test of our morality.
But somehow, I doubt it.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Praise Amidst Tragedy
Reported in Religion Today Summary:
Haitians Praise God after Apocalyptic Quake
The Washington Times reports that Haitians still waiting for food and water did not wait to praise God over the weekend. "Why give thanks to God? Because we are here," the Rev. Eric Toussaint said. "We say 'Thank you God.' What happened is the will of God. We are in the hands of God now." Across the devastated city of Port-au-Prince on Sunday, small congregations gathered at the remains of their churches to pray, sing hymns and give thanks even as dead bodies still lay in the street. Rescuers have continued their push for survivors, though most still trapped in the rubble are presumed dead. The death toll is now estimated at 50,000 ot 100,000 people, according to the Pan American Health Organization. Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive said 100,000 would "seem to be the minimum."
Haitians Praise God after Apocalyptic Quake
The Washington Times reports that Haitians still waiting for food and water did not wait to praise God over the weekend. "Why give thanks to God? Because we are here," the Rev. Eric Toussaint said. "We say 'Thank you God.' What happened is the will of God. We are in the hands of God now." Across the devastated city of Port-au-Prince on Sunday, small congregations gathered at the remains of their churches to pray, sing hymns and give thanks even as dead bodies still lay in the street. Rescuers have continued their push for survivors, though most still trapped in the rubble are presumed dead. The death toll is now estimated at 50,000 ot 100,000 people, according to the Pan American Health Organization. Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive said 100,000 would "seem to be the minimum."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)