Other languages use different words for things. The word for 'chair' in French is 'chaise' and, in French, 'chair' means 'flesh'. The word for 'poison' in German is 'Gift' - a fact that caused first great consternation and then some hilarity many years ago when my mother told her German cousin that she wanted to buy his family 'a Gift'.
Other languages use different words. You think that this would be obvious. But when it comes to the word 'God', apparently not. While we're happy to let the French use the word 'Dieu' and the Germans use the word 'Gott', apparently we English-speaking Christians need to panic and object most strongly when Malay-speaking Christians want to use the Malay word for God, which is 'Allah'.
In what seems to be becoming a fashion of being misinformedly-informed, today I heard yet another person praying for the salvation of Christians in Malaysia who want to use the Malay word for 'God' to speak of 'God'.
Apparently, many English-speaking Christians seem to think that 'Allah' is the name of a god - like Zeus or Thor - rather than the Malay word for God. And, of course, it's also the Arabic word for 'God'; the Malay word has Arabic roots.
I wish this idea that Malaysian Christians are not truly Christian because they want to use their word for 'God' would go away. Today's pray-er actually prayed that Christians do not worship Allah, but we worship Jehovah. Well, actually, 'Jehovah' is a highly debatable pronunciation of the tetragrammaton which should not be pronounced in the first place. But how many English-speaking Christians studiously avoid saying 'God' in order to say 'Jehovah'? Not many that I know.
So before we start praying for the conversion of the heathen, let's make sure we know what we are talking about in the first place.
I'm putting on my tin hat now, because I reckon I'm probably going to get quite a bit a flack on this.
08 February 2010
01 February 2010
Laughter is the Best Medicine
What a brilliant way to protest a Westboro Baptist Church protest: San Franciso's Answer to Westboro Baptist Church.
God created humor. Humor is healing. I was promised donuts.
God created humor. Humor is healing. I was promised donuts.
On Being Nice
I had a teacher in elementary school who, I believe with hindsight, wanted to teach us to be literate people and good, interesting writers. This teacher would not accept the use of the word "nice" in a book report to describe the book itself, the characters in it or any part of the plot. He would kind of sneer and say "Nice is such a nice word". I'm pretty sure he meant meaningless and not very descriptive but I also got the impression that he thought that the word "nice" and the concept it conveyed were both a bit weak and wet.
In light of the discussion over the Methodist Social Media principles, I want to say that I believe in being nice, although I don't always achieve it. Or rather, there is one kind of "nice" I do believe in and one kind of "nice" I don't believe in.
The kind of "nice" I believe in is the kind of "nice" that we are called to in what Christians call The Great Commandment. (I recently heard a Jewish Rabbi say that Jesus' disciples asked him what was the greatest commandment and that, like a good Jewish Rabbi, he gave them two answers rather than one!) I believe in the kind of "nice" that is defined by "loving your neighbor as yourself". Christians call this "agape" love, taking on board the Greek concept of the kind of love that comes from positive actions that we actively decide to engage in. As opposed to the kind of love that comes from romance or parental or familial ties.
Many leaders will say that it's way too simplistic to simply say "Everyone should be nice to each other" as if this will solve all the power struggles in the world. Yes, its true that this is a simple concept. Yet I believe that this simple concept is necessary, if it is not sufficient, for those bigger initiatives of peace to begin. Agape love doesn't require us to stir up warm feelings in our gut for someone who just punched us in the face. But it does ask us to use our will to restrain from punching the other person back. In a sense, I think agape love is freeing: we don't have to be all warm and fuzzy about those who have done us wrong. But we are asked to use our wills to treat the person fairly.
But there is another kind of "nice" that I don't believe in. And I suspect it's the kind of "nice" that people think about when they are sneering about being nice. And that's the kind of "nice" that is not about agape love but rather about the path of least resistance or "I just want a quiet life". The kind of "nice" that doesn't want to stand up for injustice or truth or fairness because it is either afraid or it can't be bothered. That sort of "nice" I don't believe in. At it's very worst, this kind of "nice" can destroy clubs, schools, congregations and sometimes even communities: when no one will stand up to destructive factions out of fear or "laziness".
In light of the discussion over the Methodist Social Media principles, I want to say that I believe in being nice, although I don't always achieve it. Or rather, there is one kind of "nice" I do believe in and one kind of "nice" I don't believe in.
The kind of "nice" I believe in is the kind of "nice" that we are called to in what Christians call The Great Commandment. (I recently heard a Jewish Rabbi say that Jesus' disciples asked him what was the greatest commandment and that, like a good Jewish Rabbi, he gave them two answers rather than one!) I believe in the kind of "nice" that is defined by "loving your neighbor as yourself". Christians call this "agape" love, taking on board the Greek concept of the kind of love that comes from positive actions that we actively decide to engage in. As opposed to the kind of love that comes from romance or parental or familial ties.
Many leaders will say that it's way too simplistic to simply say "Everyone should be nice to each other" as if this will solve all the power struggles in the world. Yes, its true that this is a simple concept. Yet I believe that this simple concept is necessary, if it is not sufficient, for those bigger initiatives of peace to begin. Agape love doesn't require us to stir up warm feelings in our gut for someone who just punched us in the face. But it does ask us to use our will to restrain from punching the other person back. In a sense, I think agape love is freeing: we don't have to be all warm and fuzzy about those who have done us wrong. But we are asked to use our wills to treat the person fairly.
But there is another kind of "nice" that I don't believe in. And I suspect it's the kind of "nice" that people think about when they are sneering about being nice. And that's the kind of "nice" that is not about agape love but rather about the path of least resistance or "I just want a quiet life". The kind of "nice" that doesn't want to stand up for injustice or truth or fairness because it is either afraid or it can't be bothered. That sort of "nice" I don't believe in. At it's very worst, this kind of "nice" can destroy clubs, schools, congregations and sometimes even communities: when no one will stand up to destructive factions out of fear or "laziness".
31 January 2010
Methodist Social Media Guidelines
OK, I'm going to weigh in on the debate on the "Social Media Paper" going before (British) Methodist Council this coming week.
I'm afraid I've only seen links that jump right to the report and because I don't know how to create links in this situation, I cannot give a link to the report. However, a number of other Methodist bloggers have already provided links. Angela Shier-Jones' comment A place to Confer...? has a link and also one of the best comments on the matter that I've read.
There seems to be a view amongst some bloggers that the paper is an attempt to stifle on-line free speech amongst Methodists or even to discourage the use of blogging and social media altogether. I honestly don't see this.
On the theory that most people probably won't follow the links, I have copied below what I think is the substance of the guidelines. I note that the paper itself says that the guidelines will not be as stringently applied to office holders or ministers as they will be to Connexional Staff. That could be construed as "well, it's OK for Connexional Staff to have their freedom of speech suppressed" except that I don't think this is a paper about suppressing freedom of speech.
Before I became a minister, I worked for a large US company and the guidelines on internet usage and blogging (there was little social media at the time) were far more stringent. It seems to me to be reasonable - indeed, a no-brainer - that I would not want to gratuitously bring the Methodist Church into ill repute for no good reason. (And if I felt it necessary to go after the Church hammer and tongs for a gave injustice, I personally would not want to be part of it.)
I don't understand why this is arousing so much anxiety. I know that Methodists are an ornery lot but it appears that the idea of being team players and treating others the way we'd want to be treated ourselves makes a lot of people nervous.
Anyway, here is the substance of the guidelines:
5.1 Connexional Team staff are bound by ‘Speaking for the Methodist Church’ and
its appendices. Repeated failure to follow these documents can lead to disciplinary
action, and the same will be true of the following guidelines on social media.
Be responsible
i. Engaging in social media for your own purposes should be done in your own
time. Even social media used in your own time and on your own equipment has
the potential to raise disciplinary issues. The easiest way to prevent most
problems is to state that the views being expressed are your own and not the
Church’s, but you still need to avoid making statements that could bring the
Church into disrepute.
ii. Staff may only respond to or participate in social media for Church purposes
either as an explicit part of their job description, or with permission of their line
manager. In the latter case, this might either be a blanket approval or on a case
by case basis. The staff member and line manager should agree roughly how
much time this should take, and review regularly to make sure that this limit is
realistic and being met.
iii. The Church aims to have a single spokesperson on any topic. If that isn’t you,
you should at least find out who that person is and see how they might respond if
you were to speak on the issue, or ask if it would be more useful for them to
respond in their own name.
iv. Don’t share anything inappropriate about yourself, colleagues or any projects
that are not yet ready to be publicised. Treat things you learn at work as
confidential unless explicitly cleared to talk about them publicly.
v. You are ultimately responsible for your online activities; both the content and
the time spent. If either or both of these do not meet acceptable standards, then
your line manager will raise it as a concern. If the unacceptable behaviour
continues, then you could face disciplinary action.
Represent the Church properly
vi. Above all, remember that we are a Christian Church. Whatever your own faith
story, do not do or say anything that damages or undermines our reputation as a
Church, and respond in all ways with Christian love.
vii. Clearly state your name and position with the Church. Do not take part
anonymously, or under an alias (except as noted below in section 9)
viii. Where possible, link to relevant papers, such as Council or Conference
reports, fact sheets, press releases or foundational documents, especially if the
Conference has adopted a statement on a particular topic, therefore making it the
official position of the Church.
ix. Be professional in all your online activities. Check your spelling and grammar,
don’t be offensive or say anything improper. Make your arguments clearly and
truthfully. Even if people disagree with what you say, they should be impressed
with your manner. Don’t do or encourage anything illegal or improper.
Respect
x. Respect others and their beliefs and positions, even where you disagree.
xi. Make your cases and arguments constructively, factually, and with respect for
the need for good quality public discourse. Be truthful and honest.
xii. Respect the outcomes of our governance processes, which are based on
democratic and representative principles. You should not undermine a governance
outcome you disagree with. If you feel you must discuss it, then do so
constructively, stating the official position of the Church first and then stating
clearly why you disagree.
Ministers and other office holders of the Church
6.1 As noted above ministers (presbyters and deacons) and other office holders are
in different positions to that of Connexional Team staff. In practice this means that
these groups have more freedom than Connexional Team staff, but the principle
that all are responsible for what they write still applies. The core summary of being
responsible, respectful and good representatives of the Church remains true, but
different people will have different ways of following this in practice. Standing Order
740 clauses (2) and (3) give an outline of what the Church expects of those
admitted into full Connexion or recognised and regarded and of probationers.
I'm afraid I've only seen links that jump right to the report and because I don't know how to create links in this situation, I cannot give a link to the report. However, a number of other Methodist bloggers have already provided links. Angela Shier-Jones' comment A place to Confer...? has a link and also one of the best comments on the matter that I've read.
There seems to be a view amongst some bloggers that the paper is an attempt to stifle on-line free speech amongst Methodists or even to discourage the use of blogging and social media altogether. I honestly don't see this.
On the theory that most people probably won't follow the links, I have copied below what I think is the substance of the guidelines. I note that the paper itself says that the guidelines will not be as stringently applied to office holders or ministers as they will be to Connexional Staff. That could be construed as "well, it's OK for Connexional Staff to have their freedom of speech suppressed" except that I don't think this is a paper about suppressing freedom of speech.
Before I became a minister, I worked for a large US company and the guidelines on internet usage and blogging (there was little social media at the time) were far more stringent. It seems to me to be reasonable - indeed, a no-brainer - that I would not want to gratuitously bring the Methodist Church into ill repute for no good reason. (And if I felt it necessary to go after the Church hammer and tongs for a gave injustice, I personally would not want to be part of it.)
I don't understand why this is arousing so much anxiety. I know that Methodists are an ornery lot but it appears that the idea of being team players and treating others the way we'd want to be treated ourselves makes a lot of people nervous.
Anyway, here is the substance of the guidelines:
5.1 Connexional Team staff are bound by ‘Speaking for the Methodist Church’ and
its appendices. Repeated failure to follow these documents can lead to disciplinary
action, and the same will be true of the following guidelines on social media.
Be responsible
i. Engaging in social media for your own purposes should be done in your own
time. Even social media used in your own time and on your own equipment has
the potential to raise disciplinary issues. The easiest way to prevent most
problems is to state that the views being expressed are your own and not the
Church’s, but you still need to avoid making statements that could bring the
Church into disrepute.
ii. Staff may only respond to or participate in social media for Church purposes
either as an explicit part of their job description, or with permission of their line
manager. In the latter case, this might either be a blanket approval or on a case
by case basis. The staff member and line manager should agree roughly how
much time this should take, and review regularly to make sure that this limit is
realistic and being met.
iii. The Church aims to have a single spokesperson on any topic. If that isn’t you,
you should at least find out who that person is and see how they might respond if
you were to speak on the issue, or ask if it would be more useful for them to
respond in their own name.
iv. Don’t share anything inappropriate about yourself, colleagues or any projects
that are not yet ready to be publicised. Treat things you learn at work as
confidential unless explicitly cleared to talk about them publicly.
v. You are ultimately responsible for your online activities; both the content and
the time spent. If either or both of these do not meet acceptable standards, then
your line manager will raise it as a concern. If the unacceptable behaviour
continues, then you could face disciplinary action.
Represent the Church properly
vi. Above all, remember that we are a Christian Church. Whatever your own faith
story, do not do or say anything that damages or undermines our reputation as a
Church, and respond in all ways with Christian love.
vii. Clearly state your name and position with the Church. Do not take part
anonymously, or under an alias (except as noted below in section 9)
viii. Where possible, link to relevant papers, such as Council or Conference
reports, fact sheets, press releases or foundational documents, especially if the
Conference has adopted a statement on a particular topic, therefore making it the
official position of the Church.
ix. Be professional in all your online activities. Check your spelling and grammar,
don’t be offensive or say anything improper. Make your arguments clearly and
truthfully. Even if people disagree with what you say, they should be impressed
with your manner. Don’t do or encourage anything illegal or improper.
Respect
x. Respect others and their beliefs and positions, even where you disagree.
xi. Make your cases and arguments constructively, factually, and with respect for
the need for good quality public discourse. Be truthful and honest.
xii. Respect the outcomes of our governance processes, which are based on
democratic and representative principles. You should not undermine a governance
outcome you disagree with. If you feel you must discuss it, then do so
constructively, stating the official position of the Church first and then stating
clearly why you disagree.
Ministers and other office holders of the Church
6.1 As noted above ministers (presbyters and deacons) and other office holders are
in different positions to that of Connexional Team staff. In practice this means that
these groups have more freedom than Connexional Team staff, but the principle
that all are responsible for what they write still applies. The core summary of being
responsible, respectful and good representatives of the Church remains true, but
different people will have different ways of following this in practice. Standing Order
740 clauses (2) and (3) give an outline of what the Church expects of those
admitted into full Connexion or recognised and regarded and of probationers.
08 January 2010
Blame, Shame and Learning
I want to pick up on some thoughts from a sentence that I heard this morning. The sentence is: "I am less interested in placing blame than I am in learning what went wrong so we can fix these problems"* (please see the disclaimer below)
This is a worthwhile sentiment which can also be a tricky one and those who read this blog-post today will likely recognize the very "tricky" context in which it was said. The most obvious objection to this sentiment is does this mean it's perfectly OK to be sloppy, incompetent or uninterested in doing a good job? If you are not pulled up for being sloppy, incompetent or uninterested, how will you learn to do better next time? And what about those individuals who may end up unintentionally victimized by your incompetence? Don't they deserve the satisfaction of seeing you punished?
I acknowledge these objections. I acknowledge the fact that sometimes individuals have responsibilities that, for whatever reason, they are uninterested in fulfilling and which they deliberately shirk. I acknowledge that there should be consequences for irresponsibility and that people who are deliberately and willfully irresponsible should not be constantly let off the hook.
But the thing is that things do go wrong in life. There are many times when failures are systemic and the failure is not really a matter of an individual being uninterested or incompetent. Sometimes there can be systemic failure even with everyone doing their job correctly. And yet we still love to try to single out an individual on whom to place the blame, whether or not they could reasonably be said to have caused the problem or even had the power to stop it.
We are often more interested in finding a scapegoat to punish than we are in learning from our mistakes and fixing the system. I think I might go out on a limb and suggest that more often than not, we are satisfied when we have found someone to punish and we don't even bother trying to learn anything from our mistakes. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense if we put the majority of our efforts into learning from our mistakes?
I've just started a new job and there is a lot of detail involved in the training. Yesterday, a co-worker worked with me for a few hours and she caught many of the mistakes I made. And this is how I really learned: I made a mistake, she caught the mistake, asked me what was wrong, I removed the mistaken item and placed it in the correct place and moved on. I learned from this because *I* physically corrected my own mistakes. I learned from this much more than I would have learned by watching my co-worker do the job.
I think that there is theology here too. Christianity tells us that God is a God of grace, mercy and forgiveness. God is like my co-worker: catching our mistakes, asking us what we did wrong, asking us to correct our own mistakes and then helping us to learn from our mistakes so we can move on into a new future. God is not like many of us; God is not just waiting to blame and punish us with no care or thought about whether or not we have learned anything.
I want to live in a world where I can learn from my mistakes. What about you?
====
* Disclaimer: I am not trying to comment specifically on today's news item about the failure to catch "the Christmas bomber". I am also not trying to signal blanket or uncritical approval for everything President Obama said, says or will say. I am not interested in a partisan conversation here; I'm interested in the idea and the attitude behind this statement.
This is a worthwhile sentiment which can also be a tricky one and those who read this blog-post today will likely recognize the very "tricky" context in which it was said. The most obvious objection to this sentiment is does this mean it's perfectly OK to be sloppy, incompetent or uninterested in doing a good job? If you are not pulled up for being sloppy, incompetent or uninterested, how will you learn to do better next time? And what about those individuals who may end up unintentionally victimized by your incompetence? Don't they deserve the satisfaction of seeing you punished?
I acknowledge these objections. I acknowledge the fact that sometimes individuals have responsibilities that, for whatever reason, they are uninterested in fulfilling and which they deliberately shirk. I acknowledge that there should be consequences for irresponsibility and that people who are deliberately and willfully irresponsible should not be constantly let off the hook.
But the thing is that things do go wrong in life. There are many times when failures are systemic and the failure is not really a matter of an individual being uninterested or incompetent. Sometimes there can be systemic failure even with everyone doing their job correctly. And yet we still love to try to single out an individual on whom to place the blame, whether or not they could reasonably be said to have caused the problem or even had the power to stop it.
We are often more interested in finding a scapegoat to punish than we are in learning from our mistakes and fixing the system. I think I might go out on a limb and suggest that more often than not, we are satisfied when we have found someone to punish and we don't even bother trying to learn anything from our mistakes. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense if we put the majority of our efforts into learning from our mistakes?
I've just started a new job and there is a lot of detail involved in the training. Yesterday, a co-worker worked with me for a few hours and she caught many of the mistakes I made. And this is how I really learned: I made a mistake, she caught the mistake, asked me what was wrong, I removed the mistaken item and placed it in the correct place and moved on. I learned from this because *I* physically corrected my own mistakes. I learned from this much more than I would have learned by watching my co-worker do the job.
I think that there is theology here too. Christianity tells us that God is a God of grace, mercy and forgiveness. God is like my co-worker: catching our mistakes, asking us what we did wrong, asking us to correct our own mistakes and then helping us to learn from our mistakes so we can move on into a new future. God is not like many of us; God is not just waiting to blame and punish us with no care or thought about whether or not we have learned anything.
I want to live in a world where I can learn from my mistakes. What about you?
====
* Disclaimer: I am not trying to comment specifically on today's news item about the failure to catch "the Christmas bomber". I am also not trying to signal blanket or uncritical approval for everything President Obama said, says or will say. I am not interested in a partisan conversation here; I'm interested in the idea and the attitude behind this statement.
07 January 2010
Thoughts on Prayer
OK, here is a subject-area where Angels fear to tread and I'm offering a few preliminary thoughts here on prayer for discussion. By no means do I think that I am an "expert" on prayer or that I have "right answers" about prayer.
My three thoughts for this morning are:
1) Pray as you can, not as you can't
2) Prayer, just do it
3) Prayer is not a vending machine, it's an exercise
Pray as you can, not as you can't.
Anyone who has attended Guy Chester Centre in the past will recognize this saying as taught by the beloved Sister Anne Marie Farrell. In fact, it's a saying that many regular practitioners of traditional Christian prayer disciplines will tell you.
Prayer is not an easy thing and there is no point in making it harder by getting a whole load of "shoulds" into your head about how prayer "should" be done. Some people are familiar with more contemplative prayer and they think that this sort of prayer just doesn't work for them because they hate silence and can't sit still for ten minutes. Others are more familiar with spoken verbal prayer and may think "Well, Fred the Local Preacher in my congregation is fantastic at praying out loud, but I get my tongue all tied up; I can't pray and won't ever be able to."
Each individual is going to have approaches to prayer that at different from others. There are a number of good books which give suggestions on various ways to pray to help you try out a few of them. Richard Foster's book called Prayer; Finding the Heart's True Home stands out as one of these. Some people find it easier to pray while walking, some find it easier with music, some with silence. Some pray out loud in their own room, some pray out loud with others, some pray silently with others.
There is no "Right Way" to pray and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I also find I pray differently in different situations. Sometimes I want to pray silently on my own. Sometimes I want to pray out loud with others. Neither way is better than the other.
2) Prayer, just do it
This is kind of a "bridge" point between points one and three.
Don't worry about your prayer technique. Just pray and try to pray regularly. Try various ways of praying until you begin to understand which ways work for you and which way you pray in different circumstances. For example, if I'm really in a crisis situation, I ideally want to be praying with others. That's not always possible, but I now know that this is my preferred way of praying in such a circumstance.
Also, like exercise, praying regularly is helpful but every little bit helps. Personally, I have found saying the Daily Office (there are many versions of this in books as well as on line) to be incredibly helpful in "just doing it". The Daily Office is especially helpful when you are distracted, sad or depressed. Rote prayer, in my view, is far from the vain praying that many more passionate Protestants claim it is. It's a way of showing up to be with God even if you don't feel like it.
Regular prayer, like regular exercise, is helpful and it all "accumulates". Which brings me to my third point:
3) Prayer is not a vending machine, it's an exercise
A lot of people have a lot of things to say about whether or not prayer "works". It seems to me that no matter what side of this argument you take, both sides seem to think of prayer as a vending machine. To be a bit absurd for the sake of making a point: "My friend's heart is failing and a transplant can't be found, so we're praying for a miracle cure for her heart and when it doesn't come we decide that our prayers to God have failed or not been heard."
Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe in miracles. I have personally seen someone delivered from an illness that was diagnosed as fatal; this middle-age person's cure/healing was incomprehensible to doctors, was apparently complete and came a few days before the person was supposed to die. However, I'm not actually expecting to see another miracle like that in my lifetime.
What I do think is that prayer can help us see the everyday miracles more clearly. Prayer helps us see key-hole appendectomies as miracles, new cancer treatments as miracles. But probably more importantly, prayer helps us recognize that the fact that we got up this morning is a miracle. That the fact I have a warm house and a roof over my head is a miracle. Prayer helps us see that the good Samaritan who just happened to have a can of petrol on that isolated road is a miracle and not a coincidence. And I don't think I'm down-playing the word "miracle" here.
Just like exercise helps make our physical muscles stronger, so too does prayer help make our spiritual muscles stronger.
What do you think?
My three thoughts for this morning are:
1) Pray as you can, not as you can't
2) Prayer, just do it
3) Prayer is not a vending machine, it's an exercise
Pray as you can, not as you can't.
Anyone who has attended Guy Chester Centre in the past will recognize this saying as taught by the beloved Sister Anne Marie Farrell. In fact, it's a saying that many regular practitioners of traditional Christian prayer disciplines will tell you.
Prayer is not an easy thing and there is no point in making it harder by getting a whole load of "shoulds" into your head about how prayer "should" be done. Some people are familiar with more contemplative prayer and they think that this sort of prayer just doesn't work for them because they hate silence and can't sit still for ten minutes. Others are more familiar with spoken verbal prayer and may think "Well, Fred the Local Preacher in my congregation is fantastic at praying out loud, but I get my tongue all tied up; I can't pray and won't ever be able to."
Each individual is going to have approaches to prayer that at different from others. There are a number of good books which give suggestions on various ways to pray to help you try out a few of them. Richard Foster's book called Prayer; Finding the Heart's True Home stands out as one of these. Some people find it easier to pray while walking, some find it easier with music, some with silence. Some pray out loud in their own room, some pray out loud with others, some pray silently with others.
There is no "Right Way" to pray and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I also find I pray differently in different situations. Sometimes I want to pray silently on my own. Sometimes I want to pray out loud with others. Neither way is better than the other.
2) Prayer, just do it
This is kind of a "bridge" point between points one and three.
Don't worry about your prayer technique. Just pray and try to pray regularly. Try various ways of praying until you begin to understand which ways work for you and which way you pray in different circumstances. For example, if I'm really in a crisis situation, I ideally want to be praying with others. That's not always possible, but I now know that this is my preferred way of praying in such a circumstance.
Also, like exercise, praying regularly is helpful but every little bit helps. Personally, I have found saying the Daily Office (there are many versions of this in books as well as on line) to be incredibly helpful in "just doing it". The Daily Office is especially helpful when you are distracted, sad or depressed. Rote prayer, in my view, is far from the vain praying that many more passionate Protestants claim it is. It's a way of showing up to be with God even if you don't feel like it.
Regular prayer, like regular exercise, is helpful and it all "accumulates". Which brings me to my third point:
3) Prayer is not a vending machine, it's an exercise
A lot of people have a lot of things to say about whether or not prayer "works". It seems to me that no matter what side of this argument you take, both sides seem to think of prayer as a vending machine. To be a bit absurd for the sake of making a point: "My friend's heart is failing and a transplant can't be found, so we're praying for a miracle cure for her heart and when it doesn't come we decide that our prayers to God have failed or not been heard."
Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe in miracles. I have personally seen someone delivered from an illness that was diagnosed as fatal; this middle-age person's cure/healing was incomprehensible to doctors, was apparently complete and came a few days before the person was supposed to die. However, I'm not actually expecting to see another miracle like that in my lifetime.
What I do think is that prayer can help us see the everyday miracles more clearly. Prayer helps us see key-hole appendectomies as miracles, new cancer treatments as miracles. But probably more importantly, prayer helps us recognize that the fact that we got up this morning is a miracle. That the fact I have a warm house and a roof over my head is a miracle. Prayer helps us see that the good Samaritan who just happened to have a can of petrol on that isolated road is a miracle and not a coincidence. And I don't think I'm down-playing the word "miracle" here.
Just like exercise helps make our physical muscles stronger, so too does prayer help make our spiritual muscles stronger.
What do you think?
04 January 2010
Wrestling with Doctrine
Once upon a time there was a little boy named Johnny. Johnny's mother and his grandfather before her were respected Elders in the community; they were Community Story-Tellers.
Johnny's mother and grandfather told stories that didn't make a lot of sense to Johnny when he was little. There were stories about how human beings were children of Mother Earth; Johnny had seen his brothers and sisters born and he knew that's not where babies came from. There were stories about how all human beings are brothers and sisters, but Johnny knew that his brothers and sisters had the same parents he did. And there were stories about how, if you hurt another person you would hurt too. But Johnny knew that if he pushed his friend over, the friend would get the skinned knee, not him.
But Johnny grew up and he slowly began to understand that the stories were about the deeper things in life. They were not stories about where babies came from or about how to hurt - or avoid hurting - other people physically. Rather they were stories about the interdependence of human beings and the human relationship to the natural world.
Then one day, when he was 13, Johnny's mother told him that it was time for Johnny to become a Community Story-Teller too. Johnny asked his mother if he could make up his own stories. His mother told him that the role of Community Story-Teller was an important role in the community. While Johnny could make up as many stories as he wanted to for his own family and friends, when a Story-Teller was standing and telling the Community Stories among the Gathered People of The Community, the stories had to be told faithfully. These stories needed to be accurately memorized and repeated. "Why?" Johnny asked. "So they can be passed down faithfully from generation to generation" his mother replied.
Johnny understood what his mother was saying and so his training as a Community Story Teller began. Johnny put all his effort into faithfully learning and repeating the stories as they were passed down from generation to generation.
As he told the stories over the course of his life, Johnny was amazed at the power of the stories. He started out thinking "this story means this" and "that story means that" and then someone would come along and offer a very different interpretation of the story. Sometimes the other person's interpretation was the opposite of his understanding, but often he was able to see the other person's point of view. Johnny never failed to be surprised at the power of these stories and his wisdom grew and grew over his life as he learned from the stories and from other people who also wanted to learn from them.
===
I just made up this story and it probably has several levels of meaning. I wouldn't even be surprised if someone came up with a meaning that I hadn't thought when I wrote it.
One of my intentions in writing this story is to give an analogy of how I see doctrine in the Christian Church. In my opinion, doctrine should be passed down faithfully from generation to generation. So, for example, to me this means we don't mess with the words of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed. Individuals don't start changing them to try to fit their own individual understandings or interpretations of the creeds. Rather, we pass them down faithfully from generation to generation.
On the other hand, passing down the stories faithfully doesn't mean that we are not allowed to have our own interpretations of the creeds. I have known individuals who seem to regard their own interpretation of the creeds as litmus tests by which they believe themselves able to judge the orthodoxy of other individuals. So, they will tell us, no one is allowed to question the facticity of the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin and still be judged as an orthodox Christian. And these people seem to think that the Creeds were given in order to judge the faith or salvation of other individuals. I don't agree.
On the other hand, it is equally wrong to say "I find the idea of the virgin conception difficult, so I'm going to remove it from the creed" or "I find it difficult to believe that Jesus' body was resuscitated, so I'm going to remove the statement about resurrection from the creed."
To fiddle around with the creeds because we feel the need to wrestle with some of the text is to confuse our interpretation with what the creeds say. To use the creeds as a tool to judge the eternal salvation of others is to confuse our interpretation with what the creeds say.
I think the Church and her officers are called to pass on the creeds faithfully from generation to generation. And we are also given the grace to wrestle with our own doubts and interpretations and we are asked to be gracious unto others as they wrestle.
Your thoughts?
Johnny's mother and grandfather told stories that didn't make a lot of sense to Johnny when he was little. There were stories about how human beings were children of Mother Earth; Johnny had seen his brothers and sisters born and he knew that's not where babies came from. There were stories about how all human beings are brothers and sisters, but Johnny knew that his brothers and sisters had the same parents he did. And there were stories about how, if you hurt another person you would hurt too. But Johnny knew that if he pushed his friend over, the friend would get the skinned knee, not him.
But Johnny grew up and he slowly began to understand that the stories were about the deeper things in life. They were not stories about where babies came from or about how to hurt - or avoid hurting - other people physically. Rather they were stories about the interdependence of human beings and the human relationship to the natural world.
Then one day, when he was 13, Johnny's mother told him that it was time for Johnny to become a Community Story-Teller too. Johnny asked his mother if he could make up his own stories. His mother told him that the role of Community Story-Teller was an important role in the community. While Johnny could make up as many stories as he wanted to for his own family and friends, when a Story-Teller was standing and telling the Community Stories among the Gathered People of The Community, the stories had to be told faithfully. These stories needed to be accurately memorized and repeated. "Why?" Johnny asked. "So they can be passed down faithfully from generation to generation" his mother replied.
Johnny understood what his mother was saying and so his training as a Community Story Teller began. Johnny put all his effort into faithfully learning and repeating the stories as they were passed down from generation to generation.
As he told the stories over the course of his life, Johnny was amazed at the power of the stories. He started out thinking "this story means this" and "that story means that" and then someone would come along and offer a very different interpretation of the story. Sometimes the other person's interpretation was the opposite of his understanding, but often he was able to see the other person's point of view. Johnny never failed to be surprised at the power of these stories and his wisdom grew and grew over his life as he learned from the stories and from other people who also wanted to learn from them.
===
I just made up this story and it probably has several levels of meaning. I wouldn't even be surprised if someone came up with a meaning that I hadn't thought when I wrote it.
One of my intentions in writing this story is to give an analogy of how I see doctrine in the Christian Church. In my opinion, doctrine should be passed down faithfully from generation to generation. So, for example, to me this means we don't mess with the words of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed. Individuals don't start changing them to try to fit their own individual understandings or interpretations of the creeds. Rather, we pass them down faithfully from generation to generation.
On the other hand, passing down the stories faithfully doesn't mean that we are not allowed to have our own interpretations of the creeds. I have known individuals who seem to regard their own interpretation of the creeds as litmus tests by which they believe themselves able to judge the orthodoxy of other individuals. So, they will tell us, no one is allowed to question the facticity of the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin and still be judged as an orthodox Christian. And these people seem to think that the Creeds were given in order to judge the faith or salvation of other individuals. I don't agree.
On the other hand, it is equally wrong to say "I find the idea of the virgin conception difficult, so I'm going to remove it from the creed" or "I find it difficult to believe that Jesus' body was resuscitated, so I'm going to remove the statement about resurrection from the creed."
To fiddle around with the creeds because we feel the need to wrestle with some of the text is to confuse our interpretation with what the creeds say. To use the creeds as a tool to judge the eternal salvation of others is to confuse our interpretation with what the creeds say.
I think the Church and her officers are called to pass on the creeds faithfully from generation to generation. And we are also given the grace to wrestle with our own doubts and interpretations and we are asked to be gracious unto others as they wrestle.
Your thoughts?
New Year's Resolution
I don't usually make new year's resolutions but this year, I'm going to try to blog more than I did last year. And I'm going to try to blog on more topics of theology that I hope will be of interest to people and maybe even "relevant" to our lives as Christians.
I think I might end up re-blogging on some subjects that I've blogged about in the past. But one thing I've realized lately - from my experiences blogging and from my experiences in talking to people In Real Life - is that for various reasons we in the Church don't often get a chance to really hash out theological ideas that are important to us. So that's what I'm hoping to do a bit more of this year.
By the way, "theology" is simply "talk about God". It doesn't have to be high-fallutin'. I know that sometimes I use fancy words but I actually try not to do that for the most part. I usually try to translate fancy academic words of theology into "real English". And every person of faith "does theology" whether we think we do or not. When we ask questions like "What would Jesus do?" or "What would be a godly response to this situation?" we are asking theological questions.
I'll also be honest about another motivation. Since I'm not currently preaching, blogging can be a different way to "preach". In an ideal world, I'd rather see "preaching" as a dialogue between people rather than a monologue. And blogging is a much better venue for dialoging with others than most traditional Sunday services (although I frequently led services where discussions replaced sermons when I was leading worship).
So, my question to anyone who is reading is: What questions would you like to discuss here? What "God talk" subjects are of interest to you? I don't claim I'll have answers, but anyone who knows me knows that I can always add another question to the pile!
I think I might end up re-blogging on some subjects that I've blogged about in the past. But one thing I've realized lately - from my experiences blogging and from my experiences in talking to people In Real Life - is that for various reasons we in the Church don't often get a chance to really hash out theological ideas that are important to us. So that's what I'm hoping to do a bit more of this year.
By the way, "theology" is simply "talk about God". It doesn't have to be high-fallutin'. I know that sometimes I use fancy words but I actually try not to do that for the most part. I usually try to translate fancy academic words of theology into "real English". And every person of faith "does theology" whether we think we do or not. When we ask questions like "What would Jesus do?" or "What would be a godly response to this situation?" we are asking theological questions.
I'll also be honest about another motivation. Since I'm not currently preaching, blogging can be a different way to "preach". In an ideal world, I'd rather see "preaching" as a dialogue between people rather than a monologue. And blogging is a much better venue for dialoging with others than most traditional Sunday services (although I frequently led services where discussions replaced sermons when I was leading worship).
So, my question to anyone who is reading is: What questions would you like to discuss here? What "God talk" subjects are of interest to you? I don't claim I'll have answers, but anyone who knows me knows that I can always add another question to the pile!
02 January 2010
Tired of being Undeserving
This was a comment that I made on another blog, but I think it stands alone as a blogpost. And - sorry folks - it's another healthcare rant if you want to skip it.
===
===
Speaking as someone who presently can’t afford healthcare, I’m tired (there is a LOT of emotion behind that word “tired” that I can’t properly communicate) of fellow Christians telling me that I don’t deserve healthcare or that “people like me” don’t really want it.
The church has very clearly called upon us to tithe our income which does not currently pay the bills. We do tithe and would have done so anyway, but truth be told, having been told to tithe I now resent doing it. I have gone from feeling good about giving to God sacrificially to feeling that people might be wondering why we are giving so little – surely they must be making more than THAT?
What would happen to us in the event that we had a big medical crisis/bill? Well, we’d be left to accept the charity of the hospital or possibly of family. The church will maybe come up with a casserole. But, in the face of such opposition we certainly can’t be real enough with anyone at church to admit that not having healthcare is a worry. And no one would actually help us out with our real needs. I wouldn’t really expect that either, but I really MIND it in the context of being told that we would not deserve to have medical care on account of not being able to afford it at the moment.
Now that I’m finally getting a job and we’ll be able to pay our bills – although we’ll still worry about medical care and won’t really be able to afford preventative dentistry or checkups – am I supposed to: a) Say “Whew! Now I’m part of the mainstream in my church. I’ll join in the view that people in the condition I was in a few months ago don’t deserve healthcare? or b) Remember what it was like to worry? I’m pretty sure it’s going to be option (b). And we’ll still be worrying that we’ll get away with good health until we are able to earn an upper-middle class wage with all the perks.
01 January 2010
New Year New Job
Well, as I alluded to in an earlier post (Pushing on Closed Doors) I've been looking for a job that will help pay the bills since we arrived in the US this past August and such a job has been, unsurprisingly given the economy, quite difficult to find.
Probably like tens of thousands of people, I sent out hundreds of resumes and applications and got very few interviews. But, in a perfect example of all the buses coming at once, I answered two job adverts this past Monday, promptly got two interviews and then two job offers. Both jobs pay the same hourly rate (just above minimum wage) and both were offering 28 to 32 hours/week, but the first job was located about an hour's drive away and would have meant working until 9:45 pm 3 days a week as well as working on Sunday. The second job is in town - about 1 to 2 miles away - and there are no Sunday hours. Even better, I'll be working four 7-hour days instead of a few hours 5 days a week, which was the case with the other job.
I'm not going to give specifics about the job, but it's a locally-owned business providing a service. The owner works on the premises and the atmosphere is in the shop is very good. I've used it myself as a customer and the workers are friendly know many of the clients who come in. The work will be varied; all the employees take turns doing the different functions and I'll be on my feet, which is something that I wanted.
I had a good long chat with the owner (who is a bit older than me) when I was having my interview and he asked me about my job-hunting experience. I told him that I'd sometimes felt there might be some age discrimination going on. I felt this especially with a temporary agency that I signed up with. I did very well on their skills tests and the agency would ring me and say that they had a match of a job for me and they'd just send my resume (CV) over to the client "and then we'll have you out working". Then the client would say that they didn't want me. This happened about 5 or 6 times. Now, I understand someone maybe thinking I'm "over-qualified" for a data-entry or typing job, but I couldn't see why this would matter for temporary jobs. I began to wonder if they really wanted someone young and pretty to look at more than they wanted someone to type.
The owner looked at me with a look of recognition and said "Do you know what I think it was about?" I asked what. He said that many of the middle-aged people he'd hired couldn't deal with the computer. This particular business has a rather complex filing system to deal with clients' orders and it runs on proprietary computer software. He said that many of the people "our age" that he'd hired would get really lost and flustered with the computer and just couldn't cope. Whereas the younger people could intuitively figure their way around the software. He'd stopped worrying about that when I pulled out my iPod Touch to put our appointment in my calendar (diary) and was even more reassured when he had happened to see me in a local coffee shop working on my laptop.
I thought this was a very interesting observation and I think he may have had a point. I'd been trying to figure out possible objections to hiring me and I'd even written on my resume that I am a US citizen and eligible to work in the US without sponsorship, since all my experience for the last 20 years was in the UK. I also wrote in my self-profile that I am "fit and healthy and not taking any medications" since someone mentioned to me that they thought an "older" (hello!) person might be off sick a lot (actually, I suspect that might be a false stereotype, but if the bosses are 30-something and they think that, then I might as well tell them I'm energetic and healthy).
I'd actually thought about "the computer issue" once before when a twenty-something expressed surprise that I knew what a USB-port was. But I never actually took seriously the idea that someone would assume that I couldn't find my way around a computer.
Anyway, I am very relieved to have a job and it's going to make a big difference to our situation.
Here's hoping for good things in 2010.
Probably like tens of thousands of people, I sent out hundreds of resumes and applications and got very few interviews. But, in a perfect example of all the buses coming at once, I answered two job adverts this past Monday, promptly got two interviews and then two job offers. Both jobs pay the same hourly rate (just above minimum wage) and both were offering 28 to 32 hours/week, but the first job was located about an hour's drive away and would have meant working until 9:45 pm 3 days a week as well as working on Sunday. The second job is in town - about 1 to 2 miles away - and there are no Sunday hours. Even better, I'll be working four 7-hour days instead of a few hours 5 days a week, which was the case with the other job.
I'm not going to give specifics about the job, but it's a locally-owned business providing a service. The owner works on the premises and the atmosphere is in the shop is very good. I've used it myself as a customer and the workers are friendly know many of the clients who come in. The work will be varied; all the employees take turns doing the different functions and I'll be on my feet, which is something that I wanted.
I had a good long chat with the owner (who is a bit older than me) when I was having my interview and he asked me about my job-hunting experience. I told him that I'd sometimes felt there might be some age discrimination going on. I felt this especially with a temporary agency that I signed up with. I did very well on their skills tests and the agency would ring me and say that they had a match of a job for me and they'd just send my resume (CV) over to the client "and then we'll have you out working". Then the client would say that they didn't want me. This happened about 5 or 6 times. Now, I understand someone maybe thinking I'm "over-qualified" for a data-entry or typing job, but I couldn't see why this would matter for temporary jobs. I began to wonder if they really wanted someone young and pretty to look at more than they wanted someone to type.
The owner looked at me with a look of recognition and said "Do you know what I think it was about?" I asked what. He said that many of the middle-aged people he'd hired couldn't deal with the computer. This particular business has a rather complex filing system to deal with clients' orders and it runs on proprietary computer software. He said that many of the people "our age" that he'd hired would get really lost and flustered with the computer and just couldn't cope. Whereas the younger people could intuitively figure their way around the software. He'd stopped worrying about that when I pulled out my iPod Touch to put our appointment in my calendar (diary) and was even more reassured when he had happened to see me in a local coffee shop working on my laptop.
I thought this was a very interesting observation and I think he may have had a point. I'd been trying to figure out possible objections to hiring me and I'd even written on my resume that I am a US citizen and eligible to work in the US without sponsorship, since all my experience for the last 20 years was in the UK. I also wrote in my self-profile that I am "fit and healthy and not taking any medications" since someone mentioned to me that they thought an "older" (hello!) person might be off sick a lot (actually, I suspect that might be a false stereotype, but if the bosses are 30-something and they think that, then I might as well tell them I'm energetic and healthy).
I'd actually thought about "the computer issue" once before when a twenty-something expressed surprise that I knew what a USB-port was. But I never actually took seriously the idea that someone would assume that I couldn't find my way around a computer.
Anyway, I am very relieved to have a job and it's going to make a big difference to our situation.
Here's hoping for good things in 2010.
31 December 2009
Taking the Bible Seriously
My friend Mark has written an excellent blog post on the idea of "taking the bible seriously" versus "taking the bible literally". Maps and Language and Happy New Year.
Mark writes:
Mark writes:
The over valuing of literal ways of expressing our experience of reality needs challenging. Literal truth doesn't help us talk about the most important things, and when you force yourself to speak literally, you end up saying some very silly things about those important things. The most obvious example of this is God talk where 'taking the bible literally' has become for some the same as, 'taking it seriously', or reading it honestly and not complicating it with 'man made' interpretations.
28 December 2009
Snowing in the Snow Belt
The first photo is from the town center and the second and third photos are from our back window. We are blessed with a gorgeous view!
27 December 2009
Holy Communion
Probably one of the biggest changes in my worship life since I move to the US has been my "relationship" with the liturgy of Holy Communion.
Although congregations in the British Methodist system only celebrate communion once a month, as a minister, I generally presided at a Sunday communion service every week as I served four congregations. In addition to Sunday communion services, I often attended a mid-week communion service at the local Church of England parish and my duties often required me to preside at communion at local nursing homes as well as to celebrate with individuals who were house-bound.
So, it has been a big change to go from presiding at or receiving communion once a week or more to receiving communion once a month on Sundays.
I don't really consider myself an "expert" on Methodism in the New World, but I'm given to believe that within living memory, there were congregations which didn't celebrate communion in the main Sunday service, but which had a "tack on communion" at the end of the service. I remember briefly attending a Methodist church in Washington DC in about 1979 or 1980, where communion was held in a separate Chapel directly after the main service which was held in the sanctuary. Methodist communion here still feels a bit like a rush-job to me: it feels like it's "tacked on" to the service of the word which feels like it's is "the real deal" with communion as something of an embarrassing activity like getting caught making out in the car as a teenager. At least our pastor uses the entire communion liturgy: Great prayer of thanksgiving and epiclesis as well as the words of institution. In a number of places, I've experienced just the words of institution.
Yesterday (Saturday) evening, I attended a local Lutheran congregation which had sent out an invitation to their Christmas service. I didn't want to go to the Christmas service as our congregation had its own, but I learned from the Lutheran congregation's website that they hold a "blended" style of worship on Saturday evenings at 5:30 and the website advertised communion at every service. Yesterday evening was a service of nine lessons and carols (something I think is probably unusual in the US?), with communion at the end. Here again, the "communion liturgy" consisted only of the words of institution, but the rest of the service was somewhat more "liturgical" and everything seemed to flow towards the communion rather than making the communion an embarrassing afterthought. It was a sufficiently positive experience, that I think I will become a regular at this Saturday evening service. It will be good to have communion once a week again.
Although congregations in the British Methodist system only celebrate communion once a month, as a minister, I generally presided at a Sunday communion service every week as I served four congregations. In addition to Sunday communion services, I often attended a mid-week communion service at the local Church of England parish and my duties often required me to preside at communion at local nursing homes as well as to celebrate with individuals who were house-bound.
So, it has been a big change to go from presiding at or receiving communion once a week or more to receiving communion once a month on Sundays.
I don't really consider myself an "expert" on Methodism in the New World, but I'm given to believe that within living memory, there were congregations which didn't celebrate communion in the main Sunday service, but which had a "tack on communion" at the end of the service. I remember briefly attending a Methodist church in Washington DC in about 1979 or 1980, where communion was held in a separate Chapel directly after the main service which was held in the sanctuary. Methodist communion here still feels a bit like a rush-job to me: it feels like it's "tacked on" to the service of the word which feels like it's is "the real deal" with communion as something of an embarrassing activity like getting caught making out in the car as a teenager. At least our pastor uses the entire communion liturgy: Great prayer of thanksgiving and epiclesis as well as the words of institution. In a number of places, I've experienced just the words of institution.
Yesterday (Saturday) evening, I attended a local Lutheran congregation which had sent out an invitation to their Christmas service. I didn't want to go to the Christmas service as our congregation had its own, but I learned from the Lutheran congregation's website that they hold a "blended" style of worship on Saturday evenings at 5:30 and the website advertised communion at every service. Yesterday evening was a service of nine lessons and carols (something I think is probably unusual in the US?), with communion at the end. Here again, the "communion liturgy" consisted only of the words of institution, but the rest of the service was somewhat more "liturgical" and everything seemed to flow towards the communion rather than making the communion an embarrassing afterthought. It was a sufficiently positive experience, that I think I will become a regular at this Saturday evening service. It will be good to have communion once a week again.
Pushing on Closed Doors
I'm conscious of the fact that I've not done a lot of blogging since Wonderful Husband and I moved to the United States. I'm not sure of the precise reasons for this. First was the simple disruption and chaos of moving. Moving an entire household overseas is different from moving a household to a different part of the country or even moving overseas with two suitcases and a few posted parcels as I did in my original move from the US to Belgium in 1987. As any middle-aged couple will tell you, house-moving is physically and emotionally demanding but this goes up a notch when the move is international.
More recently, I think that I've not been blogging because I still have not managed to get myself fully "settled" in the US. We undoubtedly picked one of the worst times in our lives to quit jobs and move without any employment prospects. And I have been unable to get gainful employment either in "the secular world" or within the church. But even more discouraging is the fact that I seem unable to even volunteer in the church in any capacity beyond answering a call from this or that committee for volunteers. One of the narratives of my journey to the ministry was a testimony about pushing doors to see if they opened. Here in the US, every door I've pushed has stayed resolutely shut. I particularly miss preaching and presiding at communion, but part of me is aware that these activities are part and parcel of being a church leader, which I am currently not.
I'm reminded of the part of John Wesley's covenant prayer where we pray "let me be employed for you or laid aside for you" and I always secretly thought "thank you that I am employed for you, and - truth be told - I don't really want to be laid aside for you, thank you very much." And then another part of me wonders what John Wesley himself was thinking when he said these words. His life story is not exactly one of allowing himself to be laid aside!
I don't think that this prayer necessarily implies passivity. I don't think it implies giving up on pushing doors. For me, I think it implies the need to find new doors to push and it also implies being patient whilst going through the process of finding new doors and pushing on them. There is also comfort in these difficult words, because other people throughout the centuries have prayed them in far more difficult circumstances than I'm in.
Do I now hit the "delete" button because this is too personal and sounds like whining? I don't mean to whine but I sense that I'm not going to be able to blog further until I'm honest about where I am. We'll see if I find further inspiration in the coming weeks. "Let me be full, let me be empty, let me have all things, let me have nothing".
More recently, I think that I've not been blogging because I still have not managed to get myself fully "settled" in the US. We undoubtedly picked one of the worst times in our lives to quit jobs and move without any employment prospects. And I have been unable to get gainful employment either in "the secular world" or within the church. But even more discouraging is the fact that I seem unable to even volunteer in the church in any capacity beyond answering a call from this or that committee for volunteers. One of the narratives of my journey to the ministry was a testimony about pushing doors to see if they opened. Here in the US, every door I've pushed has stayed resolutely shut. I particularly miss preaching and presiding at communion, but part of me is aware that these activities are part and parcel of being a church leader, which I am currently not.
I'm reminded of the part of John Wesley's covenant prayer where we pray "let me be employed for you or laid aside for you" and I always secretly thought "thank you that I am employed for you, and - truth be told - I don't really want to be laid aside for you, thank you very much." And then another part of me wonders what John Wesley himself was thinking when he said these words. His life story is not exactly one of allowing himself to be laid aside!
I don't think that this prayer necessarily implies passivity. I don't think it implies giving up on pushing doors. For me, I think it implies the need to find new doors to push and it also implies being patient whilst going through the process of finding new doors and pushing on them. There is also comfort in these difficult words, because other people throughout the centuries have prayed them in far more difficult circumstances than I'm in.
Do I now hit the "delete" button because this is too personal and sounds like whining? I don't mean to whine but I sense that I'm not going to be able to blog further until I'm honest about where I am. We'll see if I find further inspiration in the coming weeks. "Let me be full, let me be empty, let me have all things, let me have nothing".
25 December 2009
Stand Amazed Ye Heavens at This
Today seems like an appropriate day to hearken back to my first ever post on this blog.
Merry Christmas.
======
Merry Christmas.
======
We're still in the liturgical season of Christmas and I'm just starting to blog, so I offer you my favourite Christmas hymn by Charles Wesley. Many Methodists don't seem to be familiar with this hymn, but I think it's worth 'resurrecting'. Normally sung to Amsterdam
Glory be to God on high,
And peace on earth descend:
God comes down, he bows the sky,
And shows himself our friend:
God the invisible appears:
God, the blest, the great I AM,
Sojourns in this vale of tears,
And Jesus is his name.
Him the angels all adored,
Their Maker and their King;
Tidings of their humbled Lord
They now to mortals bring.
Emptied of his majesty,
Of his dazzling glories shorn,
Beings source begins to be,
And God himself is born!
See the eternal Son of God
A mortal son of man
Dwelling in an earthly clod
Whom heaven cannot contain!
Stand amazed, ye heavens, at this!
See the Lord of earth and skies;
Humbled to the dust he is,
And in a manger lies.
We, earth's children, now rejoice,
The Prince of Peace proclaim;
With heaven's host lift up our voice,
And shout Immanuel's name:
Knees and hearts to him we bow;
Of our flesh and of our bone,
Jesus is our brother now,
And God is all our own.
The third verse is my favourite. I often wish I were more demonstrative than I am, because when I sing 'Stand amazed, ye heavens, at this!' I'd really like to shout it out. (When I read the words, I get the feeling that Charles Wesley would have liked to shout out the words too.)
It's a familar doctrine, that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, but when one stops to think what it means that the uncreated Creator took on human form, one begins to get a small glimpse of God's love and God's mystery.
22 December 2009
Let the Poor Shoplift
A rather interesting news item today from Britain that made it to the international talk show World Have Your Say concerns an Anglican vicar in Britain - Father Tim Jones, parish priest at St Lawrence and St Hilda in York - who suggested in a sermon that someone who did not have enough to eat might shoplift from large chain stores.
However, the actual sermon is a lot more complex than such a simplistic message: read it here.
Father Tim even said near the end of his sermon:
But let's pan out and read the rest of the sermon and it's context which was - in my view - clearly born of personal experience on Father Jones' part. Most of the opinions I've read on the internet say something like "Stealing is wrong, but the church should help people". In another context, I have repeatedly stated that the Church universal simply doesn't have the resources to cope with large structural issues of poverty, unemployment and medical need.
So what is the correct response of the Church in the context that Father Jones outlines? And is there REALLY nothing at all wrong with putting someone on the street with £50, no home, no employment and no resources? And before you answer that it's Father Jones who should be responding to this man's needs on behalf of the congregation, consider the fact that this then devolves the responsibility of discipleship onto the vicar, leaving the individuals in the congregation free to not walk alongside this man and to tut-tut about his inability to take responsibility for himself.
I don't agree with preaching that its OK to steal. It isn't. But Father Jones is spot-on when he calls society to "no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt".
Like many real-life situations, when you have more of an understanding of the actual context and experiences of individuals, you realize that there are often no easy answers. That should humble us, I think.
However, the actual sermon is a lot more complex than such a simplistic message: read it here.
Father Tim even said near the end of his sermon:
Let my words not be misrepresented as a simplistic call for people to shoplift. The observation that shoplifting is the best option that some people are left with is a grim indictment of who we are. Rather, this is a call for our society no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt.I came across the actual sermon after reading about it on the internet and after hearing the talk show on the radio. Now, I have a real problem with advocating any kind of theft or justifying it as right.
But let's pan out and read the rest of the sermon and it's context which was - in my view - clearly born of personal experience on Father Jones' part. Most of the opinions I've read on the internet say something like "Stealing is wrong, but the church should help people". In another context, I have repeatedly stated that the Church universal simply doesn't have the resources to cope with large structural issues of poverty, unemployment and medical need.
So what is the correct response of the Church in the context that Father Jones outlines? And is there REALLY nothing at all wrong with putting someone on the street with £50, no home, no employment and no resources? And before you answer that it's Father Jones who should be responding to this man's needs on behalf of the congregation, consider the fact that this then devolves the responsibility of discipleship onto the vicar, leaving the individuals in the congregation free to not walk alongside this man and to tut-tut about his inability to take responsibility for himself.
I don't agree with preaching that its OK to steal. It isn't. But Father Jones is spot-on when he calls society to "no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt".
Like many real-life situations, when you have more of an understanding of the actual context and experiences of individuals, you realize that there are often no easy answers. That should humble us, I think.
30 November 2009
From Deserving to Undeserving
Here is a story about John from Oregon in the New York Times. Hat tip to Steve Manskar via Facebook for this article.
Articles about individuals and families very much like John's have been appearing in our local newspapers here in Northeast Ohio almost daily. In a region that never really recovered from the demise of heavy industry, thousands of skilled laborers and professionals are out of work in this region or they are under-employed at 30-hour/week minimum wage jobs with no benefits. (When I participated in a group interview for such a job, there were a dozen of us: one young man in High School, one other woman with over 25 years experience in retail and the rest were men in their 40s, about half of whom had previously had professional jobs.)
Now, I've read a number of blog posts and comments on blogs about how God thinks that a Federal healthcare safety net is "stealing" if that safety net is funded by taxes. This point of view seems to emphasize the free will of individuals to give charitably as being of first-order ethical importance which trumps any notion of the collective good of society.
The admonition coming from this point of view seems to be: Your health has no intrinsic worth and if you cannot pay for healthcare, you don't deserve to have it. Wanting healthcare that you can't afford is of the same order of selfishness as wanting an iPod or a car that you can't afford. If you are truly a Christian person, you will trust in God for his will vis a vis your health. And maybe some part of the Church Universal will decide to throw a bit of charity your way; because, of course, Christians should be giving to others (but if we can't do it with a cheerful heart then God will understand if we don't give). One blog commentator even claimed that his Christian faith only obliged him to give to people he knew.
So for all of you who believe that giving should be from individual to individual (or from small group to individuals) and that giving should always be at the discretion of the giver, here are my questions:
1) How is the church's small-scale, and sporadic (read "unreliable") giving going to help John and millions of others like him? Pot roasts are not going to help John a lot nor is a $100 or $500 or even a $1000 charitable contribution.
2) Can you really look John in the eye as well as other individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and tell them "You do not deserve healthcare"? Did John deserve healthcare when he was a healthy, working 21 year old but now he dosn't? Why? What changed his ontology from "deserving" to "undeserving"?
3) For those who are pastors and who are comparing John's need for healthcare to coveting an iPod or a car that he cannot afford, do you really look your parishioners in the eye and tell them that their desire for decent healthcare is morally equivalent in the eyes of God to lusting after a consumer gadget or a toy?
I do appreciate that there are many people who think that healthcare needs reforming and who believe that the Federal government would make a mess of reform and that this is the reason they oppose a Federal option for healthcare. That's a fair enough point of view.
But I really wonder how a Christian can look another human being in the eye and tell him that his health has no intrinsic human worth to himself or to society, that he doesn't deserve healthcare, and that asking for society to take a collective interest in his health is tantamount to stealing. I'll confess that it's incredibly difficult not to wish that such people would find themselves in the shoes of people who have suffered bad luck and bad health through no fault of their own. Not so that they would suffer, but so that they would understand.
Articles about individuals and families very much like John's have been appearing in our local newspapers here in Northeast Ohio almost daily. In a region that never really recovered from the demise of heavy industry, thousands of skilled laborers and professionals are out of work in this region or they are under-employed at 30-hour/week minimum wage jobs with no benefits. (When I participated in a group interview for such a job, there were a dozen of us: one young man in High School, one other woman with over 25 years experience in retail and the rest were men in their 40s, about half of whom had previously had professional jobs.)
Now, I've read a number of blog posts and comments on blogs about how God thinks that a Federal healthcare safety net is "stealing" if that safety net is funded by taxes. This point of view seems to emphasize the free will of individuals to give charitably as being of first-order ethical importance which trumps any notion of the collective good of society.
The admonition coming from this point of view seems to be: Your health has no intrinsic worth and if you cannot pay for healthcare, you don't deserve to have it. Wanting healthcare that you can't afford is of the same order of selfishness as wanting an iPod or a car that you can't afford. If you are truly a Christian person, you will trust in God for his will vis a vis your health. And maybe some part of the Church Universal will decide to throw a bit of charity your way; because, of course, Christians should be giving to others (but if we can't do it with a cheerful heart then God will understand if we don't give). One blog commentator even claimed that his Christian faith only obliged him to give to people he knew.
So for all of you who believe that giving should be from individual to individual (or from small group to individuals) and that giving should always be at the discretion of the giver, here are my questions:
1) How is the church's small-scale, and sporadic (read "unreliable") giving going to help John and millions of others like him? Pot roasts are not going to help John a lot nor is a $100 or $500 or even a $1000 charitable contribution.
2) Can you really look John in the eye as well as other individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and tell them "You do not deserve healthcare"? Did John deserve healthcare when he was a healthy, working 21 year old but now he dosn't? Why? What changed his ontology from "deserving" to "undeserving"?
3) For those who are pastors and who are comparing John's need for healthcare to coveting an iPod or a car that he cannot afford, do you really look your parishioners in the eye and tell them that their desire for decent healthcare is morally equivalent in the eyes of God to lusting after a consumer gadget or a toy?
I do appreciate that there are many people who think that healthcare needs reforming and who believe that the Federal government would make a mess of reform and that this is the reason they oppose a Federal option for healthcare. That's a fair enough point of view.
But I really wonder how a Christian can look another human being in the eye and tell him that his health has no intrinsic human worth to himself or to society, that he doesn't deserve healthcare, and that asking for society to take a collective interest in his health is tantamount to stealing. I'll confess that it's incredibly difficult not to wish that such people would find themselves in the shoes of people who have suffered bad luck and bad health through no fault of their own. Not so that they would suffer, but so that they would understand.
24 November 2009
Co-Operative Health Insurance?
In my post Capitalism as a Belief System, I mentioned the idea of using capitalism as a way of running an economy without buying in to capitalism as a belief system.
I think I've already explained what I mean by not buying into capitalism as a belief system: a rejection of the idea that any and every enterprise "should" or "must" be run according to the principle of maximum return per unit of risk. In my previous post, I suggested that the health-care area was one area where I'd personally want to use the Golden Rule as the governing value. I accept that there is much debate about the values surrounding healthcare, but I just want to suggest here a mechanism by which the operating systems of capitalism can be used for more altruistic ends. That mechanism is the co-operative enterprise.
Before anyone feels that they need to enlighten me about the facts, co-operative enterprises are not new nor do I claim to have invented the idea. As businesses, they tend to work very much in the same way as ordinary businesses: investors, a managing board, operations management, employees and customers/clients. The difference between a co-op and a profit-seeking organization is their reason for existing. Almost all for-profits business exist with the ultimate sole goal of maximizing profits. Co-ops exist for the benefit of stakeholders.
Probably one of the most well-known forms of co-operative in the United States are old-fashioned credit unions. You become a member of a credit union, deposit some money in a savings account, and get a return on your money from monies that the credit union lends to other credit union members. In the old days, you couldn't borrow money from a co-op until you had deposited a sum of money for a specified period of time.
What is the point of a credit union? To hopefully provide a service to members whereby: 1) they have access to loans which they would not have otherwise had access to; 2) they have access to a good rate of return on their savings and; 3) they have access to a good borrowing rate on their loans. The primary goal here is not for the credit union to make a profit to reinvest in order to grow and provide shareholders or owners with an ever-increasing earnings stream. The primary goal is to provide a decent, basic savings and loan service to members.
It seems obvious to me that health insurance could be run on similar principles. I know that in California, homeowners who cannot otherwise find home insurance due to a high risk of fire in their area can insure their homes through a type of State insurance which seeks only to cover the costs of claims. On a much more simple level, the Amish operate a system whereby every family puts a sum of money into a "pot" and medical care is paid out of this pot. There are also a couple of medical cost-sharing schemes run by Christians for Christians (which typically require you to sign up to a doctrinal statement!) which aim at members covering the cost of other members.
Will co-operative health insurance solve the current crisis of health-care costs? No, I don't think so. The causes are many and complex but a lot of them can easily be filed under the two basic categories that drive all capital markets: fear and greed. Fear of not having the absolute cutting edge drug or treatment; fear of not having the best possible consumer choice if one has the money to purchase it.
The underlying problem is spiritual, it is a problem of values, as I suggested in my last post. We simply cannot countenance a health-care system that is run for the general good which might limit the ability of the very rich to buy cutting-edge medical care. In money we trust. We are happy to tell the working person that he has no right to a vaccination if he cannot afford it, because what we are absolutely certain of is that the rich person has the right to expensive experimental drugs if she can afford it.
I think I've already explained what I mean by not buying into capitalism as a belief system: a rejection of the idea that any and every enterprise "should" or "must" be run according to the principle of maximum return per unit of risk. In my previous post, I suggested that the health-care area was one area where I'd personally want to use the Golden Rule as the governing value. I accept that there is much debate about the values surrounding healthcare, but I just want to suggest here a mechanism by which the operating systems of capitalism can be used for more altruistic ends. That mechanism is the co-operative enterprise.
Before anyone feels that they need to enlighten me about the facts, co-operative enterprises are not new nor do I claim to have invented the idea. As businesses, they tend to work very much in the same way as ordinary businesses: investors, a managing board, operations management, employees and customers/clients. The difference between a co-op and a profit-seeking organization is their reason for existing. Almost all for-profits business exist with the ultimate sole goal of maximizing profits. Co-ops exist for the benefit of stakeholders.
Probably one of the most well-known forms of co-operative in the United States are old-fashioned credit unions. You become a member of a credit union, deposit some money in a savings account, and get a return on your money from monies that the credit union lends to other credit union members. In the old days, you couldn't borrow money from a co-op until you had deposited a sum of money for a specified period of time.
What is the point of a credit union? To hopefully provide a service to members whereby: 1) they have access to loans which they would not have otherwise had access to; 2) they have access to a good rate of return on their savings and; 3) they have access to a good borrowing rate on their loans. The primary goal here is not for the credit union to make a profit to reinvest in order to grow and provide shareholders or owners with an ever-increasing earnings stream. The primary goal is to provide a decent, basic savings and loan service to members.
It seems obvious to me that health insurance could be run on similar principles. I know that in California, homeowners who cannot otherwise find home insurance due to a high risk of fire in their area can insure their homes through a type of State insurance which seeks only to cover the costs of claims. On a much more simple level, the Amish operate a system whereby every family puts a sum of money into a "pot" and medical care is paid out of this pot. There are also a couple of medical cost-sharing schemes run by Christians for Christians (which typically require you to sign up to a doctrinal statement!) which aim at members covering the cost of other members.
Will co-operative health insurance solve the current crisis of health-care costs? No, I don't think so. The causes are many and complex but a lot of them can easily be filed under the two basic categories that drive all capital markets: fear and greed. Fear of not having the absolute cutting edge drug or treatment; fear of not having the best possible consumer choice if one has the money to purchase it.
The underlying problem is spiritual, it is a problem of values, as I suggested in my last post. We simply cannot countenance a health-care system that is run for the general good which might limit the ability of the very rich to buy cutting-edge medical care. In money we trust. We are happy to tell the working person that he has no right to a vaccination if he cannot afford it, because what we are absolutely certain of is that the rich person has the right to expensive experimental drugs if she can afford it.
Capitalism as a Belief System
There have been a number of debates going on in the blogosphere about US health-care reform which I have been participating in over the last few weeks and quite a few of these have branched off into discussions about business, economics and social beliefs and values. In conjunction with yesterday's post on the subject of compassion and The Golden Rule, I've had a some thoughts on the subjects of "The Golden Rule, Capitalism and Health Care" which I'm going to attempt to write about in a series of posts.
In many ways, I'm still a "foreigner" here in the US and one of the things that has struck me is how much capitalism appears to be for many people in the US a belief system as well as a way of running an economy. After twenty years working in the equity markets, my own opinion is that capitalism is, historically, the least worst way of running an economy that human history has devised.
It's also my opinion however, that as a belief system, capitalism stinks. And I believe that capitalism is the number one belief system held by US society. Christians may say that they believe in the Lordship of Christ, but in actual fact we believe in the Lordship of Profits. We prove this every day by the way we live our lives.
I think that there are historic reasons for many of our economic beliefs. The rule of King George III in raising taxes in America for his own selfish empire building had much to do with establishing the idea that taxation is stealing. The right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence was almost "life, liberty and the pursuit of profit"; so this value has a 200+ year history in US society.
And, of course, the Cold War which was actually a clash of super-powers was characterized in the US as "The good and moral values of capitalism versus the bad and immoral values of socialism/communism". In US culture, "democracy" and "capitalism" are seen as synonymous by many even though they are not. In US culture, "totalitarianism" and "socialism" are seen as synonymous even though they are not. And the worst conflation of all is the idea that Christianity and the pursuit of profits (capitalism's value system as opposed to its operating system) are synonymous.
Let's be really simplistic here. Jesus said that the greatest of all commandments is "love God and love your neighbor as yourself" (basically, The Golden Rule). Capitalism says that all businesses must be run for the highest risk/reward ratio - for the highest profit. Therefore Capitalism's value system cannot be the focus of Christian behavior or of Christian ethical reasoning.
Rather than testing every social venture by the test of "Will this venture make the highest profit for the capital that has been invested?", Jesus' teachings require Christians to use the test of "Will this venture benefit the citizens of this country/State/city/county in aggregate?" I appreciate that determining aggregate social benefit is another complex ethical problem but I don't think that we can abdicate the responsibility of making that moral determination by simply defaulting to the standard of profit. "Oh, it's too difficult to decide what it means for society to 'benefit' from health-care, so let's just run our health-care system on the basis that all providers should make as much as they can from their investment."
We do already recognize that some services to society are too important to leave to individuals to either perform or to raise money for. And, historically, many of these things were once left to individuals: policing, fire-fighting and education. It's a mystery to me how we can argue that education is of benefit to society and should be paid for by taxes but that health-care is not a benefit to society and that those who cannot pay for it do not deserve it. One blogger actually compared health-care to purchasing an iPhone or a car: a luxury consumer good that one shouldn't have if one can't pay for it. That makes sense using the "lens" of capitalistic values to make my ethical judgments. If I use the "lens" of doing unto others as I would have them do to me, I come up with a whole different opinion about the value of health-care to society.
In many ways, I'm still a "foreigner" here in the US and one of the things that has struck me is how much capitalism appears to be for many people in the US a belief system as well as a way of running an economy. After twenty years working in the equity markets, my own opinion is that capitalism is, historically, the least worst way of running an economy that human history has devised.
It's also my opinion however, that as a belief system, capitalism stinks. And I believe that capitalism is the number one belief system held by US society. Christians may say that they believe in the Lordship of Christ, but in actual fact we believe in the Lordship of Profits. We prove this every day by the way we live our lives.
I think that there are historic reasons for many of our economic beliefs. The rule of King George III in raising taxes in America for his own selfish empire building had much to do with establishing the idea that taxation is stealing. The right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence was almost "life, liberty and the pursuit of profit"; so this value has a 200+ year history in US society.
And, of course, the Cold War which was actually a clash of super-powers was characterized in the US as "The good and moral values of capitalism versus the bad and immoral values of socialism/communism". In US culture, "democracy" and "capitalism" are seen as synonymous by many even though they are not. In US culture, "totalitarianism" and "socialism" are seen as synonymous even though they are not. And the worst conflation of all is the idea that Christianity and the pursuit of profits (capitalism's value system as opposed to its operating system) are synonymous.
Let's be really simplistic here. Jesus said that the greatest of all commandments is "love God and love your neighbor as yourself" (basically, The Golden Rule). Capitalism says that all businesses must be run for the highest risk/reward ratio - for the highest profit. Therefore Capitalism's value system cannot be the focus of Christian behavior or of Christian ethical reasoning.
Rather than testing every social venture by the test of "Will this venture make the highest profit for the capital that has been invested?", Jesus' teachings require Christians to use the test of "Will this venture benefit the citizens of this country/State/city/county in aggregate?" I appreciate that determining aggregate social benefit is another complex ethical problem but I don't think that we can abdicate the responsibility of making that moral determination by simply defaulting to the standard of profit. "Oh, it's too difficult to decide what it means for society to 'benefit' from health-care, so let's just run our health-care system on the basis that all providers should make as much as they can from their investment."
We do already recognize that some services to society are too important to leave to individuals to either perform or to raise money for. And, historically, many of these things were once left to individuals: policing, fire-fighting and education. It's a mystery to me how we can argue that education is of benefit to society and should be paid for by taxes but that health-care is not a benefit to society and that those who cannot pay for it do not deserve it. One blogger actually compared health-care to purchasing an iPhone or a car: a luxury consumer good that one shouldn't have if one can't pay for it. That makes sense using the "lens" of capitalistic values to make my ethical judgments. If I use the "lens" of doing unto others as I would have them do to me, I come up with a whole different opinion about the value of health-care to society.
23 November 2009
Charter for Compassion
An Episcopalian priest here in town has just pointed me to the website http://charterforcompassion.org
The website's introduction reads: "On February 28, 2008 Karen Armstrong won the TED Prize and made a wish: for help creating, launching and propagating a Charter for Compassion. Since that day, thousands of people have contributed to the process so that on November 12, 2009 the Charter was unveiled to the world.
Here is a small snippet from Karen Armstrong's speech in accepting the TED Prize:
The website's introduction reads: "On February 28, 2008 Karen Armstrong won the TED Prize and made a wish: for help creating, launching and propagating a Charter for Compassion. Since that day, thousands of people have contributed to the process so that on November 12, 2009 the Charter was unveiled to the world.
Here is a small snippet from Karen Armstrong's speech in accepting the TED Prize:
Religion is about behaving differently. Instead of deciding whether or not you believe in God, first you do something, you behave in a committed way and then you begin to understand the truths of religion. And religious doctrines are meant to be summons to action. You only understand them when you put them into practice.
Now, pride of place in this practice is given to compassion and it is an arresting fact that right across the board in every single one of the major world faiths, compassion - the ability to feel with the other - ...is not only the test of any true religiosity, it is also what will bring us into the presence of what Jews, Christians and Muslims call "God" or the Divine. It is compassion, says the Buddha, which brings you to Nirvana. Why? Because when we feel with the other, we dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and we put another person there. And once we get rid of ego, then we are ready to see the Divine.
Hear the entire 21-minute speech here:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
