Do you have a place that just feels like home, but it has never really been "home"?
I make a daily hour long commute each way to work. The last few weeks I have taken that opportunity to listen to sermons from Rob Bell. Rob Bell has made some people mad at times. But for me, he is able to name that part of me that longs for church the way I imagine it could be. I deeply long for a church community that can come around a vision of the Kingdom of God that actually makes a difference in the way they live.
Last week I came to tears as I heard of young girl who was quite sick and one day asked her mother, "Who holds the orphans in Africa when they get sick?" Her mother answered that likely no one did. The young girl couldn't stand for that, so she had the idea to get teddy bears for the children in African orphanages so they could at least get a hug from their teddy. That is all sweet, but I'm just not sentimental enough to cry at this point.
But when she got done telling her story and Rob got back up to speak, I just lost it. He announced that a member of their congregation in an earlier church service that day had decided to pay the way for this young girl and her mom to deliver the teddy bears to an orphanage themselves.
Wow.
Two observations as both a pastor and a Christian. The only thing that made this possible was a church community that mentors people in two meaningful ways. Little girls don't ask about children in Africa being held unless you talk about African children with them...a lot. Second, people don't normally give up large sums of money on a whim during a church service unless they have heard of other people making similar choices or have made similar (but likely smaller) choices themselves. Their church holds up the needs of Africa in an ongoing way. So ongoing that five-year-olds catch the vision, too. And they tell stories whenever someone gives of themselves for another.
Something in me just makes me think that this is home. I've only been to their church 3 or 4 times. Its not really home. But it feels that way because these people are tapping into something that we were all design to do. We were designed to give ourselves for others. When we do this we participate in the God way of life...the Kingdom of God. We begin to participate in the image of God to which we were created. When we see this kind of life it strikes a chord deep in our souls. Simply put, its like coming home.
When do you have times when it feels like you have come home, even if you have never been there before?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 02, 2009
Music for the "Emerging Church"
A friend asked me recently what it would mean to do music for the emerging church. I thought a trite answer in passing would simply not do, and I have yet to write anything on the matter. Here it goes.
There is no simple "Look at what these artists" are doing for the emerging church. I don't think there could be such a simple guide. But I think I can name a few trends that I have seen as relevant.
First, emerging church people like things that are old, but they don't want them to seem old. There is a desire to connect with the historic church, especially the very early church. Of course, very little of the Second and Third centuries' music is readily available. In absence of this, songs more than 100 years old will do. Remade hymns are very popular. They need to be "remade" because many emerging congregations are led in music by guitar-driven bands and the formerly organ-driven music doesn't translate well. This is not only because the harmonization is hard to reproduce, but more importantly that the rhythms are wrong. I'm not a trained musician, but years of leading worship has told me that I can play the wrong chords in a modern worship song but I can't mess up the syncopation. Rhythm drives modern music even more than melody or harmonization. The best of these remade hymns have been done by Passion Hymns: Ancient and Modern and The Odes Project. The first project consists of hymns which have been modified to work with guitar rhythms and often add a very singable and simple chorus/refrain between verses. A multitude of other projects are available with a little internet searching. (NOTE: DO NOT try to introduce these remade hymns into a church which loves to sing hymns and think that you will make your "traditional" church into a "contemporary" one. The differences will make the "hymns people" go crazy. This only works one direction because the guitar and rock rhythms are the uniting factor, not the lyrics or melodies. Contemporary churches can use these, traditional ones cannot. I have tried it in two different churches and it failed MISERABLY both times.) The Odes Project takes some first century worship songs and puts them to music. I haven't used them, but I imagine they have great potential with emerging church types....just give them the history of what they are singing and they will love it.
Second, and this is related to the first, "emerging church" types are tired of shallow theology. "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High" and "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever" just will not cut it with these folks. This is part of the reason they like the hymns projects, they have some theological depth. They don't want to lose the singability of these earlier songs though. On a practical note, I have found that the best songs for this group are the ones with great theological depth in the verses and a very simple and singable chorus and, hopefully, a simple bridge also. While "emerging church" types do not want a overly simple sermon with trite answers to all of life's questions, they similarly don't want their music to express such a world either. The world is complex and mysterious, music and sermons should be too. I think anything by the Passion music label is going to take you in the right direction (especially David Crowder Band, Chris Tomlin, and Matt Redman).
Third, passion is more important than polish. Jeremy Camp and Rita Springer are cool, Hillsongs are not. The former artists sing their heart out in every moment. They are experiencing their own music, even in the studio. Hillsongs seems (though I don't believe that this is their ministry hearts) to be more about strong harmony than connection with God. Four part harmony is cool once in a while, but don't lose the total abandonment for the Good News of Christ. Worship leaders should be selected on the depth of their worship. Does their singing and playing come out of a deep desire to bring glory to God? This should come out in their worship in church too. Don't choose the better vocalist, choose the more sold out worshiper. Don't choose the song that sounds the prettiest, use the songs which make your worship leaders and your congregation want to sing their heart out.
There is one other thing, music-related but not necessarily worship related. Emerging church types also really like the "protest songs gone Christian" of people like Derek Webb. (My personal favorite is one of his earlier albums "She Must and Shall Go Free.") They aren't really meant to be sung congregationally, but they work in other aspects of a worship service.
(on a side note) Best resource ever for a worship leader: WorshipTogether.com
I hope some of that is helpful. If you have some comments or additional music selections, then please add them and lets start a conversation. What music are you doing for "emergents" that is working? Is there anything here that you just disagree with? Have I named too many main stream musicians to "really" be emerging church music?
There is no simple "Look at what these artists" are doing for the emerging church. I don't think there could be such a simple guide. But I think I can name a few trends that I have seen as relevant.
First, emerging church people like things that are old, but they don't want them to seem old. There is a desire to connect with the historic church, especially the very early church. Of course, very little of the Second and Third centuries' music is readily available. In absence of this, songs more than 100 years old will do. Remade hymns are very popular. They need to be "remade" because many emerging congregations are led in music by guitar-driven bands and the formerly organ-driven music doesn't translate well. This is not only because the harmonization is hard to reproduce, but more importantly that the rhythms are wrong. I'm not a trained musician, but years of leading worship has told me that I can play the wrong chords in a modern worship song but I can't mess up the syncopation. Rhythm drives modern music even more than melody or harmonization. The best of these remade hymns have been done by Passion Hymns: Ancient and Modern and The Odes Project. The first project consists of hymns which have been modified to work with guitar rhythms and often add a very singable and simple chorus/refrain between verses. A multitude of other projects are available with a little internet searching. (NOTE: DO NOT try to introduce these remade hymns into a church which loves to sing hymns and think that you will make your "traditional" church into a "contemporary" one. The differences will make the "hymns people" go crazy. This only works one direction because the guitar and rock rhythms are the uniting factor, not the lyrics or melodies. Contemporary churches can use these, traditional ones cannot. I have tried it in two different churches and it failed MISERABLY both times.) The Odes Project takes some first century worship songs and puts them to music. I haven't used them, but I imagine they have great potential with emerging church types....just give them the history of what they are singing and they will love it.
Second, and this is related to the first, "emerging church" types are tired of shallow theology. "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High" and "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever" just will not cut it with these folks. This is part of the reason they like the hymns projects, they have some theological depth. They don't want to lose the singability of these earlier songs though. On a practical note, I have found that the best songs for this group are the ones with great theological depth in the verses and a very simple and singable chorus and, hopefully, a simple bridge also. While "emerging church" types do not want a overly simple sermon with trite answers to all of life's questions, they similarly don't want their music to express such a world either. The world is complex and mysterious, music and sermons should be too. I think anything by the Passion music label is going to take you in the right direction (especially David Crowder Band, Chris Tomlin, and Matt Redman).
Third, passion is more important than polish. Jeremy Camp and Rita Springer are cool, Hillsongs are not. The former artists sing their heart out in every moment. They are experiencing their own music, even in the studio. Hillsongs seems (though I don't believe that this is their ministry hearts) to be more about strong harmony than connection with God. Four part harmony is cool once in a while, but don't lose the total abandonment for the Good News of Christ. Worship leaders should be selected on the depth of their worship. Does their singing and playing come out of a deep desire to bring glory to God? This should come out in their worship in church too. Don't choose the better vocalist, choose the more sold out worshiper. Don't choose the song that sounds the prettiest, use the songs which make your worship leaders and your congregation want to sing their heart out.
There is one other thing, music-related but not necessarily worship related. Emerging church types also really like the "protest songs gone Christian" of people like Derek Webb. (My personal favorite is one of his earlier albums "She Must and Shall Go Free.") They aren't really meant to be sung congregationally, but they work in other aspects of a worship service.
(on a side note) Best resource ever for a worship leader: WorshipTogether.com
I hope some of that is helpful. If you have some comments or additional music selections, then please add them and lets start a conversation. What music are you doing for "emergents" that is working? Is there anything here that you just disagree with? Have I named too many main stream musicians to "really" be emerging church music?
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Karl Barth as a Spiritual Mentor
I am reading Hans Urs von Balthasar's substantive book The Theology of Karl Barth for the first time.
But, I'm not reading the book primarily to learn what he says, though this book is part of one of my exams that I am taking next summer. I'm reading Balthasar devotionally. I know that seems a bit ridiculous. Can anyone really read this kind of stuff as an act of devotion?
Well, I decided that I would try it for this nine months which I have committed to chaplaincy right in the middle of my candidacy preparation. So, my "daily bread" right now consists of Augustine's Confessions, William Cavanaugh's The Myth of Religious Violence, and von Balthasar's The Theology of Karl Barth. Of course the Bible is in there, too. As I read I am asking that God would speak to me through them. I believe He can.
Here is what I learned today: Balthasar explains that Barth was trying to find a way in between what he saw as failures of liberal Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Liberal Protestantism had taken up the method of dialoguing with all available interlocutors and working diligently to incorporate a variety of sources in a quest for truth. Barth thought that his theological mentors had erred by trying to validate their work before secular sources which were unwilling to be only contributors to the dialogue.
Catholicism, however, basically included the content which Barth thought most important, the centrality of Jesus Christ incarnate, crucified, resurrected, and ascended to the right hand of the Father. But the Catholics largely arrived at their doctrine through an over dependence on natural theology. He had a problem with their method.
I am often amazed by the ways in which I am formed by the people I read, even when I think I may be disagreeing substantially with what they say. Though I think Barth's dependence upon the analogy of faith is basically good epistemology, I am not so opposed to the natural theology of the Catholicism he is arguing with. One thing about Catholicism does bother me, however. The confidence with which Roman Catholicism speaks because of this dependence on a reliable notion of natural theology and an undue regard for the Magisterium of the church is problematic.
Like Barth, I think the Church as a whole would do well to give Roman Catholic thought its proper due. Catholicism rightly defends the centrality of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Word. But they simply do not have a strong enough notion of the noetic effect of sin to suspect the doctrines of the church for my tastes. I really do want to be always reforming.
So I don't exactly agree with the problem that Barth had with Roman Catholicism. But I do pattern myself similarly. I like much of the content of Catholic doctrine, if we could simply reevaluate the ecclesiology. I don't take that as a simple rejection of course. I am still a pentecostal with a strongly congregational ecclesiology. I am grateful for these differences of opinion, which Roman Catholicism has been more and less comfortable with at different times since the schism of the Reformation.
But the reason I write this post is not so I muse endlessly on the relation of Barth to Catholicism. It is because I was able to be formed today. I had a revelation of sorts. I can now name my problems with Catholicism and my appreciation of it. And, when I name it, it doesn't sound like all that significant of a difference. Of course, my Catholic friends probably disagree. But my ability to name these differences enables me to better engage my ongoing dialogue with Catholic friends and colleagues. That is no small effect. I want to be able to name our differences well, not to dissolve them but as a matter of discipleship. Jesus told the disciples that people would recognize them by how they loved one another. May I be regarded as a disciple.
May God continue to speak to me through these theological texts, they are not only academic considerations but also the mediation of the Rhema word of God.
Peace be with you.
But, I'm not reading the book primarily to learn what he says, though this book is part of one of my exams that I am taking next summer. I'm reading Balthasar devotionally. I know that seems a bit ridiculous. Can anyone really read this kind of stuff as an act of devotion?
Well, I decided that I would try it for this nine months which I have committed to chaplaincy right in the middle of my candidacy preparation. So, my "daily bread" right now consists of Augustine's Confessions, William Cavanaugh's The Myth of Religious Violence, and von Balthasar's The Theology of Karl Barth. Of course the Bible is in there, too. As I read I am asking that God would speak to me through them. I believe He can.
Here is what I learned today: Balthasar explains that Barth was trying to find a way in between what he saw as failures of liberal Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Liberal Protestantism had taken up the method of dialoguing with all available interlocutors and working diligently to incorporate a variety of sources in a quest for truth. Barth thought that his theological mentors had erred by trying to validate their work before secular sources which were unwilling to be only contributors to the dialogue.
Catholicism, however, basically included the content which Barth thought most important, the centrality of Jesus Christ incarnate, crucified, resurrected, and ascended to the right hand of the Father. But the Catholics largely arrived at their doctrine through an over dependence on natural theology. He had a problem with their method.
I am often amazed by the ways in which I am formed by the people I read, even when I think I may be disagreeing substantially with what they say. Though I think Barth's dependence upon the analogy of faith is basically good epistemology, I am not so opposed to the natural theology of the Catholicism he is arguing with. One thing about Catholicism does bother me, however. The confidence with which Roman Catholicism speaks because of this dependence on a reliable notion of natural theology and an undue regard for the Magisterium of the church is problematic.
Like Barth, I think the Church as a whole would do well to give Roman Catholic thought its proper due. Catholicism rightly defends the centrality of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Word. But they simply do not have a strong enough notion of the noetic effect of sin to suspect the doctrines of the church for my tastes. I really do want to be always reforming.
So I don't exactly agree with the problem that Barth had with Roman Catholicism. But I do pattern myself similarly. I like much of the content of Catholic doctrine, if we could simply reevaluate the ecclesiology. I don't take that as a simple rejection of course. I am still a pentecostal with a strongly congregational ecclesiology. I am grateful for these differences of opinion, which Roman Catholicism has been more and less comfortable with at different times since the schism of the Reformation.
But the reason I write this post is not so I muse endlessly on the relation of Barth to Catholicism. It is because I was able to be formed today. I had a revelation of sorts. I can now name my problems with Catholicism and my appreciation of it. And, when I name it, it doesn't sound like all that significant of a difference. Of course, my Catholic friends probably disagree. But my ability to name these differences enables me to better engage my ongoing dialogue with Catholic friends and colleagues. That is no small effect. I want to be able to name our differences well, not to dissolve them but as a matter of discipleship. Jesus told the disciples that people would recognize them by how they loved one another. May I be regarded as a disciple.
May God continue to speak to me through these theological texts, they are not only academic considerations but also the mediation of the Rhema word of God.
Peace be with you.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Emerging Church: Defined?
So I have called myself Emergent in this blog for some time now. I dare say that anyone who has been around the church and is under 50 years old (and some who are older) has probably heard the terms "emergent" and "emerging church" without much explanation. Sometimes it refers to a way of worship that includes candles, eclectic music, and some alternative to a traditional sermon, just to name a few key features.
Now, I do kinda like music performed by those with dreadlocks. But that isn't what I mean when I call myself emergent. Part of the reason there is so much confusion and complexity around the term goes back to the very definition of the term to begin with.
First of all, emergence is a term that comes out of systems thinking and some philosophers of science. I don't know much about how this works in natural systems, but I can understand the concept. Emergence is a complex of interactions between simpler things which causes the appearance of something(s) which is greater than the sum or difference of the parts. Not knowing much about the other philosophies, I will just go straight to the church discussion.
Emergent, at least in one form of the definition, would describe people who believe that the truth of the Christian gospel and the Church comes out of the interaction of a multitude of traditions, not simply one tradition expounded well. Emergents generally do not want to believe that either Roman Catholicism nor Reformed Presbyterianism nor Tibetan Buddhism is a full and complete system of thought without error. Neither is Keynesian economics nor philosophical naturalism.
The natural outworking of this theory is a kind of Christian pluralism which is steeped in the various Christian traditions. Because I am not convinced that my pentecostal heritage is without error, I also intentionally worship with and engage the thought of Roman Catholics and Methodists and Lutherans. This is a new kind of ecumenism, but on somewhat different grounds than the previous versions of ecumenism. The previous ecumenical movement which is now represented by the World Council of Churches and similar bodies imagined that Christianity would be better represented by the various churches' lowest common denominator. This new brand of emergent ecumenism encourages each Christian or church to fully embrace the complexities of their own system of thought, but to do so in dialogue with other Christians and even those outside of confessing Christian faith. Most of this comes from the disillusionment with the previous generation of leaders' theological arrogance. This move is perceived to be an act of intellectual and spiritual humility, I think.
I think this humility is a good thing. But for me, the reason for such an approach comes directly out of my pentecostal heritage. Pentecostals embrace a "prophethood of all believers" perspective which considers every Christian to potentially speak the very words of God to the church. The church is then charged with a discernment process whereby the community will determine whether what they have heard are the words of God. Usually this discernment is an informal process and even occurs simultaneously in worship as the pastor, elders, and congregation lift their hands and hearts approvingly after the prophetic word and thank God for speaking. On one or two occasions in my pentecostal life, I have had a leader come to the front of the congregation and explain that they did not believe God had spoken through such a word. For me, being emergent is embracing this process throughout the Christian dialogue, even with voices that rub us the wrong way. The theory of emergence would tell us that the words of God which come from others have the potential to communicate truth to us.
Now this can go in two directions that I think are problematic. The first is a Christian pluralism that becomes little more than pluralism from a Christian perspective. I do not happen to think that Christians can learn as much from Buddhists or Muslims as they can from other Christians. There may be things we can learn from other faiths, but I would prefer to say that we are listening for the lost voice of earlier forgotten Christians among our brothers and sisters of other faiths. There are certainly some emergent-types who are ready to embrace everyone as if all truth is relative. I happen to think Christianity is the one true religion, I am just not sure that my interpretation of Christianity is completely true. I do think there is "absolute truth", for whatever that term is worth, I just don't think I have it. I do happen to think I am pretty close to it, or I would change my opinion to something closer to what I think is true. That is the reason for the dialogue.
While some emergents are ready to chuck the idea of truth beyond some subjective "true for you" concept, I think that is pretty ridiculous. Only a very small segment of philosophers and a great deal more literature academics ever really bought this concept, but someone forgets to tell that to every class of freshman undergraduates. People like Derrida and Foucault really buy it. At least if I understand Derrida, he buys it. But I don't think even Derridians live that way. It is non-sensical. But the theories keep getting repeated in discussions by non-philosophical types over and over until people think it actually has some logical weight. I don't think it does.
The other direction which is problematic is what I would call a spiritual consumerism. Here the problem is that emergent types think that they can just pick and choose which elements of the Church's tradition that they want to select out for recovery. Labyrinths and cathedrals and deification are cool. Original sin and substitutionary atonement and conservative sexual practices are not cool. Now, I think we should only adopt that of the Christian tradition which we find to be truthful and life-giving and we should reject what should be rejected. And I don't think that the whole tradition is without error or messiness. Honestly, I don't have any good criteria by which we should engage the tradition critically and not become consumers who simply choose what is bright and shiny and reject our spiritual peas and carrots. I just know that I get nervous when I hear emergent types talking about Lectio Divina, but not talking about hell and evangelism.
So, that is my take on emergent and emerging church. Maybe I will write a follow-up post on the practical implications for the church. For now, this will do.
But, of course, if emergent is really a conversation which produces truthful dialogue, then you all need to comment and tell me what you think I have said truthfully and what I have said that is not quite there.
Peace.
Now, I do kinda like music performed by those with dreadlocks. But that isn't what I mean when I call myself emergent. Part of the reason there is so much confusion and complexity around the term goes back to the very definition of the term to begin with.
First of all, emergence is a term that comes out of systems thinking and some philosophers of science. I don't know much about how this works in natural systems, but I can understand the concept. Emergence is a complex of interactions between simpler things which causes the appearance of something(s) which is greater than the sum or difference of the parts. Not knowing much about the other philosophies, I will just go straight to the church discussion.
Emergent, at least in one form of the definition, would describe people who believe that the truth of the Christian gospel and the Church comes out of the interaction of a multitude of traditions, not simply one tradition expounded well. Emergents generally do not want to believe that either Roman Catholicism nor Reformed Presbyterianism nor Tibetan Buddhism is a full and complete system of thought without error. Neither is Keynesian economics nor philosophical naturalism.
The natural outworking of this theory is a kind of Christian pluralism which is steeped in the various Christian traditions. Because I am not convinced that my pentecostal heritage is without error, I also intentionally worship with and engage the thought of Roman Catholics and Methodists and Lutherans. This is a new kind of ecumenism, but on somewhat different grounds than the previous versions of ecumenism. The previous ecumenical movement which is now represented by the World Council of Churches and similar bodies imagined that Christianity would be better represented by the various churches' lowest common denominator. This new brand of emergent ecumenism encourages each Christian or church to fully embrace the complexities of their own system of thought, but to do so in dialogue with other Christians and even those outside of confessing Christian faith. Most of this comes from the disillusionment with the previous generation of leaders' theological arrogance. This move is perceived to be an act of intellectual and spiritual humility, I think.
I think this humility is a good thing. But for me, the reason for such an approach comes directly out of my pentecostal heritage. Pentecostals embrace a "prophethood of all believers" perspective which considers every Christian to potentially speak the very words of God to the church. The church is then charged with a discernment process whereby the community will determine whether what they have heard are the words of God. Usually this discernment is an informal process and even occurs simultaneously in worship as the pastor, elders, and congregation lift their hands and hearts approvingly after the prophetic word and thank God for speaking. On one or two occasions in my pentecostal life, I have had a leader come to the front of the congregation and explain that they did not believe God had spoken through such a word. For me, being emergent is embracing this process throughout the Christian dialogue, even with voices that rub us the wrong way. The theory of emergence would tell us that the words of God which come from others have the potential to communicate truth to us.
Now this can go in two directions that I think are problematic. The first is a Christian pluralism that becomes little more than pluralism from a Christian perspective. I do not happen to think that Christians can learn as much from Buddhists or Muslims as they can from other Christians. There may be things we can learn from other faiths, but I would prefer to say that we are listening for the lost voice of earlier forgotten Christians among our brothers and sisters of other faiths. There are certainly some emergent-types who are ready to embrace everyone as if all truth is relative. I happen to think Christianity is the one true religion, I am just not sure that my interpretation of Christianity is completely true. I do think there is "absolute truth", for whatever that term is worth, I just don't think I have it. I do happen to think I am pretty close to it, or I would change my opinion to something closer to what I think is true. That is the reason for the dialogue.
While some emergents are ready to chuck the idea of truth beyond some subjective "true for you" concept, I think that is pretty ridiculous. Only a very small segment of philosophers and a great deal more literature academics ever really bought this concept, but someone forgets to tell that to every class of freshman undergraduates. People like Derrida and Foucault really buy it. At least if I understand Derrida, he buys it. But I don't think even Derridians live that way. It is non-sensical. But the theories keep getting repeated in discussions by non-philosophical types over and over until people think it actually has some logical weight. I don't think it does.
The other direction which is problematic is what I would call a spiritual consumerism. Here the problem is that emergent types think that they can just pick and choose which elements of the Church's tradition that they want to select out for recovery. Labyrinths and cathedrals and deification are cool. Original sin and substitutionary atonement and conservative sexual practices are not cool. Now, I think we should only adopt that of the Christian tradition which we find to be truthful and life-giving and we should reject what should be rejected. And I don't think that the whole tradition is without error or messiness. Honestly, I don't have any good criteria by which we should engage the tradition critically and not become consumers who simply choose what is bright and shiny and reject our spiritual peas and carrots. I just know that I get nervous when I hear emergent types talking about Lectio Divina, but not talking about hell and evangelism.
So, that is my take on emergent and emerging church. Maybe I will write a follow-up post on the practical implications for the church. For now, this will do.
But, of course, if emergent is really a conversation which produces truthful dialogue, then you all need to comment and tell me what you think I have said truthfully and what I have said that is not quite there.
Peace.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Disordered Love
The recent health care debate has a lot of people up in arms...why not talk about that...
OK, so I don't really want to talk about that. I want to talk about sin. But the health care debate is what has gotten me thinking about sin.
St. Augustine said that the problem with people isn't that we want the wrong things. We want the right things in the wrong amount. Actually, he said we want the right things in the wrong order. More on that below.
I generally don't have a problem with capitalism as an economic system. I love it that the drug makers and doctors who provide health care in this country get rich. I want the smartest and best people in the world to want to go into health care so that they can get rich too. Because if the smartest people go into health care, then we will have the best health care. And, if drug companies make lots of money when they invent a new drug, then they will have lots of motivation to research and design new drugs. These are both good things.
The problem is that capitalist economies have some limitations. Some things in the system require such a large commitment that the companies have no economic motivation to contribute. Roads are nice for companies, but not every company can build their own road where they need to go. The government takes care of that in our country. (Private tollways is a privately-controlled option.) If neither government nor private tollways did it, then companies would probably just figure out ways to transport goods across private property, preferably someone with fewer guns or fewer lawyers than you have.
Health care is similar. The economic motivation for providing for those who can pay is high. The economic motivation for providing for everyone is else is quite low. But, unlike roads, those of us who believe that people are made in the image of God claim that health care is a necessity.
Of course, if you ask someone they will rarely say that think people should just die of curable illness or suffer needlessly. But, if you threaten to add to their tax load to make sure that others can get health care, then their capitalist values come screaming forward. We have been more conditioned by our capitalist "get what you deserve" ethos than we have our Christian imperative to protect the dignity of those made in God's image.
Never mind that many who can't afford health care could never have earned the education or experience to get health care no matter how hard they worked. I am thirty years old and I have had health insurance no more than 6-8 years of my life. Both my parents worked when I was a child and I have worked two jobs most of my adulthood. I have insurance now, thank God. I never really got sick, thank God, or I wouldn't have health insurance now either because I wouldn't have been able to continue school to get the job that provided health insurance because I would have had to file bankruptcy.
What was I saying again? Oh yea, our capitalist "get what you deserve" ethos. I personally am not very excited about any of the possible proposals and I am not qualified to speak authoritatively on the matter. I have read enough to know that current proposals are nothing like socialism. I also know we can't let it stay as it is.
But I am a theologian and ethicist and not primarily a politician or political analyst.
As a theologian, I simply want to ask: Why?
Why are so many people willing to defend their privilege to exorbitant wealth when others don't have enough to eat or go to the doctor? (Let me be clear, I think exorbitant wealth is anything over about 50-60K/year in this country, unless you live in a major city where prices are through the roof. Before you comment here about how you really need to make more than that to live I need you to visit a Third World country for just a few weeks.)
I really only want to deal with Christians. I know others can embrace selfishness and pride. But, I am generous enough to think that my Christian brothers and sisters really don't want to embrace selfishness or ego-centrism, yet my Christian friends are certainly among those lambasting the current proposals on Facebook and elsewhere. But why?
I think it is sometimes because they believe the Republican party on other issues that really matter to them and then get caught up in the rest of the right-wing agenda without sufficient theological resources to think through the issues in a Christian way. That is the generous read....and I think it happens, a lot.
But my understanding of the doctrine of sin gives me another read. We just love our stuff too much. We love our comfy, 2500-sq-ft house. We like having a car that's less than 4 years old. We like going on vacations where we can do high-excitement adventures rather than talk with our spouse. We just like our stuff.
And, I think Augustine would say, we should. We should enjoy those kinds of things. We should like being comfortable. But we shouldn't love it more than people. We shouldn't love a shiny car more than a hungry stomach.
Our love is out of order. Augustine summed up his whole definition of sin with the phrase disordered love.
We should love America, it is a good country as countries go. But we shouldn't love it more than the Kingdom of God.
We should love our reliable transportation, it allows us many opportunities. But we shouldn't love it more than the earth which we continue to plunder to keep our cars moving.
We should love good food, it is one of the greatest pleasures of life. But we shouldn't love it more than basic food for our neighbors, both near and far.
We should love our 401K's, they will keep us from suffering in our old age. But we shouldn't love that security more than our neighbor who suffers today...
What would rightly-ordered love look like if just the Christian's could get it right. Well, I think it would look like heaven. I'm not sure what that means for our national health care debate. But I think it looks like Revelation 21-22 in our eternal future:
"I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." 5 He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!
"He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children...
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.
OK, so I don't really want to talk about that. I want to talk about sin. But the health care debate is what has gotten me thinking about sin.
St. Augustine said that the problem with people isn't that we want the wrong things. We want the right things in the wrong amount. Actually, he said we want the right things in the wrong order. More on that below.
I generally don't have a problem with capitalism as an economic system. I love it that the drug makers and doctors who provide health care in this country get rich. I want the smartest and best people in the world to want to go into health care so that they can get rich too. Because if the smartest people go into health care, then we will have the best health care. And, if drug companies make lots of money when they invent a new drug, then they will have lots of motivation to research and design new drugs. These are both good things.
The problem is that capitalist economies have some limitations. Some things in the system require such a large commitment that the companies have no economic motivation to contribute. Roads are nice for companies, but not every company can build their own road where they need to go. The government takes care of that in our country. (Private tollways is a privately-controlled option.) If neither government nor private tollways did it, then companies would probably just figure out ways to transport goods across private property, preferably someone with fewer guns or fewer lawyers than you have.
Health care is similar. The economic motivation for providing for those who can pay is high. The economic motivation for providing for everyone is else is quite low. But, unlike roads, those of us who believe that people are made in the image of God claim that health care is a necessity.
Of course, if you ask someone they will rarely say that think people should just die of curable illness or suffer needlessly. But, if you threaten to add to their tax load to make sure that others can get health care, then their capitalist values come screaming forward. We have been more conditioned by our capitalist "get what you deserve" ethos than we have our Christian imperative to protect the dignity of those made in God's image.
Never mind that many who can't afford health care could never have earned the education or experience to get health care no matter how hard they worked. I am thirty years old and I have had health insurance no more than 6-8 years of my life. Both my parents worked when I was a child and I have worked two jobs most of my adulthood. I have insurance now, thank God. I never really got sick, thank God, or I wouldn't have health insurance now either because I wouldn't have been able to continue school to get the job that provided health insurance because I would have had to file bankruptcy.
What was I saying again? Oh yea, our capitalist "get what you deserve" ethos. I personally am not very excited about any of the possible proposals and I am not qualified to speak authoritatively on the matter. I have read enough to know that current proposals are nothing like socialism. I also know we can't let it stay as it is.
But I am a theologian and ethicist and not primarily a politician or political analyst.
As a theologian, I simply want to ask: Why?
Why are so many people willing to defend their privilege to exorbitant wealth when others don't have enough to eat or go to the doctor? (Let me be clear, I think exorbitant wealth is anything over about 50-60K/year in this country, unless you live in a major city where prices are through the roof. Before you comment here about how you really need to make more than that to live I need you to visit a Third World country for just a few weeks.)
I really only want to deal with Christians. I know others can embrace selfishness and pride. But, I am generous enough to think that my Christian brothers and sisters really don't want to embrace selfishness or ego-centrism, yet my Christian friends are certainly among those lambasting the current proposals on Facebook and elsewhere. But why?
I think it is sometimes because they believe the Republican party on other issues that really matter to them and then get caught up in the rest of the right-wing agenda without sufficient theological resources to think through the issues in a Christian way. That is the generous read....and I think it happens, a lot.
But my understanding of the doctrine of sin gives me another read. We just love our stuff too much. We love our comfy, 2500-sq-ft house. We like having a car that's less than 4 years old. We like going on vacations where we can do high-excitement adventures rather than talk with our spouse. We just like our stuff.
And, I think Augustine would say, we should. We should enjoy those kinds of things. We should like being comfortable. But we shouldn't love it more than people. We shouldn't love a shiny car more than a hungry stomach.
Our love is out of order. Augustine summed up his whole definition of sin with the phrase disordered love.
We should love America, it is a good country as countries go. But we shouldn't love it more than the Kingdom of God.
We should love our reliable transportation, it allows us many opportunities. But we shouldn't love it more than the earth which we continue to plunder to keep our cars moving.
We should love good food, it is one of the greatest pleasures of life. But we shouldn't love it more than basic food for our neighbors, both near and far.
We should love our 401K's, they will keep us from suffering in our old age. But we shouldn't love that security more than our neighbor who suffers today...
What would rightly-ordered love look like if just the Christian's could get it right. Well, I think it would look like heaven. I'm not sure what that means for our national health care debate. But I think it looks like Revelation 21-22 in our eternal future:
"I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." 5 He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!
"He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children...
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Vulnerability?
So this post is a response to a friend's request to look at some Bible verses on a related post. I call her a friend, but I have really only met this woman once and exchanged some words on a mutual friend's thought-provoking blog.
I call her friend because in spite of our minimal relationship I can easily see that she is an absolutely delightful person, the kind that wears her heart on her sleeve and that heart is made of pure gold. The thing about wearing such a precious thing out in the open is, some people just want to steal it. This is the dilemma of the human condition. A golden heart is even more beautiful when it is held close by another. Have you ever noticed that gold is even more brilliant when it is around your finger or around your neck or wrist? It is as if gold is just meant to be held close to the skin. Such a precious heart should be as well.
But we all have this deep abiding corruption of sin, says the Christian tradition. We were created good and in the core of our being we still are. But sin has invaded every part, like yeast in dough, as the Scripture says. So if we are to witness to redemption by living with honesty and openness, how does my friend know that her golden heart won't be stolen or just simply vandalized like so many other precious things are? Sinful people do sinful things.
Really, that is what this post is about. Can my friend wear her heart on her sleeve safely? Maybe she is only so open and honest with me because she knows that she can trust the chaplain. I don't think so, I think this is just the way she is. What will be the consequences of this openness?
In our previous blogging conversation, we agreed that Christians should make it a goal of having open and honest conversations without any hidden agenda. The question is: With whom should we have those kind of relationships? Can we simply live that way with everyone as a witness to our faith and a desire to life virtuously and be willing to take the injury that might come from that? Is that even a goal? Or, do we find a close group of friends that can be trusted and live that openness with them? Like most things, I think the answer is somewhere in between. We live with as much openness as the maturity of a person or relationship can handle. But that is still a judgment call and we need some guidance.
My friend said we need to look to the Bible for our guidance. I probably should have thought of that.
How about Matthew 7:6? "Do not give to dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."
I guess Jesus thought some people's sin was pretty bad. "Dogs?" "Pigs?" Wow.
Honestly, the passage isn't easy to interpret. It is right in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount and the passage right before it is about pulling the plank out of your own eye. Not sure what that's about. So I have to say that just reading it for what it is, we would probably have to say that Jesus is instructing that the most precious things must be protected from those who would take no regard for them. Dogs and pigs can't appreciate the value. Ever had a puppy, you shut the bedroom doors to avoid shoes getting chewed and you set anything really valuable just high enough to not be reached. That should give us some advice about what to do with our hearts with people who have no regard.
What about Jesus? What did he do? Well I think he was willing to say the hard thing when he needed to, regardless of what it would cost him. That is obvious from his frequent exchanges with the religious leaders.
But Jesus also had a keen ability to hide his answers among little parables and riddles. He didn't just say things exactly as they are. "Hey temple administration, your sacrificial practices are keeping poor people from being able to eat AND worship; they have to choose one or the other." But then again, he did turn tables in the temple and called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers" when he didn't like their evangelism practices.
I tend to think that Jesus's tendency to hide the truth in parables had more to do with the conversation and teaching practices of his period than a prescription of a way of being. I had a great philosophy prof in undergrad that ALWAYS defended every philosopher that we studied as if he agreed with them. He is a Platonist and I dare say that he thinks Enlightenment rationality is bankrupt, but he defended them nonetheless. It was a teaching tool. Jesus did the same thing. That doesn't make him dishonest. It made him a good Rabbi.
Paul was a little more straightforward with people. Read the Corinthians correspondence and his harsh rebuke in places which is often preceded by a sincere expression of his deepest love. His introduction to most of his letters expresses deep love and respect for his spiritual "children". But, then he also tells them what he thinks when he needs to. And when he is in prison, he doesn't hide his emotions or his pains. Paul wasn't a Rabbi and he wasn't speaking primarily with Jewish people. He talked like a Greek to Greeks, which is exactly what he said he would do.
Generation X/Y/millenial/busters, or whatever I and my colleagues are called, tend to be sick of slick advertising and slicker productions on television and at church. We like reality TV because the drama there at least pretends to be real dilemmas of real people trying to achieve a real goal (remember that most of them are games and a game is real!). We also are not interested in our leadership giving us half facts to get us to do what they want or media contriving a false dilemma to make us mad at something that doesn't matter. This is what made me so angry at Karl Rove's work in the 2004 presidential campaign. That election should not have been about gay marriage, but he made it about gay marriage to rock the vote. Gay marriage matters, but a lot of other things should have mattered more in that election. That lacks honesty, but it wins elections.
We crave real relationships (and leaders) that don't hold back info so that we don't have to interact with each other.
Ever had this conversation:
"How are you doing?"
"I'm fine" --- when really you have had a horrible day and your most precious relationships are on the rocks and you aren't sure how you are going to make your next month's bills.
We want honesty. I think Jesus would have sat down and told us how he hurt for us. I think he would have told us directly what he thought we should do next. He would have journeyed with us in exploring how others would react to our choices.
At least I imagine that is how Jesus would have taught us and discipled us and been in relationship with us. But of course I may be wrong. But my thinking Jesus would be in relationship that way today is why I conduct all my relationships that way. I try to say exactly what I am thinking and try never to manipulate people with half truths or deflections. Some people tell me that this just means that I lack tact. Maybe I'm not kind enough in soft-pedaling hard opinions. I have heard that in recent years. But, for me that can only go so far because I value this kind of openness so much. One of the ways that this has worked itself out is my refusal to go by titles like Reverend/Pastor/Professor/Chaplain. I am Jeremiah, a person struggling to serve Christ who has had some experiences on this journey...many of them on what not to do.
I should put a good quote up that would give guidance away from how I want myself and others to live. It should challenge my proposal here. And as part of my honesty/full disclosure policy, here it is. This is from Henry Nouwen:
"There is a false form of honesty that suggests that nothing should remain hidden and that everything should be said, expressed and communicated. This honesty can be very harmful, and if it does not harm, it at least makes the relationship flat, superficial, empty and often very boring. when we try to shake off our loneliness by creating a milieu without limiting boundaries, we may become entangled in a stagnating closeness. It is our vocation to prevent the harmful exposure of our inner sanctuary, not only for our own protection but also as a service to our fellow human beings with whom we want to enter in a creative communion. Just as words lose their power when they are not born out of silence, so openness loses its meaning when there is no ability to be clsoed. our world is full of empty chatter, easy confessions, hollow talk, senseless compliments, poor praise, and boring confidentialities" (Reaching Out, 32).
Nouwen thinks that we need to protect ourselves from being too open because we need some things private to be able to engage in honest community. Uhhh...maybe he is right. I just don't think so. Notice that his concern is too much idle talk and poor praise.
I agree with him on this, and I get the sense that my earlier colleagues in this discussion would as well, which is precisely why the three of us want to have open and honest dialogue and heartfelt discussion. I intentionally don't give free compliments. I don't try to flatter people. In fact, I am tired of people telling me nice sermon without telling me how they were changed. I am tired of every other senseless compliments without substance as well.
And you know what I have noticed? People that have known me very long know that I don't try to flatter people and I don't give away compliments that I don't mean. They learn that my compliments come from the heart. And then these words have power because they are honest words. My new friends at UIndy have not known my long enough to know that I don't pull punches. But my longtime friends know that I can be trusted, if nothing else. I know that my honesty has hurt people in the past. Some of those pains have stuck with them for a long time. But, unlike Nouwen, I think the answer is not to close one's self off from the other. I also don't think the answer is to return to empty compliments. For me, the answer is complete and open honesty. That doesn't mean you say everything that you think, but it does mean that you mean what you do say.
That makes you vulnearble. Returning to my friend. I happen to believe that if someone takes her beautiful heart and steals it away or vandalizes it, her practice of opening herself to others will mean that she has a community around her to give her strength and endurance. More importantly, the grace of God will give her strength and healing from what others have done. At least, this will be my prayer. I think the rewards are greater than the costs.
But, I may be wrong. That is the reason I have included Jesus' words and Nouwen's words here. Maybe you have some words to add that I need to hear. What do you think, honestly?
I call her friend because in spite of our minimal relationship I can easily see that she is an absolutely delightful person, the kind that wears her heart on her sleeve and that heart is made of pure gold. The thing about wearing such a precious thing out in the open is, some people just want to steal it. This is the dilemma of the human condition. A golden heart is even more beautiful when it is held close by another. Have you ever noticed that gold is even more brilliant when it is around your finger or around your neck or wrist? It is as if gold is just meant to be held close to the skin. Such a precious heart should be as well.
But we all have this deep abiding corruption of sin, says the Christian tradition. We were created good and in the core of our being we still are. But sin has invaded every part, like yeast in dough, as the Scripture says. So if we are to witness to redemption by living with honesty and openness, how does my friend know that her golden heart won't be stolen or just simply vandalized like so many other precious things are? Sinful people do sinful things.
Really, that is what this post is about. Can my friend wear her heart on her sleeve safely? Maybe she is only so open and honest with me because she knows that she can trust the chaplain. I don't think so, I think this is just the way she is. What will be the consequences of this openness?
In our previous blogging conversation, we agreed that Christians should make it a goal of having open and honest conversations without any hidden agenda. The question is: With whom should we have those kind of relationships? Can we simply live that way with everyone as a witness to our faith and a desire to life virtuously and be willing to take the injury that might come from that? Is that even a goal? Or, do we find a close group of friends that can be trusted and live that openness with them? Like most things, I think the answer is somewhere in between. We live with as much openness as the maturity of a person or relationship can handle. But that is still a judgment call and we need some guidance.
My friend said we need to look to the Bible for our guidance. I probably should have thought of that.
How about Matthew 7:6? "Do not give to dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."
I guess Jesus thought some people's sin was pretty bad. "Dogs?" "Pigs?" Wow.
Honestly, the passage isn't easy to interpret. It is right in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount and the passage right before it is about pulling the plank out of your own eye. Not sure what that's about. So I have to say that just reading it for what it is, we would probably have to say that Jesus is instructing that the most precious things must be protected from those who would take no regard for them. Dogs and pigs can't appreciate the value. Ever had a puppy, you shut the bedroom doors to avoid shoes getting chewed and you set anything really valuable just high enough to not be reached. That should give us some advice about what to do with our hearts with people who have no regard.
What about Jesus? What did he do? Well I think he was willing to say the hard thing when he needed to, regardless of what it would cost him. That is obvious from his frequent exchanges with the religious leaders.
But Jesus also had a keen ability to hide his answers among little parables and riddles. He didn't just say things exactly as they are. "Hey temple administration, your sacrificial practices are keeping poor people from being able to eat AND worship; they have to choose one or the other." But then again, he did turn tables in the temple and called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers" when he didn't like their evangelism practices.
I tend to think that Jesus's tendency to hide the truth in parables had more to do with the conversation and teaching practices of his period than a prescription of a way of being. I had a great philosophy prof in undergrad that ALWAYS defended every philosopher that we studied as if he agreed with them. He is a Platonist and I dare say that he thinks Enlightenment rationality is bankrupt, but he defended them nonetheless. It was a teaching tool. Jesus did the same thing. That doesn't make him dishonest. It made him a good Rabbi.
Paul was a little more straightforward with people. Read the Corinthians correspondence and his harsh rebuke in places which is often preceded by a sincere expression of his deepest love. His introduction to most of his letters expresses deep love and respect for his spiritual "children". But, then he also tells them what he thinks when he needs to. And when he is in prison, he doesn't hide his emotions or his pains. Paul wasn't a Rabbi and he wasn't speaking primarily with Jewish people. He talked like a Greek to Greeks, which is exactly what he said he would do.
Generation X/Y/millenial/busters, or whatever I and my colleagues are called, tend to be sick of slick advertising and slicker productions on television and at church. We like reality TV because the drama there at least pretends to be real dilemmas of real people trying to achieve a real goal (remember that most of them are games and a game is real!). We also are not interested in our leadership giving us half facts to get us to do what they want or media contriving a false dilemma to make us mad at something that doesn't matter. This is what made me so angry at Karl Rove's work in the 2004 presidential campaign. That election should not have been about gay marriage, but he made it about gay marriage to rock the vote. Gay marriage matters, but a lot of other things should have mattered more in that election. That lacks honesty, but it wins elections.
We crave real relationships (and leaders) that don't hold back info so that we don't have to interact with each other.
Ever had this conversation:
"How are you doing?"
"I'm fine" --- when really you have had a horrible day and your most precious relationships are on the rocks and you aren't sure how you are going to make your next month's bills.
We want honesty. I think Jesus would have sat down and told us how he hurt for us. I think he would have told us directly what he thought we should do next. He would have journeyed with us in exploring how others would react to our choices.
At least I imagine that is how Jesus would have taught us and discipled us and been in relationship with us. But of course I may be wrong. But my thinking Jesus would be in relationship that way today is why I conduct all my relationships that way. I try to say exactly what I am thinking and try never to manipulate people with half truths or deflections. Some people tell me that this just means that I lack tact. Maybe I'm not kind enough in soft-pedaling hard opinions. I have heard that in recent years. But, for me that can only go so far because I value this kind of openness so much. One of the ways that this has worked itself out is my refusal to go by titles like Reverend/Pastor/Professor/Chaplain. I am Jeremiah, a person struggling to serve Christ who has had some experiences on this journey...many of them on what not to do.
I should put a good quote up that would give guidance away from how I want myself and others to live. It should challenge my proposal here. And as part of my honesty/full disclosure policy, here it is. This is from Henry Nouwen:
"There is a false form of honesty that suggests that nothing should remain hidden and that everything should be said, expressed and communicated. This honesty can be very harmful, and if it does not harm, it at least makes the relationship flat, superficial, empty and often very boring. when we try to shake off our loneliness by creating a milieu without limiting boundaries, we may become entangled in a stagnating closeness. It is our vocation to prevent the harmful exposure of our inner sanctuary, not only for our own protection but also as a service to our fellow human beings with whom we want to enter in a creative communion. Just as words lose their power when they are not born out of silence, so openness loses its meaning when there is no ability to be clsoed. our world is full of empty chatter, easy confessions, hollow talk, senseless compliments, poor praise, and boring confidentialities" (Reaching Out, 32).
Nouwen thinks that we need to protect ourselves from being too open because we need some things private to be able to engage in honest community. Uhhh...maybe he is right. I just don't think so. Notice that his concern is too much idle talk and poor praise.
I agree with him on this, and I get the sense that my earlier colleagues in this discussion would as well, which is precisely why the three of us want to have open and honest dialogue and heartfelt discussion. I intentionally don't give free compliments. I don't try to flatter people. In fact, I am tired of people telling me nice sermon without telling me how they were changed. I am tired of every other senseless compliments without substance as well.
And you know what I have noticed? People that have known me very long know that I don't try to flatter people and I don't give away compliments that I don't mean. They learn that my compliments come from the heart. And then these words have power because they are honest words. My new friends at UIndy have not known my long enough to know that I don't pull punches. But my longtime friends know that I can be trusted, if nothing else. I know that my honesty has hurt people in the past. Some of those pains have stuck with them for a long time. But, unlike Nouwen, I think the answer is not to close one's self off from the other. I also don't think the answer is to return to empty compliments. For me, the answer is complete and open honesty. That doesn't mean you say everything that you think, but it does mean that you mean what you do say.
That makes you vulnearble. Returning to my friend. I happen to believe that if someone takes her beautiful heart and steals it away or vandalizes it, her practice of opening herself to others will mean that she has a community around her to give her strength and endurance. More importantly, the grace of God will give her strength and healing from what others have done. At least, this will be my prayer. I think the rewards are greater than the costs.
But, I may be wrong. That is the reason I have included Jesus' words and Nouwen's words here. Maybe you have some words to add that I need to hear. What do you think, honestly?
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Dorm Room Monasticism
So a few things have changed in the last two months. Most notably, I accepted an offer to become chaplain for one year at the University of Indianapolis. Since this is only a one year position I am trying to learn as much as I can in a short period of time.
Here is what I have learned so far:
College life is about as close to the monastic life that most of us will ever be. One student that I met this week is having a problem sleeping because of a problem with her roommate. She went three days without sleeping. When I met this student, a young woman of no more than 19, she shared how she really liked her roommate. She said this woman was quite nice and knew about the problem. But she still had not been able to sleep. Amazingly, she had not one bad word to say about her roommate even after a very difficult first week at college.
Another student had to endure the pain of broken relationship in the opening days after arriving on campus for the year. Though she admitted that it had been a very difficult week, she couldn't help but talk about how supportive her friends had been and how much they loved her.
And then there was a group of young women, mostly from small rural towns where they had little experience with people different than them, who were seriously distraught because an international student was eating alone as he had done every day that week. They said one day he was willing to join them, but on the whole he had been unresponsive to their offers. They didn't let their feelings be hurt. They devised ways so that he would accept their offer in the future so that he wouldn't be alone anymore.
Most of our lives we have little reason to step outside of our needs and the needs of our immediate family. We don't have to encounter people in all of the ugliness of their life and call them friend. Living together in physical community, as these students are doing, causes you to engage people in whole new ways. I dare say that this young woman who responded with such maturity to the roommate who had caused her such frustration will be far better prepared for the challenges of a young marriage than most are. Covenanting to live together, whether for a lifetime with someone you love or for a year with a complete stranger in a single room, causes you to be willing to give up something of yourself. Selfishness cannot have its reign in that place.
This is really what monastic life was intended to do. The early church determined that the best way to become a disciple of Jesus Christ was in covenant community. For some that meant marriage. But the early monks became very suspicious of marriage. On the other hand, they knew that simply going out in the desert without human contact (which some did) lacked accountability. So they began to cloister together and submit themselves to the more mature members of the community. And working together to prepare meals, do work, and worship God meant that they had to encounter whatever pride and selfishness that was left in the other. I think that in some sense these undergraduates have cloistered together for a similar kind of life, at least the ones that take their Christian discipleship seriously have.
Anyone who has married knows that much of the early days and years of marriage are about discerning what is the best brand of toothpaste and who's bank is really the better one to keep the checking account. These answers are never completely resolved. But one does learn how to give up their own desires for the sake of the one they have covenanted to live with. This is part of what true community is about.
It isn't all negative of course, which is why we all do it so willingly. There is great joy in friendship, especially when we see that our friends are willing to be there for us in the most difficult of times. When a friend holds your hand as you grieve loss or goes out of their way to make sure that you aren't alone on THAT night (you know which one I am talking about!), something changes about those difficult times. Somehow they become holy too. We usually don't see them as holy in the moment. Looking back years later we begin to see that those were the days when we really became Christian disciples. We also can look back on those days and realize that we never knew closer companionship and never took so much joy in it.
Those are the kinds of things I have seen in just one week of watching college students learn to live together. Lifelong friendships have formed in just 10 days or so. They don't know they are lifelong, of course, but they are.
I don''t want to overstate what I am saying here.
Many of the relationships on a college campus are superficial and destructive. Not every undergraduate is interested in living like St. Benedict.
But a few of them are. They are serious about becoming disciples of Jesus. And I have the pleasure of learning from them.
"May this be only the beginning, Lord."
Here is what I have learned so far:
College life is about as close to the monastic life that most of us will ever be. One student that I met this week is having a problem sleeping because of a problem with her roommate. She went three days without sleeping. When I met this student, a young woman of no more than 19, she shared how she really liked her roommate. She said this woman was quite nice and knew about the problem. But she still had not been able to sleep. Amazingly, she had not one bad word to say about her roommate even after a very difficult first week at college.
Another student had to endure the pain of broken relationship in the opening days after arriving on campus for the year. Though she admitted that it had been a very difficult week, she couldn't help but talk about how supportive her friends had been and how much they loved her.
And then there was a group of young women, mostly from small rural towns where they had little experience with people different than them, who were seriously distraught because an international student was eating alone as he had done every day that week. They said one day he was willing to join them, but on the whole he had been unresponsive to their offers. They didn't let their feelings be hurt. They devised ways so that he would accept their offer in the future so that he wouldn't be alone anymore.
Most of our lives we have little reason to step outside of our needs and the needs of our immediate family. We don't have to encounter people in all of the ugliness of their life and call them friend. Living together in physical community, as these students are doing, causes you to engage people in whole new ways. I dare say that this young woman who responded with such maturity to the roommate who had caused her such frustration will be far better prepared for the challenges of a young marriage than most are. Covenanting to live together, whether for a lifetime with someone you love or for a year with a complete stranger in a single room, causes you to be willing to give up something of yourself. Selfishness cannot have its reign in that place.
This is really what monastic life was intended to do. The early church determined that the best way to become a disciple of Jesus Christ was in covenant community. For some that meant marriage. But the early monks became very suspicious of marriage. On the other hand, they knew that simply going out in the desert without human contact (which some did) lacked accountability. So they began to cloister together and submit themselves to the more mature members of the community. And working together to prepare meals, do work, and worship God meant that they had to encounter whatever pride and selfishness that was left in the other. I think that in some sense these undergraduates have cloistered together for a similar kind of life, at least the ones that take their Christian discipleship seriously have.
Anyone who has married knows that much of the early days and years of marriage are about discerning what is the best brand of toothpaste and who's bank is really the better one to keep the checking account. These answers are never completely resolved. But one does learn how to give up their own desires for the sake of the one they have covenanted to live with. This is part of what true community is about.
It isn't all negative of course, which is why we all do it so willingly. There is great joy in friendship, especially when we see that our friends are willing to be there for us in the most difficult of times. When a friend holds your hand as you grieve loss or goes out of their way to make sure that you aren't alone on THAT night (you know which one I am talking about!), something changes about those difficult times. Somehow they become holy too. We usually don't see them as holy in the moment. Looking back years later we begin to see that those were the days when we really became Christian disciples. We also can look back on those days and realize that we never knew closer companionship and never took so much joy in it.
Those are the kinds of things I have seen in just one week of watching college students learn to live together. Lifelong friendships have formed in just 10 days or so. They don't know they are lifelong, of course, but they are.
I don''t want to overstate what I am saying here.
Many of the relationships on a college campus are superficial and destructive. Not every undergraduate is interested in living like St. Benedict.
But a few of them are. They are serious about becoming disciples of Jesus. And I have the pleasure of learning from them.
"May this be only the beginning, Lord."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
