ok, so here's my question that i've been asking my own self: how do i reconcile point loma with southeast? good question, jeff. why thanks! and did i mention that i really like that shirt your wearing? me too! my mom got it for me.
on Friday night, I took six SE kids to Yogurt Express. We then went to Balboa Park. These are not particularly uncommon events, either, though they are particularly bourgeois events. My goal is not to turn the kids at youth into little point loma student wanna-be's. But how do we get past the fact that we are all little PL students and doubtless, though subconscious, have a tendency to want to turn these kids into little versions of ourselves. Then we would have really saved them, right? The more they look like us and do the things that we do, the closer to God they must be.
No. Hell no. If anything, I hope to become more like them. Keep in mind that this is a sociological argument, not a theological one. I hope they look more and more like us from a religious standpoint, otherwise we are wasting our time and we should all move back on campus and into the suburbs and live our fat, happy lives raising fat, unhappy kids. Theologically and ecclesiologically, they should begin to look like us as we begin to look more and more like the saints who have come before us. They should learn our religious practices and habits and on and on. That's another issue. What I am talking about here is a relationship between Southeast and Point Loma that keeps Southeast dependent on Point Loma, and keeps a certain crowd at point loma dependent on SE. I want these kids to be able to run their own youth group some day. I don't want them to feel that the way that youth group should be run is the way that pl college students run it. that's not going to change things. I want these kids--I pray that these kids--will take charge of their Christianity so much that they will, though remaining dependent on the church, be able to change and affect their neighborhood. I'd like to see them move beyond the walls that they have right now and into the neighborhood because when they can apply the things that we talk about every week to the neighborhood that they live in, then they've gotten it. When being Christian is such a part of them that they cannot even slough that off outside of church, then they've gotten it. that is what I am ultimately shooting for. That is what I want.
So there's the concept: sustainable ministry. It is ministry that is self-perpetuating and therefore systemically transformative. By creating a climate where ministry begets Christian minsters, the very systems of the neighborhood begin to change and the church is real and authentic to its mission. Then faithful work can be done by all and the walls between server and servee begin to break down. That is what I really would like to see. Without losing structures of authority, I would like to see the walls between who serves and who doesn't fall more.
This requires a radical reorientation of the way that I live my life and do my church work. the way that I talk, the jokes i make need to be made with the sensitivities of the neighborhood in mind. The activities should ideally be reproducible activities for those in the youth so that they aren't stuck in a position of dependency when looking for alternative things to do. They should be able to go to each other and play out those same activities. We are, in a sense, modeling their lives to them to a certain extent. so how do we do this in a realistic, sustainable manner? that is a continuing question that I shall have to continue to wrestle with. For now, peace be on you.
Jan 22, 2008
1
the second for tonight. then i have other work to do.
singleness: what's so bad about it? it seems to me that to remain single is to live in a way that respects that God is the one who will regenerate the Church. Children are an incredibly beautiful sign of the life that God brings into the world and the way that we are to live with fecundity before fear, but let us look at singleness. This is not a knock on marriage, but just because marriage is good doesn't mean that singleness isn't.
i said something about singleness being a possibility in my life to my mom over Christmas break and she totally shut down. it was like she didn't even want to hear a bit of it. This is all kind of funny coming from a biblical literalist. I mean, shouldn't she take Paul's words literally? at the moment, i'm not "burning with lust," so from a biblically literal standpoint, maybe it would be better for me to find a nice little monastery in the woods and begin my vocation. now, you don't have to be a monk to be single, of course, but we have so devalued celibacy and singleness that it creates in us this frantic need to be attached, to be married and sexually active. Can we imagine the power of so many single Christians living faithfully and prayerfully in their lives, offering up the needs and concerns of the church and dedicating their lives to service to the poor and forgotten because they do not have a family to take care of. Their lack of family can become their great asset, not downfall. i feel like we should maybe take this a little more seriously and accept the paradigm shift that is going to necessarily come with it. when i think of long-term singleness, i am frightened. i don't want to be. i want to be okay dedicating my life and body to the church and to God without needing to dedicate them to any other person. But i fear this. i can't keep my mind from making me posture and position myself and "keep one in the hopper," as Alec Ellis says. again, marriage is not bad. it is very good. but i don't want to accept a call to be married until i break through the fear of singleness. no matter where i end up relationally, i want to be able to stand before God singly and alone, as a unit of one that can therefore be extended to those outside of me, my family (whatever it may look like), my church, my community. i don't want to find my energy in anything but the life that God makes available to me.
singleness: what's so bad about it? it seems to me that to remain single is to live in a way that respects that God is the one who will regenerate the Church. Children are an incredibly beautiful sign of the life that God brings into the world and the way that we are to live with fecundity before fear, but let us look at singleness. This is not a knock on marriage, but just because marriage is good doesn't mean that singleness isn't.
i said something about singleness being a possibility in my life to my mom over Christmas break and she totally shut down. it was like she didn't even want to hear a bit of it. This is all kind of funny coming from a biblical literalist. I mean, shouldn't she take Paul's words literally? at the moment, i'm not "burning with lust," so from a biblically literal standpoint, maybe it would be better for me to find a nice little monastery in the woods and begin my vocation. now, you don't have to be a monk to be single, of course, but we have so devalued celibacy and singleness that it creates in us this frantic need to be attached, to be married and sexually active. Can we imagine the power of so many single Christians living faithfully and prayerfully in their lives, offering up the needs and concerns of the church and dedicating their lives to service to the poor and forgotten because they do not have a family to take care of. Their lack of family can become their great asset, not downfall. i feel like we should maybe take this a little more seriously and accept the paradigm shift that is going to necessarily come with it. when i think of long-term singleness, i am frightened. i don't want to be. i want to be okay dedicating my life and body to the church and to God without needing to dedicate them to any other person. But i fear this. i can't keep my mind from making me posture and position myself and "keep one in the hopper," as Alec Ellis says. again, marriage is not bad. it is very good. but i don't want to accept a call to be married until i break through the fear of singleness. no matter where i end up relationally, i want to be able to stand before God singly and alone, as a unit of one that can therefore be extended to those outside of me, my family (whatever it may look like), my church, my community. i don't want to find my energy in anything but the life that God makes available to me.
stories, ghettos, and crucifixion.
its been a while since i last wrote and to be honest, that last post wasn't very satisfactory. it was a little mean. that may not be unwarranted but its still a bummer to see all this bold and exclamation points every time you come to this page. sorry about that.
i'm taking a class with Wright right now, so its hard for me to move past these notions of the narratives and form and shape us. Basically, we live our lives according to certain narratives which are given to us by the polities that are over us and our practices sustain these narratives in our lives and allow us to obtain certain internal and external goods that also perpetuate the fundamental narrative. Example: in America, choice is good. When we have the power to choose, we can move from unfulfillment to fulfillment by making good choices. Choice is the medium for us to feel happy. so Colby Caillat can sing her song Bubbly (if you want to vomit from ODing on young love and unicorn sprinkles, youtube that song and watch the real video which is on the second page. all the others are of people trying to sing the song after coming down off of their own highs.) and we all feel tingly and good because she has chosen such a good lover and they live such a fantastic life full of beach bonfires and "tingles in a silly place." but if this lover was forced on her, we would all feel very differently about the song. we would say, "what the deuce? how could she feel so good about a lover she doesn't even like, let alone love. I mean, she didn't even have a choice!" Choice is the means of making us happy. Moreover, the happiness that we are shooting for is a mixture of some sense of contentment, tingles, fun, giggles, relationship, comfort, and a generally positive status quo.
but what if that narrative is vacuous and empty? what if our choice is meaningless, or at least incidental to the larger goings-on of the kingdom? what if the work of the Spirit in the world, the work which Jesus died to make possible is not about our choices being positive or ones that are good for us at all but rather what if God's work in the world is ultimately to bring us under God's authority, to subject us to the will of a God that was willing to die so that we might realize that this truest death was the death of the dearest life, the life that brings us life? And then that this death and resurrection has brought those of us who recognize it together to live faithfully before God and proclaim that this life in Jesus is available for all people. What if life has nothing to do with what we think fun or happiness is but has everything to do with how we bring life forth in the world around us.
Wright started ranting on MLK Jr. friday because we had a chapel that honored Rev. King and his legacy. I agree with Wright's criticisms, although I don't want to throw King out. anyway, the argument goes that King did not do blacks and others who are not white in America any favors by getting them the chance to vote. He merely gave them the chance to choose and that choice, which is supposed to lead them to happiness, is ultimately a sham. King is a profoundly ambiguous character because he calls all people (well, men mostly) to assert their freedom in a country that has slighted their freedom because it was convenient economically, psychologically, or whatever. but more than that, this freedom is endowed by God, which is an assumption shared by the same polity that has forgone said freedom. So we know that this state is not a good place. We know it is false and full of selfish ambition and ultimately self-contradictory. King shows that very well. But then, instead of calling those for whom he is responsible to respond to God and raise up a church that respects the humanity of all, resting his faith in something that is truly solid and true, King calls those for whom he is responsible to rest their faith in the state that we already know is faulty. We already know that the state has failed us but because the state is the means by which we can make choices to improve our lives and choices are what we ultimately believe in, we go with the state. So he is ambiguous.
what, then, shall we do with those who are poor and marginalized? now that we have criticized, how can we build something up that is positive. i'm not sure and this is a mix of Wright and me, but take it for what its worth. the poor do not need to be given a voice. the irony of people that want to be a voice for the voiceless is that they are assuming that the marginalized do not have a voice. the poor don't need a voice. they need someone to listen to them. that phrase voice for the voiceless keeps us from having to criticize the structures of the wealthy and therefore avoid the guilt of having to recognize our own wealth, with which we are profoundly uncomfortable. do not be a voice for the voiceless. listen to the voiceless. find creative ways to do it if you must, but listen to them. It is so easy for us to deny the poor while they are poor and then finally listen once we have made them middle class. when i first moved to southeast and after i got over the initial phase in which i wanted to teach everyone theology, i was confronted with the fact that i did not know what to tell these kids because everything i could think of sounded like, "be more like me when i was your age. don't drink, do drugs or have sex. study hard. get a good job. go to college. these are the things that constitute a faithful response to God's love." HA! don't we see the idiocy in that? why are we so focused on making the poor middle class? let the poor be poor. that is, for now, who they are. if we deny them their poverty, we are missing the gospel. in fact, maybe in our listening we can begin to become more like them. we can learn to be poor ourselves and rest in the poverty of spirit that comes from the very person of Jesus.
but the question remains: what do we do for those who are poor? what do we teach them? what do we say as we try to show them how to live? I'm not saying its simplistic, but i don't think its that original. what do you tell the middle class and the rich? love your neighbor. think of others more highly than yourselves. be hospitable. pray and learn silence. serve one another and live generously, inviting others into your dining rooms and living rooms. help one another out and live with one another in ways that show that you care. do not stop meeting with one another, but share the love of Jesus in tangible and verbal ways, mixing a verbal witness with a visible one. Mostly, believe on Jesus and come be baptized (or, as the case may be, accept and live by your baptism). These are not hard things! in fact, the poor are probably closer to these things than the wealthy. A certain lack of disposable income means, for the vast majority, that it is more difficult to put up walls of entertainment, busyness and worldly concerns.
finally, what if the communities of the poor became such a witness to the wealthy that there is life in Jesus Christ rather than the spinning of our tires in the mud which we are used to in the world. There is life that is deeper and more meaningful than Bubbly. but you must give up your choice to determine your own life. you must do a thing that no one in their right mind would choose to do: pick up your cross. And know that the level of fulfillment is a function of the one who brings it about.
i'm taking a class with Wright right now, so its hard for me to move past these notions of the narratives and form and shape us. Basically, we live our lives according to certain narratives which are given to us by the polities that are over us and our practices sustain these narratives in our lives and allow us to obtain certain internal and external goods that also perpetuate the fundamental narrative. Example: in America, choice is good. When we have the power to choose, we can move from unfulfillment to fulfillment by making good choices. Choice is the medium for us to feel happy. so Colby Caillat can sing her song Bubbly (if you want to vomit from ODing on young love and unicorn sprinkles, youtube that song and watch the real video which is on the second page. all the others are of people trying to sing the song after coming down off of their own highs.) and we all feel tingly and good because she has chosen such a good lover and they live such a fantastic life full of beach bonfires and "tingles in a silly place." but if this lover was forced on her, we would all feel very differently about the song. we would say, "what the deuce? how could she feel so good about a lover she doesn't even like, let alone love. I mean, she didn't even have a choice!" Choice is the means of making us happy. Moreover, the happiness that we are shooting for is a mixture of some sense of contentment, tingles, fun, giggles, relationship, comfort, and a generally positive status quo.
but what if that narrative is vacuous and empty? what if our choice is meaningless, or at least incidental to the larger goings-on of the kingdom? what if the work of the Spirit in the world, the work which Jesus died to make possible is not about our choices being positive or ones that are good for us at all but rather what if God's work in the world is ultimately to bring us under God's authority, to subject us to the will of a God that was willing to die so that we might realize that this truest death was the death of the dearest life, the life that brings us life? And then that this death and resurrection has brought those of us who recognize it together to live faithfully before God and proclaim that this life in Jesus is available for all people. What if life has nothing to do with what we think fun or happiness is but has everything to do with how we bring life forth in the world around us.
Wright started ranting on MLK Jr. friday because we had a chapel that honored Rev. King and his legacy. I agree with Wright's criticisms, although I don't want to throw King out. anyway, the argument goes that King did not do blacks and others who are not white in America any favors by getting them the chance to vote. He merely gave them the chance to choose and that choice, which is supposed to lead them to happiness, is ultimately a sham. King is a profoundly ambiguous character because he calls all people (well, men mostly) to assert their freedom in a country that has slighted their freedom because it was convenient economically, psychologically, or whatever. but more than that, this freedom is endowed by God, which is an assumption shared by the same polity that has forgone said freedom. So we know that this state is not a good place. We know it is false and full of selfish ambition and ultimately self-contradictory. King shows that very well. But then, instead of calling those for whom he is responsible to respond to God and raise up a church that respects the humanity of all, resting his faith in something that is truly solid and true, King calls those for whom he is responsible to rest their faith in the state that we already know is faulty. We already know that the state has failed us but because the state is the means by which we can make choices to improve our lives and choices are what we ultimately believe in, we go with the state. So he is ambiguous.
what, then, shall we do with those who are poor and marginalized? now that we have criticized, how can we build something up that is positive. i'm not sure and this is a mix of Wright and me, but take it for what its worth. the poor do not need to be given a voice. the irony of people that want to be a voice for the voiceless is that they are assuming that the marginalized do not have a voice. the poor don't need a voice. they need someone to listen to them. that phrase voice for the voiceless keeps us from having to criticize the structures of the wealthy and therefore avoid the guilt of having to recognize our own wealth, with which we are profoundly uncomfortable. do not be a voice for the voiceless. listen to the voiceless. find creative ways to do it if you must, but listen to them. It is so easy for us to deny the poor while they are poor and then finally listen once we have made them middle class. when i first moved to southeast and after i got over the initial phase in which i wanted to teach everyone theology, i was confronted with the fact that i did not know what to tell these kids because everything i could think of sounded like, "be more like me when i was your age. don't drink, do drugs or have sex. study hard. get a good job. go to college. these are the things that constitute a faithful response to God's love." HA! don't we see the idiocy in that? why are we so focused on making the poor middle class? let the poor be poor. that is, for now, who they are. if we deny them their poverty, we are missing the gospel. in fact, maybe in our listening we can begin to become more like them. we can learn to be poor ourselves and rest in the poverty of spirit that comes from the very person of Jesus.
but the question remains: what do we do for those who are poor? what do we teach them? what do we say as we try to show them how to live? I'm not saying its simplistic, but i don't think its that original. what do you tell the middle class and the rich? love your neighbor. think of others more highly than yourselves. be hospitable. pray and learn silence. serve one another and live generously, inviting others into your dining rooms and living rooms. help one another out and live with one another in ways that show that you care. do not stop meeting with one another, but share the love of Jesus in tangible and verbal ways, mixing a verbal witness with a visible one. Mostly, believe on Jesus and come be baptized (or, as the case may be, accept and live by your baptism). These are not hard things! in fact, the poor are probably closer to these things than the wealthy. A certain lack of disposable income means, for the vast majority, that it is more difficult to put up walls of entertainment, busyness and worldly concerns.
finally, what if the communities of the poor became such a witness to the wealthy that there is life in Jesus Christ rather than the spinning of our tires in the mud which we are used to in the world. There is life that is deeper and more meaningful than Bubbly. but you must give up your choice to determine your own life. you must do a thing that no one in their right mind would choose to do: pick up your cross. And know that the level of fulfillment is a function of the one who brings it about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)