This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: "Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." (Jeremiah 29:4-7)
all right. so i was thinking more about justice today and i want to lay some of this out for discussion and to get it out of my head.
There are two terms, i'm told, for justice in the old testament. Mishpat, which essentially means something along the lines of "what's coming to you" and Tzedekal (sp.?), which is more about the character of God and is derived from the word Tzedek or "righteousness." Kevin Modesto was talking about these today and his comment was that both of these seem either deficient (mishpat) or not applicable to us humans (tzedekal). He said he wants "something more than justice. I want shalom (wholeness)." First, my beef with this. Second, my answer to this.
Beef: Kevin agrees with many of the criticisms of justice language that make it seem as if justice is this thing that we can somehow objectively get to or that it is something that is in the category of the "good" or the "bad" which draw on very Platonic dualistic ideas that make these wispy forms of the "good", etc. co-eternal with God rather than finding their origin and life in God. So, God does not do things because God is just. rather, God does things because the act is Just and God is conforming with what is best. God's creation is not good because it is God's. It is good because God made creation to line up with this ultimate Good which God most perfectly embodies. "Social justice" does the same thing. It makes it seem as if "justice" is this place that we can legitimately get to in any sort of substantive way with or without Jesus. Jesus makes it easier, of course, but justice is not dependent on Jesus. It's like saying, "Oh, anyone can love me. But my wife does it the best, so I try to go to her the most. but if other women have something to offer, a new way of loving me, then I don't mind going to them because ultimately, its important that i get loved rather than who is loving me, right?"
Also, the whole concept of Shalom seems to do the same thing. The whole craze around the word Shalom, and i am very guilty of participating in it, makes me wonder why we love it so much. I think we love the idea of shalom because it is not so different from our modern Western liberal ideas of what the point of life is: to seek our wholeness and holistic well-being (no different from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all about the "prosperity of the city." but why are we seeking it? Why do we organize so that kids can get better educations? Why do we push to eradicate AIDS and make the border a safer place for families and individuals? Why do we do these things? I'm not sure yet. But I know that we don't (or shouldn't) do them so that we will win and therefore eradicate suffering. As Christians, I think we seek out those that are suffering so that we can walk with them and part of walking with them is working against these things with them. But we don't organize around issues. We don't jump on social justice bandwagons (on non-bandwagons). we work from and with and through and because of people that God loves and wants to bring to salvation. We go to listen to the wisdom of the oppressed and the forgotten. We go to bear them up SO THAT we both might praise God more humbly and purely, live more righteously, love more purely. In our walking with, both parties are brought more close to the life of the Son, transformed more into the likeness of the Son on the earth. And that is where we end. we are not transformed so that the environment will be saved or so that no one will be poor or any other issue. we are transformed because transformation is the end. To become more like the Son and live more and more in the glorious light of God the Father: these are the goals (the ends, the teloses) that we Christians live with and for. If everything in me is returning to the Father--money, time, gifts, talents, everything--then i am succeeding by the strength of Jesus Christ.
Answer: What if our movements and passion do not fall prey to the whims of a liberal-democratic nation-state but rather, we use all of those resources that we have to create societies where it is easier to be good. this is borrowing straight from Peter Maurin, but i think that's the only place i can legitimately land. I want to work to create righteous societies. Take the language of justice out of it. I don't care about justice. I don't care about equality. The Bible seems to take inequality as a necessary thing. Notice it is not a necessary evil, but rather a sort of neutral quality that brings about a textured sort of church.
Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. (1 Cor. 7)
Paul also writes to Philemon that he really wants to make Philemon let Onesimus go but he won't "on the basis of love." Paul doesn't even fight for social justice in the church! So here is my question. If all that we are to be doing is on the basis of love, ultimately serving one another and laying our lives down for one another, rather than organizing against each other and demonstrating power to get what we want, then why do we think that "justice" is so important? I say that we don't need justice. We need a community of Tzadikim, of righteous ones who live righteously and push others to do so, who are the impetus behind a sort of social righteousness that stands up for each other on the basis of love, that stands up for those across the world, even, on the basis of love--a love found in the self-sacrifice of Jesus, who did not consider equality with God (by all means his right was to claim equality with God!) something to be exploited but who became like a human and suffered and died and was then raised to life. Social righteousness, not social justice. For us Wesleyans, Social holiness. This is something we can hang with.
It strips movements of their power. it takes away our need for peace-sign earrings and "love" t-shirts. but it means that we care less about whether or not people see what we are doing and care more about whether or not we are doing it in the best possible ways. We don't need issues. We need love. We need faces. we give time and money, we make a big stink, we write letters, we even vote and protest at times because of love for those that are in these situations, not because of issues. To care and be involved in the lives of those around us is part of being and becoming righteous. it is part of being transformed into the likeness of Jesus. it is part of becoming a follower of Jesus rather than an admirer of Jesus.
Admirers are only too willing to serve Christ as long as proper caution is exercised, lest one personally come in contact with danger. They refuse to accept that Christ’s life is a demand. In actual fact, they are offended by him. His radical, bizarre character so offends them that when they honestly see Christ for who he is, they are no longer able to experience the tranquility they so much seek after. They know full well that to associate with him too closely amounts to being up for examination. Even though he says nothing against them personally, they know that his life tacitly judges theirs. (Soren Kierkegaard)
let me sum up. I don't want shalom unless that shalom is leading us to righteousness. That sort of shalom will not take us away from suffering and struggle. Rather, it will lead us into it. it will challenge and change us, but we must always live with that sort of willingness to be transformed. We need to long to be made righteous and not long for the trappings of righteousness to become a reality in this physical world. Rather than simply planting gardens and working for the welfare of the city, we need to become those that accept what God has given us and begin to work with God's strength to make good out of it, to love in the midst of hate and to teach those around us to love in a way that comes from the one who is love, who is peace, who is shalom. Ultimately, we need to lead people back to God and the welfare and hope found therein and not to the welfare of the city or the hope of a well-planned and -organized social structure.
Feb 23, 2008
Feb 10, 2008
more justice
okay, so i'm working out more what justice means here.
justice seems to connote some sort of objective rubric off of which everything is based. The question is, what is that rubric? who sets it up? Who defines what is just? There is a deep belief that runs through "social justice" circles that justice entails something along the lines of equality, freedom to choose one's own good life (usually referring to the poor. I mean, the rich have chosen their good life. Now it's time for them to give up some of that good life--to which they are duly entitled, of course--in order to give someone else a shot.), and other ideals which are, ironically, very much a part of the American dream.
but I don't buy it. I think that placing your trust in a 200+ year old dream is ultimately a waste. What we need is not another verson of the American dream. What we need is God. We need God to begin to define justice. Responding to the call to live compassionately--that's justice. Decrying greed and exploitation--that's justice. Becoming poor yourself so that you can walk with and encourage those who are poor to find the God who became human himself--that's justice. But also, justice is something as simple as forgiving your neighbor and brother, loving those around you even in a hard way (sometimes love looks a lot like throwing someone out of your house knowing full well that they may end up homeless.). Its a matter of loving in a way that is consistent with God's Word and word. It is a matter of not lusting as much as you are not adulterous, not hating as much as you are nonviolent. But at the same time, hating your mother, taking up your cross, decrying the systems of the world that exploit people and paying your taxes on time are all justice as well. We want justice that is restorative, yes. We want justice that does more than punish but that finds the person behind the punishment and seeks to treat that person with love and respect. But more than restorative justice, we want holy justice, a justice that find the image of God behind the person that is behind the punishment and calls out that image to be real, to be true and realized in their life. I am a Wesleyan and i ought to talk about being holy more than i do. i want holy justice. When i am compassionate, when i am hard, when I am gardening or talking or picketing or organizing or punishing or whatever it is that someone might call justice, I want to be seeking the holy in the person and in myself because that is the way of the cross, to seek the holy and live that out in the world. God's kingdom in the world, showing up in places that no one expects it because people don't know what the Holy is. But God wants to show up--to show up in a way that recognizes that God has always been there, moving and shaping things and reconciling the world to Godself. I want to be a bridge for that kind of justice, the kind that reconciles the world to God's self. This is true reconciliatory justice, better than retributive, better than restorative because at its core, it recognizes that God is the end, the telos of the whole endeavor.
if you have thoughts, please leave them here.
justice seems to connote some sort of objective rubric off of which everything is based. The question is, what is that rubric? who sets it up? Who defines what is just? There is a deep belief that runs through "social justice" circles that justice entails something along the lines of equality, freedom to choose one's own good life (usually referring to the poor. I mean, the rich have chosen their good life. Now it's time for them to give up some of that good life--to which they are duly entitled, of course--in order to give someone else a shot.), and other ideals which are, ironically, very much a part of the American dream.
but I don't buy it. I think that placing your trust in a 200+ year old dream is ultimately a waste. What we need is not another verson of the American dream. What we need is God. We need God to begin to define justice. Responding to the call to live compassionately--that's justice. Decrying greed and exploitation--that's justice. Becoming poor yourself so that you can walk with and encourage those who are poor to find the God who became human himself--that's justice. But also, justice is something as simple as forgiving your neighbor and brother, loving those around you even in a hard way (sometimes love looks a lot like throwing someone out of your house knowing full well that they may end up homeless.). Its a matter of loving in a way that is consistent with God's Word and word. It is a matter of not lusting as much as you are not adulterous, not hating as much as you are nonviolent. But at the same time, hating your mother, taking up your cross, decrying the systems of the world that exploit people and paying your taxes on time are all justice as well. We want justice that is restorative, yes. We want justice that does more than punish but that finds the person behind the punishment and seeks to treat that person with love and respect. But more than restorative justice, we want holy justice, a justice that find the image of God behind the person that is behind the punishment and calls out that image to be real, to be true and realized in their life. I am a Wesleyan and i ought to talk about being holy more than i do. i want holy justice. When i am compassionate, when i am hard, when I am gardening or talking or picketing or organizing or punishing or whatever it is that someone might call justice, I want to be seeking the holy in the person and in myself because that is the way of the cross, to seek the holy and live that out in the world. God's kingdom in the world, showing up in places that no one expects it because people don't know what the Holy is. But God wants to show up--to show up in a way that recognizes that God has always been there, moving and shaping things and reconciling the world to Godself. I want to be a bridge for that kind of justice, the kind that reconciles the world to God's self. This is true reconciliatory justice, better than retributive, better than restorative because at its core, it recognizes that God is the end, the telos of the whole endeavor.
if you have thoughts, please leave them here.
Feb 7, 2008
Justice
It's funny how the term "justice" carries such disparate meanings.
For Judges, police officers and Israelites, it seems to connote hitting people who have done unacceptable and/or repulsive things with rocks, billy clubs, sticks, bullets, jail time, rocks, fists, rocks, jail cells, or the like.
For hippies, Northern Californians (okay, same thing.) and rock stars, it seems to connote large amounts of food to impoverished [African] nations, not giving anyone jail time and/or refusing to hit them with rocks, sanctions on impoverished [African] nations, the (RED) campaign, community housing, community organizing, community planning, community living and community-anything. Ahh...Life Together.
I think they are both wrong. Pastor Steve preached two weeks ago that "Justice is the application of Torah [and subsequently Jesus] to life." Justice is hard and nasty at times. It is revolutionarily "soft" at times. I think Pastor Steve hit the nail on the head here. Justice can look like sanctions and petitions and campaigns. maybe. But, if we are going to take the Scriptures seriously as the texts that shape and form the people of God, Justice can look like stones thrown at your head until you die. It can look like relational reconciliation that goes from Jerusalem to Galilee by foot to make it up to my brother and then back to finish my offering on the altar. Or it can look like throwing someone out of church for belligerence and disrespect. The question is, for me, are we applying Jesus' teaching and life to our lives? Then things will be just. Then life will be as it should be--is that not the true meaning of justice, when things are as they should be. I'd like to wrestle with the idea of restorative justice a bit later, but not right now. Right now, peace. happy Lent.
For Judges, police officers and Israelites, it seems to connote hitting people who have done unacceptable and/or repulsive things with rocks, billy clubs, sticks, bullets, jail time, rocks, fists, rocks, jail cells, or the like.
For hippies, Northern Californians (okay, same thing.) and rock stars, it seems to connote large amounts of food to impoverished [African] nations, not giving anyone jail time and/or refusing to hit them with rocks, sanctions on impoverished [African] nations, the (RED) campaign, community housing, community organizing, community planning, community living and community-anything. Ahh...Life Together.
I think they are both wrong. Pastor Steve preached two weeks ago that "Justice is the application of Torah [and subsequently Jesus] to life." Justice is hard and nasty at times. It is revolutionarily "soft" at times. I think Pastor Steve hit the nail on the head here. Justice can look like sanctions and petitions and campaigns. maybe. But, if we are going to take the Scriptures seriously as the texts that shape and form the people of God, Justice can look like stones thrown at your head until you die. It can look like relational reconciliation that goes from Jerusalem to Galilee by foot to make it up to my brother and then back to finish my offering on the altar. Or it can look like throwing someone out of church for belligerence and disrespect. The question is, for me, are we applying Jesus' teaching and life to our lives? Then things will be just. Then life will be as it should be--is that not the true meaning of justice, when things are as they should be. I'd like to wrestle with the idea of restorative justice a bit later, but not right now. Right now, peace. happy Lent.
Ash Wednesday reflections
"You are ashes; and to ashes you shall return."
These words struck me yesterday and have been sitting with me for a while now. I think the relationship often gets missed and instead we see it as an affirmation of our fragility, which it is, and therefore God's security, which it also is. We feel in the receiving of ashes a particular death as the smooth ashes from last year's strange celebration of Jesus' impending death--Palm Sunday--scrape onto our foreheads in the shape of a cross. But what of the relationship between the two phrases? We know they are about are death. But I think that they are really about our life. We are ashes right now, in this moment. Yet we shall return to ashes? This is truly a mystery, but look at it. If we shall return to ashes, then we are something more than ashes. There is something animating these ashes that we are. Though we are dust, this dust is full of life and potential to be made a tool of the living God, the Easter God. Our God is a God of life, not of death and that is something that we must begin to know. Our embrace of death is a means to life and nothing more or less than that. Jesus shows us that in order to find the life that God brings, in order to be given life by God and not by our mothers and fathers or faith communities or neighborhoods, we must die. We must suffer. we must find that all this around us, all that we see and think that we know to be true is but dust. Jesus Christ is True, is more than dust. but in the symbol of dust upon our foreheads, we see and feel and know that Jesus is behind the dust, holding things up and making them worthwhile. If we do not die, we can still suffer the illusion that our lives are not contingent upon God. If we will not be crucified, we will not be resurrected. The living do not need resurrection--the dead do. So I thank God for the whisper of ashes still on my forehead. It is a grace that reminds me of my life.
But dying does not happen the way we want it to. We live in a world fascinated with death. I read an article in the New York Times today about how male models are skinnier and skinnier these days to the point that it is becoming a concern for those in the industry because the men are showing equally disconcerting signs of eating disorders, etc. that the female models have long been criticized for. What is chic? bulimia is chic. cocaine-induced thinness is chic. sunken cheeks, hollow eyes. even the girls in ads these days. Several ads that I've seen depict what appears to be helpless, strung-out domestic violence victims crammed into a bathroom or onto a couch for some sort of quickie before going back out to take a hit off someone's crack pipe. Yippee!!!! Fashion Rules!!! I need some new jeans because my old ones have room for muscles, tendons, ligaments, and epidermis. What was I thinking? I knew I should have just gone with bones this morning. Point is that skeletons, death, despair--these are "in." Life is rarely celebrated. We numb our pain with drugs, be it weed, alcohol, heroine, television, crack, caffeine or any other of the host of entertaining options available. We watch UFC like sick Romans lining up at the Coliseum to watch early Christian martyrs be devoured by lions, tigers, or other human beings. We entertain ourselves into numbness, into nothing, into dust. At the very best we idealize environmentalism, social justice, community and bike rides at the cost of digging into life anywhere. There is, in fact, an image of life that many purport to be chasing but here's the problem: it only involves life. We are still stuck trying to make castles out of the dust that we know, mocking the reality behind reality by either numbing ourselves until dust is all we believe there is or spinning long tales about the magnificent nature of our dust castles and how they are pointing to the real truth of life. For us Christians (okay, monotheists), we believe it points to God (which it doesn't) and for the others, there is a belief in a sort of mystical goodness that somehow makes things worthwhile.
If I'm honest, this is who I am. Though I am aware of my dustiness, I seek to justify it with all that I am. I seek to make it okay for me to be dust and nothing else. And so, for a long time, I have embraced death with reckless abandon because after all, that is who we are, right? I am caught in the tension of which St. Paul writes in his epistle to the Romans. "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?" Of course the answer is a resounding "No!" In fact, to do so would be to mock the Life to which we are beholden for even the breaths that we take in at this moment. Jesus came that we might be saved from the death of an ash-world, not so that we might enter into it irretrievably. Yet I still find myself sinning so that I might know grace, convinced that grace is the removal of guilt--but how can I have guilt unless I sin? No. grace is the fact that I am here, that I exist at all is a profound gift, a grace for which I cannot utter enough thanks. To sin is to move farther from that grace, not to embrace it more. I must move closer to that grace, by accepting the life in each of my parts, in the lonely and frustrated areas of my heart and life. in the impatient, lusty, ugly nasty places of my inside house, I must invite grace in. Lent prepares me for that. By fasting, by giving something up, I clear out a little space to accept the grace of the Father for me. By simplifying my life, cutting down on the complexity of my meals, I remember that even rice is a gift. even salt, even a glass of water are grace to me--and that grace so fills my life and my existence that I cannot wait for Palm Sunday when I can shout, "Hosanna! Christ has come to Jerusalem! And he is going to die so that I might have a life so full that even the voice that cries out is a gift to me!!! Hooray! Hosanna!" Nothing, not even my self is my own. What a wonderful thought.
Lent is a reminder that, in fact, even my own heart is farther from me than I once thought and that knowledge brings life as the waves lap the shore and wash away the dust castles of this world. in this moment, this castle-less moment, God saves us. As we die to our dusty selves, to dusty sin, to the dusty world, God looks at the empty landscape that is exhausted from human efforts to build and build, to create and make the trappings of holiness, and God begins, piece by piece, to build true castles--out of rocks, not out of sand. Out of mortar and brick and wood and straw. Then God breathes life into those castles which, though different from sand, are nevertheless variable arrangements of dust, and the castles begin to glorify the breather of life in a thousand sundry ways. shouting Hosanna! Hosanna! Hallelujah to the God who showed us the way, who died and was raised again to life. Praise Jesus!
Lord, kill me, I pray. I yearn for your life.
"If the house is messy, they might have said, why not clean it up, why not make it into a place where God might wish to dwell?" (Kathleen Norris)
These words struck me yesterday and have been sitting with me for a while now. I think the relationship often gets missed and instead we see it as an affirmation of our fragility, which it is, and therefore God's security, which it also is. We feel in the receiving of ashes a particular death as the smooth ashes from last year's strange celebration of Jesus' impending death--Palm Sunday--scrape onto our foreheads in the shape of a cross. But what of the relationship between the two phrases? We know they are about are death. But I think that they are really about our life. We are ashes right now, in this moment. Yet we shall return to ashes? This is truly a mystery, but look at it. If we shall return to ashes, then we are something more than ashes. There is something animating these ashes that we are. Though we are dust, this dust is full of life and potential to be made a tool of the living God, the Easter God. Our God is a God of life, not of death and that is something that we must begin to know. Our embrace of death is a means to life and nothing more or less than that. Jesus shows us that in order to find the life that God brings, in order to be given life by God and not by our mothers and fathers or faith communities or neighborhoods, we must die. We must suffer. we must find that all this around us, all that we see and think that we know to be true is but dust. Jesus Christ is True, is more than dust. but in the symbol of dust upon our foreheads, we see and feel and know that Jesus is behind the dust, holding things up and making them worthwhile. If we do not die, we can still suffer the illusion that our lives are not contingent upon God. If we will not be crucified, we will not be resurrected. The living do not need resurrection--the dead do. So I thank God for the whisper of ashes still on my forehead. It is a grace that reminds me of my life.
But dying does not happen the way we want it to. We live in a world fascinated with death. I read an article in the New York Times today about how male models are skinnier and skinnier these days to the point that it is becoming a concern for those in the industry because the men are showing equally disconcerting signs of eating disorders, etc. that the female models have long been criticized for. What is chic? bulimia is chic. cocaine-induced thinness is chic. sunken cheeks, hollow eyes. even the girls in ads these days. Several ads that I've seen depict what appears to be helpless, strung-out domestic violence victims crammed into a bathroom or onto a couch for some sort of quickie before going back out to take a hit off someone's crack pipe. Yippee!!!! Fashion Rules!!! I need some new jeans because my old ones have room for muscles, tendons, ligaments, and epidermis. What was I thinking? I knew I should have just gone with bones this morning. Point is that skeletons, death, despair--these are "in." Life is rarely celebrated. We numb our pain with drugs, be it weed, alcohol, heroine, television, crack, caffeine or any other of the host of entertaining options available. We watch UFC like sick Romans lining up at the Coliseum to watch early Christian martyrs be devoured by lions, tigers, or other human beings. We entertain ourselves into numbness, into nothing, into dust. At the very best we idealize environmentalism, social justice, community and bike rides at the cost of digging into life anywhere. There is, in fact, an image of life that many purport to be chasing but here's the problem: it only involves life. We are still stuck trying to make castles out of the dust that we know, mocking the reality behind reality by either numbing ourselves until dust is all we believe there is or spinning long tales about the magnificent nature of our dust castles and how they are pointing to the real truth of life. For us Christians (okay, monotheists), we believe it points to God (which it doesn't) and for the others, there is a belief in a sort of mystical goodness that somehow makes things worthwhile.
If I'm honest, this is who I am. Though I am aware of my dustiness, I seek to justify it with all that I am. I seek to make it okay for me to be dust and nothing else. And so, for a long time, I have embraced death with reckless abandon because after all, that is who we are, right? I am caught in the tension of which St. Paul writes in his epistle to the Romans. "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?" Of course the answer is a resounding "No!" In fact, to do so would be to mock the Life to which we are beholden for even the breaths that we take in at this moment. Jesus came that we might be saved from the death of an ash-world, not so that we might enter into it irretrievably. Yet I still find myself sinning so that I might know grace, convinced that grace is the removal of guilt--but how can I have guilt unless I sin? No. grace is the fact that I am here, that I exist at all is a profound gift, a grace for which I cannot utter enough thanks. To sin is to move farther from that grace, not to embrace it more. I must move closer to that grace, by accepting the life in each of my parts, in the lonely and frustrated areas of my heart and life. in the impatient, lusty, ugly nasty places of my inside house, I must invite grace in. Lent prepares me for that. By fasting, by giving something up, I clear out a little space to accept the grace of the Father for me. By simplifying my life, cutting down on the complexity of my meals, I remember that even rice is a gift. even salt, even a glass of water are grace to me--and that grace so fills my life and my existence that I cannot wait for Palm Sunday when I can shout, "Hosanna! Christ has come to Jerusalem! And he is going to die so that I might have a life so full that even the voice that cries out is a gift to me!!! Hooray! Hosanna!" Nothing, not even my self is my own. What a wonderful thought.
Lent is a reminder that, in fact, even my own heart is farther from me than I once thought and that knowledge brings life as the waves lap the shore and wash away the dust castles of this world. in this moment, this castle-less moment, God saves us. As we die to our dusty selves, to dusty sin, to the dusty world, God looks at the empty landscape that is exhausted from human efforts to build and build, to create and make the trappings of holiness, and God begins, piece by piece, to build true castles--out of rocks, not out of sand. Out of mortar and brick and wood and straw. Then God breathes life into those castles which, though different from sand, are nevertheless variable arrangements of dust, and the castles begin to glorify the breather of life in a thousand sundry ways. shouting Hosanna! Hosanna! Hallelujah to the God who showed us the way, who died and was raised again to life. Praise Jesus!
Lord, kill me, I pray. I yearn for your life.
"If the house is messy, they might have said, why not clean it up, why not make it into a place where God might wish to dwell?" (Kathleen Norris)
Jan 28, 2008
sustainable ministry? is that the same thing as being green?
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.
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)