My dad used to say to me when I was growing up, “You’re riding for a fall.” The implicit extension of pride goeth before the fall.
I rarely heeded the warning and he was almost always right, like the time I was 13 and in the finals of a tennis championship. I told him I knew I was a better player than my opponent and I’d win for sure. I saw the gentle warning in his eyes. I lost the match and the championship. And I cried. Pride, fall regardless, he loved me anyway.
What I didn’t tell him was that I cheated on one shot saying my racket didn’t nick the net when it did. Cheating didn’t help. I have never told anyone that till now.
If dad were alive he would say that about this country right now: You're riding for a fall.
“I will not surrender America’s role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I’m not your president.” 2012 Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney recently said this while vowing vast military growth.
No, I do NOT want America to be the strongest nation on earth. And NO, I do not want Romney as my president.
I don’t want America to be the strongest, the greatest, the wealthiest, the most advanced nation. I’m sick of American grandiosity and swollen ego and I’m sick of the rhetoric of success when it is obvious we are failing on many fronts: to prevent violence against women and children, to feed our hungry, to eliminate racism and sexism, to distribute our resources justly, to wage peace, to get along with our neighbors near and far.
When do we surrender, holler uncle, say please God save us from greatness, it’s killing us?
The worst problem is spiritual because underneath all this lust for greatness lurks a greed so toxic, so sinister, so demonic that it stifles compassion and inspired a corporate giant like Lehman Brothers to plaster its Wall St. skyscraper windows with huge signs that read:
WE ARE THE ONE PERCENT!!!
The implication is that they are proud to hold 1% of the nation’s wealth. This is their arrogant response to the young people’s amazing fast-expanding Occupy Wall Street movement. It is a positive statement for community, justice and peace not just a protest against the pride and corruption that deprives the 99% of jobs, opportunities, dignity—and food.
Cry, beloved country you’re riding for a fall.
In other news......I do NOT want my chosen religion, Christianity, to be the strongest, greatest, best or only religion either. It’s riding for a fall.
I want my religion to surrender its own spiritual arrogance and take its place proudly among the world’s religions. I want it to be beautiful, gracious, and wisely humble.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
2011.10.05 Bounty By Divine Design?
BOUNTY BY DIVINE DESIGN?
I recently heard a pastor say with clear firmness something like: “We believe passionately that God has sent all this bounty (good results of a capitol fund drive) by design so that we may fulfill His purposes in mission for the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Well now............
I stopped listening after the words “bounty by design” because all I could think of was my good neighbor who had little bounty by God’s or anyone’s design at all.
I also did not want to be included in the pastor’s use of “we.”
I do not think that such ideas about what Godde does are particularly pastoral. Nor do I believe that God distributes bounty even for the good. Sorry. I think this presumes on Godde and makes those who don’t enjoy bounty of any kind either beholden to the ones with the bounty or feeling excluded from the divine economy of distributive grace.
Some will say it’s Providence. OK. But I don’t think divine providence is arbitrary and this sounds as if God plays favorite for those chosen to do God’s work on earth.
We all are chosen and we all try to live it out in the best ways we can with the resources we have.
What do I believe?
First, I don’t know what God does. I just know that I pray and hope and love and trust, not nearly as “passionately” as I could.
Second I do believe that the wee lassy Christians call Holy Spirit, Sophie for short to me, acts as a massage therapist kneading the soul of humanity and all creation to bring forth (ha motzi) good from whatever disaster or error we get ourselves into by human fault or ignorance, individual or collective.
I experience this in my own life and as a Christian I spends my life at the foot of the cross of Christ and other “crosses” just as horrific—in hope and helplessness waiting on God.
That sounds quite different to me from the suggestion that Godde has a plan and provides certain ones of us the proper resources to carry it out.
The only response to bounty if you have it is gratitude and more gratitude, and after that sharing your bounty with those less fortunate.
Probably the intent of the pastor, but she lost me.
I recently heard a pastor say with clear firmness something like: “We believe passionately that God has sent all this bounty (good results of a capitol fund drive) by design so that we may fulfill His purposes in mission for the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Well now............
I stopped listening after the words “bounty by design” because all I could think of was my good neighbor who had little bounty by God’s or anyone’s design at all.
I also did not want to be included in the pastor’s use of “we.”
I do not think that such ideas about what Godde does are particularly pastoral. Nor do I believe that God distributes bounty even for the good. Sorry. I think this presumes on Godde and makes those who don’t enjoy bounty of any kind either beholden to the ones with the bounty or feeling excluded from the divine economy of distributive grace.
Some will say it’s Providence. OK. But I don’t think divine providence is arbitrary and this sounds as if God plays favorite for those chosen to do God’s work on earth.
We all are chosen and we all try to live it out in the best ways we can with the resources we have.
What do I believe?
First, I don’t know what God does. I just know that I pray and hope and love and trust, not nearly as “passionately” as I could.
Second I do believe that the wee lassy Christians call Holy Spirit, Sophie for short to me, acts as a massage therapist kneading the soul of humanity and all creation to bring forth (ha motzi) good from whatever disaster or error we get ourselves into by human fault or ignorance, individual or collective.
I experience this in my own life and as a Christian I spends my life at the foot of the cross of Christ and other “crosses” just as horrific—in hope and helplessness waiting on God.
That sounds quite different to me from the suggestion that Godde has a plan and provides certain ones of us the proper resources to carry it out.
The only response to bounty if you have it is gratitude and more gratitude, and after that sharing your bounty with those less fortunate.
Probably the intent of the pastor, but she lost me.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
2011.10.02 Madeleine's Commandment
In the late 70s and early 80’s when I was struggling to get ordained as a priest in the Episcopal Church, which was not yet ready for breasts and ample bellies in their pulpits and at their altars, I was fortunate enough to have as my spiritual director the author and theologian Madeleine L’Engle.
Madeleine, now dead and missed, was a commanding presence in voice and height and sheer bulk of wisdom. She towered over me in all ways. I was bordering on meek then, having been rejected a couple of times for ordination and being sure there was something wrong, if not toxic, about me and my gender.
Madeleine was reassuring and kind. She bolstered my soul and gave me hope. But she was no softy. She gave me regular opinionated lectures on things like divorce, a church “sin” I was contemplating. Never, she told me, unless for unremitting homicidal behavior or unremitting suicidal behavior. Well, that left me a broad interpretive swatch.
I remember feeling awed in her presence—also buoyed, but not spoiled.
One day, probably sick of my laments, she said, “Now my dear, when you get ordained, and you will, do NOT become a little man.”
I got it and I didn’t, become a little man that is. I laughed and forgot about it until I got ordained. To follow Madeleine’s commandment has not been easy though I’ve been ordained now for almost 25 years.
The first decision I made not to become a little man was to decide not to be called Mother Lyn. I had enough kids already. Many men still call themselves and/or invite or let people call them Father.
To be called Mother I thought would be like becoming a little man following the tradition of paternalism in the Church making congregants, whether consciously or not, think of themselves and even behave like children, dependent and beholden to Father or Mother knows best. (Petri dish for passive aggressive adolescent subertfuge, if nothing else. )
I told people to call me Lyn. Even “Pastor” suggested a shepherd and her flock of bleating stupid sheep. Not a good model. Besides, images of shepherdesses frolicking on the green or Little Bo Peep just weren’t my style. (God/Jesus as shepherd isn’t an image that much appeals to me either. Baaa)
When parents wanted their children to use a title I’d discuss my perspective of mutuality (my needs are as important as your needs even if I have more authority). If they insisted I conceded to Rev. Lyn. But the kids who wanted to do what everyone else did and who liked the respect usually won the day.
Stay tuned for more on how I tried not to become a little man, in remembrance and loving thanks to a grand mentor, Madeleine L’Engle.
Madeleine, now dead and missed, was a commanding presence in voice and height and sheer bulk of wisdom. She towered over me in all ways. I was bordering on meek then, having been rejected a couple of times for ordination and being sure there was something wrong, if not toxic, about me and my gender.
Madeleine was reassuring and kind. She bolstered my soul and gave me hope. But she was no softy. She gave me regular opinionated lectures on things like divorce, a church “sin” I was contemplating. Never, she told me, unless for unremitting homicidal behavior or unremitting suicidal behavior. Well, that left me a broad interpretive swatch.
I remember feeling awed in her presence—also buoyed, but not spoiled.
One day, probably sick of my laments, she said, “Now my dear, when you get ordained, and you will, do NOT become a little man.”
I got it and I didn’t, become a little man that is. I laughed and forgot about it until I got ordained. To follow Madeleine’s commandment has not been easy though I’ve been ordained now for almost 25 years.
The first decision I made not to become a little man was to decide not to be called Mother Lyn. I had enough kids already. Many men still call themselves and/or invite or let people call them Father.
To be called Mother I thought would be like becoming a little man following the tradition of paternalism in the Church making congregants, whether consciously or not, think of themselves and even behave like children, dependent and beholden to Father or Mother knows best. (Petri dish for passive aggressive adolescent subertfuge, if nothing else. )
I told people to call me Lyn. Even “Pastor” suggested a shepherd and her flock of bleating stupid sheep. Not a good model. Besides, images of shepherdesses frolicking on the green or Little Bo Peep just weren’t my style. (God/Jesus as shepherd isn’t an image that much appeals to me either. Baaa)
When parents wanted their children to use a title I’d discuss my perspective of mutuality (my needs are as important as your needs even if I have more authority). If they insisted I conceded to Rev. Lyn. But the kids who wanted to do what everyone else did and who liked the respect usually won the day.
Stay tuned for more on how I tried not to become a little man, in remembrance and loving thanks to a grand mentor, Madeleine L’Engle.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
2011.09.28 Secrecy and Transparency
I think that too much secrecy and too much transparency are both unhealthy extremes in human systems, individual, family, organizational.
Both secrecy and transparency as strict policies preclude the obvious middle way—MODESTY.
SECRECY is not the same as confidentiality because it is often fueled by fear more than it is by respect.
TRANSPARENCY is not the same as freedom of speech or right to know because it too is often fueled by fear rather than respect.
I know systems get trapped in extremes of behavior and then try to change but too often change happens quickly and reactively not allowing proper time to discern and discriminate about right choices in different situations. So we set policies!
Parish search committees in the Episcopal Church, for example, are rife with secrecy mandates. Such policies when rigid become paranoid.
I remember visiting a parish for an interview, asking about bathroom privileges (my sarcasm) and being whisked in and out quickly with the comment. “Someone might see you.” I’ve never relieved myself so fast in my life.
Rigorous secrecy is injurious to clergy interviewees who are sequestered and only meet a committee and perhaps a vestry before they appear on their first Sunday. Behold! Clergy never get a chance to experience a community at worship and the community never gets a chance to hear a sermon or see a priest celebrate.
It is also unfair to congregations who have no opportunity to ask questions or shake a hand or listen to a voice. They have a vote but no voice.
Transparency in the extreme however is also not a good idea because political gossip and lobbying easily hobble the discernment of the search committee and may prejudice a candidate.
The process is really quite sinful when it’s too blind. It disallows participation even at a modest level of both parties in what in the Church is still called, for better or worse, a “marriage” between a priest and her/his congregation.
A modest appreciation of the needs of both parties in filling such a key position as rector is possible. Other traditions hold open meetings, including mutual opportunity for respectful questioning between parishioners and each finalist. And some invite each finalist to preach and, yes, go to coffee hour for schmooze time. Imagine!
The modesty approach is worth looking at in the Episcopal Church because there is much boo-hoo talk about what we call “failed searches.” WHAT ARE WE AFRAID OF?
Both secrecy and transparency as strict policies preclude the obvious middle way—MODESTY.
SECRECY is not the same as confidentiality because it is often fueled by fear more than it is by respect.
TRANSPARENCY is not the same as freedom of speech or right to know because it too is often fueled by fear rather than respect.
I know systems get trapped in extremes of behavior and then try to change but too often change happens quickly and reactively not allowing proper time to discern and discriminate about right choices in different situations. So we set policies!
Parish search committees in the Episcopal Church, for example, are rife with secrecy mandates. Such policies when rigid become paranoid.
I remember visiting a parish for an interview, asking about bathroom privileges (my sarcasm) and being whisked in and out quickly with the comment. “Someone might see you.” I’ve never relieved myself so fast in my life.
Rigorous secrecy is injurious to clergy interviewees who are sequestered and only meet a committee and perhaps a vestry before they appear on their first Sunday. Behold! Clergy never get a chance to experience a community at worship and the community never gets a chance to hear a sermon or see a priest celebrate.
It is also unfair to congregations who have no opportunity to ask questions or shake a hand or listen to a voice. They have a vote but no voice.
Transparency in the extreme however is also not a good idea because political gossip and lobbying easily hobble the discernment of the search committee and may prejudice a candidate.
The process is really quite sinful when it’s too blind. It disallows participation even at a modest level of both parties in what in the Church is still called, for better or worse, a “marriage” between a priest and her/his congregation.
A modest appreciation of the needs of both parties in filling such a key position as rector is possible. Other traditions hold open meetings, including mutual opportunity for respectful questioning between parishioners and each finalist. And some invite each finalist to preach and, yes, go to coffee hour for schmooze time. Imagine!
The modesty approach is worth looking at in the Episcopal Church because there is much boo-hoo talk about what we call “failed searches.” WHAT ARE WE AFRAID OF?
Monday, September 26, 2011
2011.09.25 Diss-Invitation
Recently the University of St. Francis in Philadelphia disinvited retired Globe columnist Ellen Goodman to deliver a lecture on civility.
Grin.
Why the diss? Oh yes, a national Roman Catholic group pressured the university because Goodman supports abortion rights.
Why really? Because there was money involved. It appears to me to be a case of blackmail by a conservative group with power, influence, and big bucks the university needs to survive.
I don’t know if my suspicions are correct but I might bet on it, though I’m not a gambler—yet.
All this is done of course in the name of God. Again, using God’s name to create homogeneity and conformity or exclusionary politics is not the gospel of Jesus Christ or the God of Genesis.
Anything goes? Well, yes.
We are given the capacity to love and forbear to assure civility.
I mean look at the diversity in the Creation myth in Genesis One. It’s a colorful mélange of all sorts and conditions of life on earth—all of it declared GOOD in the mouth of God. Including both female and male creatures.
The best marriages are between two people who are complimentary and different. Too much sameness is quite cozy and comfortable— happy as a warm moist diaper pail.
We grow and thrive best in diversity where we learn to manage differences and come to love ourselves and the other without constraint and condition. That’s good science. That’s also good theology and spirituality. Homogeneity is only good for milk.
We have failed at heterogeneity-with-love......... but God still longs for it.
Grin.
Why the diss? Oh yes, a national Roman Catholic group pressured the university because Goodman supports abortion rights.
Why really? Because there was money involved. It appears to me to be a case of blackmail by a conservative group with power, influence, and big bucks the university needs to survive.
I don’t know if my suspicions are correct but I might bet on it, though I’m not a gambler—yet.
All this is done of course in the name of God. Again, using God’s name to create homogeneity and conformity or exclusionary politics is not the gospel of Jesus Christ or the God of Genesis.
Anything goes? Well, yes.
We are given the capacity to love and forbear to assure civility.
I mean look at the diversity in the Creation myth in Genesis One. It’s a colorful mélange of all sorts and conditions of life on earth—all of it declared GOOD in the mouth of God. Including both female and male creatures.
The best marriages are between two people who are complimentary and different. Too much sameness is quite cozy and comfortable— happy as a warm moist diaper pail.
We grow and thrive best in diversity where we learn to manage differences and come to love ourselves and the other without constraint and condition. That’s good science. That’s also good theology and spirituality. Homogeneity is only good for milk.
We have failed at heterogeneity-with-love......... but God still longs for it.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
2011.09.21 No Peaceful Religion
Watching the old movie called The Message about the history and development of Islam I saw how similar the themes and patterns of development are in all religions.
All of them start in violence and often resort to it, to defend the God they love who counsels otherwise. Is this a guy thing?
Why do we fight over that which we most value? Sad and crazy.
There are no peaceful religions although all of them preach peace till they’re blue or die trying.
There are no peaceful religions only passionate religions, petri dishes for zealotry for a God who wants love and faithfulness, not death and war. Often in the Bible violence is put into God’s own mouth and onto God’s will. There are two strands of tradition at work as theology evolves: the warlike vengeful God and the One whose steadfast love and mercy abounds.
Christianity, and other religions too, tried to choose the latter but then human “ingenuity” crucified it. And we still do.
How ironic that God’s name is taken in vain to defend God. But God through new voices calls us back to the way of compassion for all.
We have a choice about our own interpretations and theologies. That’s why I love midrash, the Jewish ongoing process of interpreting and re-interpreting the Word of God for each generation.
I do not take scripture literally. Sometimes it re-creates God in our own image. But it is part of our ongoing struggle to understand the mystery we can not.
My favorite midrashic reframe is on the story of the Exodus. The Israelites have crossed the miraculously parted Red Sea and are ecstatically safe on the other side as the sea waters close over the enemy Egyptian army. They all drown. As the Israelites thank God and cheer about their own freedom they spot an angel weeping by the shore. Revealing the enormity of their spiritual naiveté, they ask the angel, “Your people are free, so why do you weep? The angel of God answers: “Because some of my people are dead at the bottom of the sea.”
You see how mixed it all is. But I choose to believe the God whose Word keeps speaking to correct our errant thinking and reinstate Divine Love.
All of them start in violence and often resort to it, to defend the God they love who counsels otherwise. Is this a guy thing?
Why do we fight over that which we most value? Sad and crazy.
There are no peaceful religions although all of them preach peace till they’re blue or die trying.
There are no peaceful religions only passionate religions, petri dishes for zealotry for a God who wants love and faithfulness, not death and war. Often in the Bible violence is put into God’s own mouth and onto God’s will. There are two strands of tradition at work as theology evolves: the warlike vengeful God and the One whose steadfast love and mercy abounds.
Christianity, and other religions too, tried to choose the latter but then human “ingenuity” crucified it. And we still do.
How ironic that God’s name is taken in vain to defend God. But God through new voices calls us back to the way of compassion for all.
We have a choice about our own interpretations and theologies. That’s why I love midrash, the Jewish ongoing process of interpreting and re-interpreting the Word of God for each generation.
I do not take scripture literally. Sometimes it re-creates God in our own image. But it is part of our ongoing struggle to understand the mystery we can not.
My favorite midrashic reframe is on the story of the Exodus. The Israelites have crossed the miraculously parted Red Sea and are ecstatically safe on the other side as the sea waters close over the enemy Egyptian army. They all drown. As the Israelites thank God and cheer about their own freedom they spot an angel weeping by the shore. Revealing the enormity of their spiritual naiveté, they ask the angel, “Your people are free, so why do you weep? The angel of God answers: “Because some of my people are dead at the bottom of the sea.”
You see how mixed it all is. But I choose to believe the God whose Word keeps speaking to correct our errant thinking and reinstate Divine Love.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
2011.09.18 God Made What?
A four year old, aware of the 9/11 10th anniversary news clips, which his parents chose to handle with discretion rather than denial, asked the inevitable (no, it’s not about sex!):
DAD, DID GOD MAKE THE BAD PEOPLE?
Daddy was momentarily thrown for a loop about how to respond.
He said it was funny that his next thought was one of happiness realizing that this young little mind was processing and thinking and communicating and doing so independently.
Still, because this dad is wise and loves God himself, he tried to cut God a break without neglecting his son’s curiosity: “God may not have anything to do with it [terrorism]. God probably doesn’t control everything.”
That was enough for the child who could then go on loving not blaming God—and maybe think twice about his own responsibility in the workings of God’s creation.
Tragedies are not God-driven but humanly inevitable.
The ancient faithful had a theory of “double causation.” It goes like this...................
YOUR PART:
You can fall off a roof and hurt yourself because you shouldn’t have risked it in the first place, you lost your ordinarily good balance, you took a dare, someone pushed you, or it was the roof’s fault.
The ancients didn’t want to exclude divine activity from any sphere of life at all but were wise to realize that a loving God wouldn’t push you off a roof or will your fall. Hence................................
GOD’S PART:
God stays involved to inspire love and healing in whatever form it may take: a loving stranger who passes by and happens to see you fallen; a medic who treats your body; a loved one who takes time off work to babysit you because you can’t move around much for a while; a church community that prays for you sending healing energy your way, and you know it; and a faith in God who strengthens you from within to forgive yourself, the other, or the roof—and go on.
DAD, DID GOD MAKE THE BAD PEOPLE?
Daddy was momentarily thrown for a loop about how to respond.
He said it was funny that his next thought was one of happiness realizing that this young little mind was processing and thinking and communicating and doing so independently.
Still, because this dad is wise and loves God himself, he tried to cut God a break without neglecting his son’s curiosity: “God may not have anything to do with it [terrorism]. God probably doesn’t control everything.”
That was enough for the child who could then go on loving not blaming God—and maybe think twice about his own responsibility in the workings of God’s creation.
Tragedies are not God-driven but humanly inevitable.
The ancient faithful had a theory of “double causation.” It goes like this...................
YOUR PART:
You can fall off a roof and hurt yourself because you shouldn’t have risked it in the first place, you lost your ordinarily good balance, you took a dare, someone pushed you, or it was the roof’s fault.
The ancients didn’t want to exclude divine activity from any sphere of life at all but were wise to realize that a loving God wouldn’t push you off a roof or will your fall. Hence................................
GOD’S PART:
God stays involved to inspire love and healing in whatever form it may take: a loving stranger who passes by and happens to see you fallen; a medic who treats your body; a loved one who takes time off work to babysit you because you can’t move around much for a while; a church community that prays for you sending healing energy your way, and you know it; and a faith in God who strengthens you from within to forgive yourself, the other, or the roof—and go on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
