Continuing to look at what leads me to think living a simple lifestyle is advisable, I'd like to turn for a minute to the (traditionally conservative) notion of Prudence.
In addressing some previous questions on simple living, the point was suggested...
...simple living as opposed to technological advancements, and the wealth creation that so often goes with it, does not improve lives for the most people.
To that point, I'd say that the commenter was making some presumptions that go too far.
The Amish (as an extreme example of people who seem to be opposed to technological advances) are not, in fact, utterly opposed to all technological advances. They are CAUTIOUS (in the extreme) of technological advances. They epitimoze (perhaps to absurd degree, perhaps not) the conservative value of Prudence.
They don't willy nilly accept technological CHANGES that come along and presume that because they have come along, they are an advancement. They keep such changes at arm's length and, when they are comfortable with the notion that it is indeed something that can be helpful WITHOUT having hidden costs to themselves or others, only then do they embrace the advancement.
Thus, they use (sparingly) gas motors for cutting wood (obviously a technological change over cutting by hand), telephone booths, accept rides from others, ride the bus, etc... That is, they DO embrace some technology, but only cautiously and only when they feel confident that it's going to be a net benefit (or at least that's my undestanding of the Amish and technology.
This is what I'm speaking of... Slowing down the pace of our acceptance of each new technological option that comes along and weigh its net value. Live deliberate lives, thoughtful lives, sustainable lives, keeping an eye out for the impacts beyond just the immediate.
The commenter made the statement about being opposed to technological advances and the wealth creation that so often goes along with it. I think what the simple life advocates would suggest is that we presume too much too quickly too often. DOES positive net wealth creation come along with many/most/all technological "advance?" I don't think we can assume that this is true, not at all.
IF I can create a brand new Widget (TM) for $1 and can create a demand for that Widget and sell it for $10, then I have "created wealth" and the world is a better place! Hallelujah! That is the simplistic way of looking at it. The more prudent, cautious way of looking at it is to ask questions...
1. What IS a Widget?
2. Does it add anything to my life?
3. If I have happily lived without a Widget thus far, what reasonable "demand" for that Widget is there?
4. What are the costs of that Widget? Not JUST the cost to produce it, but did creating the Widget produce pollution? Waste? Has that waste and pollution been cleaned up? Who paid to clean it up? Were there any other associated negatives (ie, did it not only produce pollution, but TOXIC pollution, which increased the risk of cancer or other illness - and who's going to pay for that?)
5. Is the Widget replacing some OTHER item(s)/technologies? What are the costs associated with those losses?
6. Is the Widget causing less tangible - but no less real - costs? Does it cut into family time? Does it cause us to exercise less? To worry more?
You get the idea, I hope.
Simple living is deliberate living, conscious and conscientious living. It is not chasing after every new Thing that comes along, but recognizing that our confidence, our happiness, our lives do not consist of Things and more Things, but in God, in our relationships, in our family, in our community. This is where our contentment lies and thus, why do I NEED more Things?
Sometimes, there may be a very good answer to the question of "should I get this new Thing?" For instance, someone might like a mandolin or a flute so they can learn to play it (free entertainment, worthwhile education) and play with my family and friends (strengthening the family and community units, creating a better world) and thus, it may well be worth the cost.
Having decided that, I could buy a mandolin for $100, used, or I could buy a very fancy cool mandolin for $10,000 - what choice do I make...? Was the "cheap" mandolin made in China by child laborers in unjust circumstances (and thus, came at a much greater cost than the $100)? Was the $10,000 mandolin made with a rare wood that came from an endangered forest (and thus, perhaps came at a greater cost than even the $10,000)?
Deliberate living. Prudent living.
Does that mean I am paralyzed into fearfully buying nothing unable to know all the possible repercussions? No, clearly not. I'm just suggesting something more reasonable and prudent than beginning with the presumption that all the stuff I can buy is going to make the world and my life better.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Why Simplicity? A Complex Answer, Part II
Continuing looking at the question, Why Simplicity, I'd like us to consider the justice aspect of great diversity in wealth and poverty. I'd like us to consider Dr. Martin Luther King's words on this matter today...
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway.
True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just."
The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood...
Powerful (even dangerous) words, those, but well worth consideration.
As Christians and decent people the world over are concerned about living just lives, we owe it to ourselves to at least ask the questions: Is this way of life just? Is this disparity of wealth just? Does it lead to war? To environmental and societal destruction? Is there a corallary between the great wealth of one nation and the great poverty of another?
Having answered these questions, what "revolution of values," as Dr. King calls it, do we need? What changes in our values and lives ought to follow? Or do we do nothing and continue as the wealthy elite of the world with a clean conscience?
This final clarification for today: Just because King or I might believe we need a revolution of values, a restructuring of the social order, is not to say we are calling for Marxist communism. It is, rather (at least in my estimation), just what it is: A call for a revolution of values, a questioning of how and how much we consume, a consideration of the poor and marginalized recognizing our great wealth. Perhaps an old time revival, to put it in religious parlance. That is not, to be clear, a call for Marxism. At least not for me and mine.
Just trying to nip that misunderstanding in the bud.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway.
True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just."
The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood...
Powerful (even dangerous) words, those, but well worth consideration.
As Christians and decent people the world over are concerned about living just lives, we owe it to ourselves to at least ask the questions: Is this way of life just? Is this disparity of wealth just? Does it lead to war? To environmental and societal destruction? Is there a corallary between the great wealth of one nation and the great poverty of another?
Having answered these questions, what "revolution of values," as Dr. King calls it, do we need? What changes in our values and lives ought to follow? Or do we do nothing and continue as the wealthy elite of the world with a clean conscience?
This final clarification for today: Just because King or I might believe we need a revolution of values, a restructuring of the social order, is not to say we are calling for Marxist communism. It is, rather (at least in my estimation), just what it is: A call for a revolution of values, a questioning of how and how much we consume, a consideration of the poor and marginalized recognizing our great wealth. Perhaps an old time revival, to put it in religious parlance. That is not, to be clear, a call for Marxism. At least not for me and mine.
Just trying to nip that misunderstanding in the bud.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Why Simplicity? A Complex Answer, Part I
I've pondered a while how best to answer the questions: Why simplicity? How does living simply solve any problems? Help the poor? Help the environment?
These are, I think, reasonable questions worthy of an answer. The problems I have in answering it are probably mostly my own limitations: Limitations of brain power, understanding, ability to communicate and simply time.
I have reached my positions on this general area of thought as a result of much reading, listening and observation. Reading especially from the Bible, from Wendell Berry and other "secular"(ish) authors/thinkers of his ilk (Edward Abbey, Gene Logsdon, Bill McKibben, etc), as well as anabaptist and other progressive Christian voices, as well as the voices of native peoples and the poor. How does one condense all of this wisdom down to a blog-sized bite?
Bit by bit, I guess. So, to that end, I will try to offer in the coming days some excerpts from others and my own thoughts to address the question: Why Simplicity?
I have tried this once before, but that attempt was a pretty simplistic one. This time, I will endeavor to spend a little more time and thought on it.
First off, I think we might ought to consider problems of scale. Big, Global, Multinational Corporate solutions to problems cause their own problems and these problems are hard to deal with. Sometimes, impossible, at least it seems. Here are some of Wendell Berry's thoughts on this...
The large agribusiness corporations that were mainly national in 1977 are now global, and are replacing the world’s agricultural diversity, which was useful primarily to farmers and local consumers, with bioengineered and patented monocultures that are merely profitable to corporations. The purpose of this now global economy, as Vandana Shiva has rightly said, is to replace “food democracy” with a worldwide “food dictatorship...”
I believe that this contest between industrialism and agrarianism now defines the most fundamental human difference, for it divides not just two nearly opposite concepts of agriculture and land use, but also two nearly opposite ways of understanding ourselves, our fellow creatures, and our world...
Industrialism prescribes an economy that is placeless and displacing. It does not distinguish one place from another. It applies its methods and technologies indiscriminately in the American East and the American West, in the United States and in India. It thus continues the economy of colonialism. The shift of colonial power from European monarchy to global corporation is perhaps the dominant theme of modern history. All along, it has been the same story of the gathering of an exploitive economic power into the hands of a few people who are alien to the places and the people they exploit. Such an economy is bound to destroy locally adapted agrarian economies everywhere it goes, simply because it is too ignorant not to do so...
The industrial “solution” for such systems is to increase the scale of work and trade. It brings Big Ideas, Big Money, and Big Technology into small rural communities, economies, and ecosystems—the brought-in industry and the experts being invariably alien to and contemptuous of the places to which they are brought in. There is never any question of propriety, of adapting the thought or the purpose or the technology to the place. The result is that problems correctable on a small scale are replaced by large-scale problems for which there are no large-scale corrections. Meanwhile, the large-scale enterprise has reduced or destroyed the possibility of small-scale corrections...
In any consideration of agrarianism, this issue of limitation is critical. Agrarian farmers see, accept, and live within their limits. They understand and agree to the proposition that there is “this much and no more...” This is the understanding that induces thrift, family coherence, neighborliness, local economies. Within accepted limits, these become necessities...
This is exactly opposite to the industrial idea that abundance comes from the violation of limits by personal mobility, extractive machinery, long-distance transport, and scientific or technological breakthroughs. If we use up the good possibilities in this place, we will import goods from some other place, or we will go to some other place. If nature releases her wealth too slowly, we will take it by force. If we make the world too toxic for honeybees, some compound brain, Monsanto perhaps, will invent tiny robots that will fly about pollinating flowers and making honey...
This is from an excellent article at Orion and is well worth reading in full. You can find it here.
These are, I think, reasonable questions worthy of an answer. The problems I have in answering it are probably mostly my own limitations: Limitations of brain power, understanding, ability to communicate and simply time.
I have reached my positions on this general area of thought as a result of much reading, listening and observation. Reading especially from the Bible, from Wendell Berry and other "secular"(ish) authors/thinkers of his ilk (Edward Abbey, Gene Logsdon, Bill McKibben, etc), as well as anabaptist and other progressive Christian voices, as well as the voices of native peoples and the poor. How does one condense all of this wisdom down to a blog-sized bite?
Bit by bit, I guess. So, to that end, I will try to offer in the coming days some excerpts from others and my own thoughts to address the question: Why Simplicity?
I have tried this once before, but that attempt was a pretty simplistic one. This time, I will endeavor to spend a little more time and thought on it.
First off, I think we might ought to consider problems of scale. Big, Global, Multinational Corporate solutions to problems cause their own problems and these problems are hard to deal with. Sometimes, impossible, at least it seems. Here are some of Wendell Berry's thoughts on this...
The large agribusiness corporations that were mainly national in 1977 are now global, and are replacing the world’s agricultural diversity, which was useful primarily to farmers and local consumers, with bioengineered and patented monocultures that are merely profitable to corporations. The purpose of this now global economy, as Vandana Shiva has rightly said, is to replace “food democracy” with a worldwide “food dictatorship...”
I believe that this contest between industrialism and agrarianism now defines the most fundamental human difference, for it divides not just two nearly opposite concepts of agriculture and land use, but also two nearly opposite ways of understanding ourselves, our fellow creatures, and our world...
Industrialism prescribes an economy that is placeless and displacing. It does not distinguish one place from another. It applies its methods and technologies indiscriminately in the American East and the American West, in the United States and in India. It thus continues the economy of colonialism. The shift of colonial power from European monarchy to global corporation is perhaps the dominant theme of modern history. All along, it has been the same story of the gathering of an exploitive economic power into the hands of a few people who are alien to the places and the people they exploit. Such an economy is bound to destroy locally adapted agrarian economies everywhere it goes, simply because it is too ignorant not to do so...
The industrial “solution” for such systems is to increase the scale of work and trade. It brings Big Ideas, Big Money, and Big Technology into small rural communities, economies, and ecosystems—the brought-in industry and the experts being invariably alien to and contemptuous of the places to which they are brought in. There is never any question of propriety, of adapting the thought or the purpose or the technology to the place. The result is that problems correctable on a small scale are replaced by large-scale problems for which there are no large-scale corrections. Meanwhile, the large-scale enterprise has reduced or destroyed the possibility of small-scale corrections...
In any consideration of agrarianism, this issue of limitation is critical. Agrarian farmers see, accept, and live within their limits. They understand and agree to the proposition that there is “this much and no more...” This is the understanding that induces thrift, family coherence, neighborliness, local economies. Within accepted limits, these become necessities...
This is exactly opposite to the industrial idea that abundance comes from the violation of limits by personal mobility, extractive machinery, long-distance transport, and scientific or technological breakthroughs. If we use up the good possibilities in this place, we will import goods from some other place, or we will go to some other place. If nature releases her wealth too slowly, we will take it by force. If we make the world too toxic for honeybees, some compound brain, Monsanto perhaps, will invent tiny robots that will fly about pollinating flowers and making honey...
This is from an excellent article at Orion and is well worth reading in full. You can find it here.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sabbath Economics
Part of an ongoing series looking at all the many passages in the Bible that deal with wealth and poverty issues. You can see the links to the other passages in the series under the heading "The Bible and Economics" below or clicking right here.
I began looking at the book of Psalms last year and am still wading through it. Looking today at chapters 74 - 86...
Do not hand over the life of your dove to wild beasts; do not forget the lives of your afflicted people forever.
Have regard for your covenant, because haunts of violence fill the dark places of the land.
Do not let the oppressed retreat in disgrace; may the poor and needy praise your name...
~Psalm 74:19-21
God presides in the great assembly; God renders judgment among the “gods”:
“How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?
Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken."
~Psalm 82:1-5
Hear me, LORD, and answer me, for I am poor and needy.
Guard my life, for I am faithful to you; save your servant who trusts in you.
You are my God; have mercy on me, Lord, for I call to you all day long.
~Psalm 86:1-3
I began looking at the book of Psalms last year and am still wading through it. Looking today at chapters 74 - 86...
Do not hand over the life of your dove to wild beasts; do not forget the lives of your afflicted people forever.
Have regard for your covenant, because haunts of violence fill the dark places of the land.
Do not let the oppressed retreat in disgrace; may the poor and needy praise your name...
~Psalm 74:19-21
God presides in the great assembly; God renders judgment among the “gods”:
“How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?
Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken."
~Psalm 82:1-5
Hear me, LORD, and answer me, for I am poor and needy.
Guard my life, for I am faithful to you; save your servant who trusts in you.
You are my God; have mercy on me, Lord, for I call to you all day long.
~Psalm 86:1-3
Friday, November 12, 2010
Sunset Grass
Although winter is upon me
And the grass is turning brown
The flowers, drying and turning to dust
The earth, settling down for the long winter's death,
I can still find color and warmth and life
If I try
And the grass is turning brown
The flowers, drying and turning to dust
The earth, settling down for the long winter's death,
I can still find color and warmth and life
If I try
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Right Wing Cuts?
So, how come the GOP hasn't solved the world of debt and trouble the Bush administration left us yet? They won the election last week, right? How long do they NEED??
Just kidding.
Looking at what direction Congress might take, I have seen some shots fired at public broadcasting already.
"Washington is borrowing 37 cents of every dollar it spends from our kids and grandkids. Given that, I think it's reasonable to ask why Congress is spending taxpayers' money to support a left-wing radio network — and in the wake of Juan Williams' firing, it's clearer than ever that's what NPR is."
"We need to face facts — our government is broke," Boehner added.
With a $13.6 trillion national debt, and the Obama Administration proposing to raise it by approximately $1.06 trillion every year for the next ten years, ALG's Wilson is emphatic about getting the nation's balance sheet in order. He believes public broadcasting is the right place to start.
"If Congress cannot cut public broadcasting when we must balance the budget, it cannot cut anything," Wilson said...
I've said it before and will say it again: They'd be more believable about wanting smaller gov't if they were talking about across the board cuts and not ones they perceive to be "liberal" programs. When a conservative/libertarian comes out supporting slashing our bloated military budget (~$1 trillion a year), NASA, auto and oil industry funding, roadbuilding funding, things of this nature, THEN I will believe that they are genuinely concerned about gov't spending in public broadcasting (~$30 million a year).
Until then, it's hard to take them seriously.
Just kidding.
Looking at what direction Congress might take, I have seen some shots fired at public broadcasting already.
"Washington is borrowing 37 cents of every dollar it spends from our kids and grandkids. Given that, I think it's reasonable to ask why Congress is spending taxpayers' money to support a left-wing radio network — and in the wake of Juan Williams' firing, it's clearer than ever that's what NPR is."
"We need to face facts — our government is broke," Boehner added.
With a $13.6 trillion national debt, and the Obama Administration proposing to raise it by approximately $1.06 trillion every year for the next ten years, ALG's Wilson is emphatic about getting the nation's balance sheet in order. He believes public broadcasting is the right place to start.
"If Congress cannot cut public broadcasting when we must balance the budget, it cannot cut anything," Wilson said...
I've said it before and will say it again: They'd be more believable about wanting smaller gov't if they were talking about across the board cuts and not ones they perceive to be "liberal" programs. When a conservative/libertarian comes out supporting slashing our bloated military budget (~$1 trillion a year), NASA, auto and oil industry funding, roadbuilding funding, things of this nature, THEN I will believe that they are genuinely concerned about gov't spending in public broadcasting (~$30 million a year).
Until then, it's hard to take them seriously.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Whatever happens with the elections...
Don't worry. It won't do no good, no how.
There is far more to your life than the food you put in your stomach, more to your outer appearance than the clothes you hang on your body.
Look at the birds, free and unfettered, not tied down to a job description, careless in the care of God. And you count far more to God than birds.
Has anyone by fussing in front of the mirror ever gotten taller by so much as an inch? All this time and money wasted on fashion—do you think it makes that much difference?
Instead of looking at the fashions, walk out into the fields and look at the wildflowers. They never primp or shop, but have you ever seen color and design quite like it? The ten best-dressed men and women in the country look shabby alongside them.
If God gives such attention to the appearance of wildflowers—most of which are never even seen—don't you think God'll attend to you, take pride in you, do his best for you? What I'm trying to do here is to get you to relax, to not be so preoccupied with getting, so you can respond to God's giving.
People who don't know God and the way God works fuss over these things, but you know both God and how God works. Steep your life in God-reality, God-initiative, God-provisions. Don't worry about missing out. You'll find all your everyday human concerns will be met.
Give your entire attention to what God is doing right now, and don't get worked up about what may or may not happen tomorrow. God will help you deal with whatever hard things come up when the time comes.
~Jesus
There is far more to your life than the food you put in your stomach, more to your outer appearance than the clothes you hang on your body.
Look at the birds, free and unfettered, not tied down to a job description, careless in the care of God. And you count far more to God than birds.
Has anyone by fussing in front of the mirror ever gotten taller by so much as an inch? All this time and money wasted on fashion—do you think it makes that much difference?
Instead of looking at the fashions, walk out into the fields and look at the wildflowers. They never primp or shop, but have you ever seen color and design quite like it? The ten best-dressed men and women in the country look shabby alongside them.
If God gives such attention to the appearance of wildflowers—most of which are never even seen—don't you think God'll attend to you, take pride in you, do his best for you? What I'm trying to do here is to get you to relax, to not be so preoccupied with getting, so you can respond to God's giving.
People who don't know God and the way God works fuss over these things, but you know both God and how God works. Steep your life in God-reality, God-initiative, God-provisions. Don't worry about missing out. You'll find all your everyday human concerns will be met.
Give your entire attention to what God is doing right now, and don't get worked up about what may or may not happen tomorrow. God will help you deal with whatever hard things come up when the time comes.
~Jesus
Monday, October 25, 2010
Labels...
As many of you know (or have experienced yourselves), many blogs who self-identify as more conservative will ban or screen the comments of many whom they consider "too liberal." And it's their blog, they can do as they want no matter how cowardly or lacking in intellectual honesty that might seem to others of us. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure they do so because they don't want to "pollute" their website with what they consider heretical comments from people they reject as wolves in sheep's clothing.
Their blog, their rules.
Nonetheless, sometimes I find myself wanting to respond to such folk and that's what I'm doing today. I'll leave names out to protect their privacy and just address their comments which I find problematic.
So, this person recently wrote a blog about "progressives" and what's wrong with their thinking. They said...
the progressive mindset is that the way to do it is to move away from what we are doing to something new, and the conservative mindset is to do what we are doing better...
What, exactly, is "progressive"? Well, the term refers to the idea of continual improvement. The concept is one of making things better. That, of course, is somewhat misleading when it comes to "conservative" versus "liberal" because the conservative notion is that by moving back we can make things better -- progress. The idea there is that by returning to what works, things will get better. "Progressive", then, can be misleading on its own.
And therein lies the problem, at least for me. Today's progressives have in mind the idea of "progress", of moving forward to make things better, as if movement alone is good.
The problem is, of course, that "progressives" don't want to move away from anything we're currently doing to something different for the sake of doing something different. Progressives don't want to "move forward" and just blindly trust that "moving forward" will result in a moral good.
"Progressives" want to see something that works. If an old Salvation Army program works and helps, then of course progressives support this. If a new school based Family Resource Center helps, then we support that.
Progressives (not unlike good conservatives) want to see something that works in the real world. I would not denigrate a conservative program or agenda simply because it is conservative, IF it was being effective. Heck, I probably wouldn't denigrate it even if it wasn't being effective, as long as it wasn't doing harm and was a private effort.
So, if some conservatives want to have, for instance, a prison ministry program and the result is convicts having some peace of mind and some comfort in their time of trial, then God bless whoever has done that work. I don't care if they're "conservatives" trying to save the prisoner's souls or if they're "progressives" trying to decrease recidivism. Good on folk trying to make a positive difference.
In the real world, if we set politics aside (and quit making goofy assumptions about what "those evil conservatives" or "those socialist progressives" think), we could agree on a lot, since we all have some similar starting points. We ALL want to see children warm and fed, what can we agree to work on to help meet that common goal?
Don't start with the assumption that it's "us vs them" and you won't find so much to disagree with. That would be my suggestion. Also, you don't come across as stupid for making asinine suggestions about strawman boogermen who mostly don't exist in the real world.
Their blog, their rules.
Nonetheless, sometimes I find myself wanting to respond to such folk and that's what I'm doing today. I'll leave names out to protect their privacy and just address their comments which I find problematic.
So, this person recently wrote a blog about "progressives" and what's wrong with their thinking. They said...
the progressive mindset is that the way to do it is to move away from what we are doing to something new, and the conservative mindset is to do what we are doing better...
What, exactly, is "progressive"? Well, the term refers to the idea of continual improvement. The concept is one of making things better. That, of course, is somewhat misleading when it comes to "conservative" versus "liberal" because the conservative notion is that by moving back we can make things better -- progress. The idea there is that by returning to what works, things will get better. "Progressive", then, can be misleading on its own.
And therein lies the problem, at least for me. Today's progressives have in mind the idea of "progress", of moving forward to make things better, as if movement alone is good.
The problem is, of course, that "progressives" don't want to move away from anything we're currently doing to something different for the sake of doing something different. Progressives don't want to "move forward" and just blindly trust that "moving forward" will result in a moral good.
"Progressives" want to see something that works. If an old Salvation Army program works and helps, then of course progressives support this. If a new school based Family Resource Center helps, then we support that.
Progressives (not unlike good conservatives) want to see something that works in the real world. I would not denigrate a conservative program or agenda simply because it is conservative, IF it was being effective. Heck, I probably wouldn't denigrate it even if it wasn't being effective, as long as it wasn't doing harm and was a private effort.
So, if some conservatives want to have, for instance, a prison ministry program and the result is convicts having some peace of mind and some comfort in their time of trial, then God bless whoever has done that work. I don't care if they're "conservatives" trying to save the prisoner's souls or if they're "progressives" trying to decrease recidivism. Good on folk trying to make a positive difference.
In the real world, if we set politics aside (and quit making goofy assumptions about what "those evil conservatives" or "those socialist progressives" think), we could agree on a lot, since we all have some similar starting points. We ALL want to see children warm and fed, what can we agree to work on to help meet that common goal?
Don't start with the assumption that it's "us vs them" and you won't find so much to disagree with. That would be my suggestion. Also, you don't come across as stupid for making asinine suggestions about strawman boogermen who mostly don't exist in the real world.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Grace
Our conservative friend, Craig, made some comments about some of my comments at another blog. This is a blog that picks and chooses which of my comments to post and so, I have been left unable to address Craig's questions/comments. So, I've brought them over here.
I do so because Craig holds a misunderstanding of my positions and so, this is my attempt to clarify. These comments were generally on the topic of grace and when ought we be more confronting of Christians with whom we disagree and when we should "live and let live" on disagreements.
Craig said...
This is not the first time I have seen Dan play the "what if someone doesn't know something is a sin" card.
No "card" intended to be played. Just a reasonable question. The question (in my understanding) is "What if we have researched a behavior, we've prayerfully and carefully sought God's will, reading the Bible, taking into consideration others' view points and tradition and being open to the leading of God, and, at the end of that, we have decided that this behavior is NOT sinful?
What, then, if we discover upon "Judgment Day" that this action actually WAS a sin? Are we doomed because we were sincerely mistaken on a sin?"
My position has been that we are saved by God's grace. If, therefore, we are mistaken on a point, then we are STILL saved by God's grace. If we "lose" our salvation by being mistaken about a sin, then it is not grace which saves us, but works.
So it seems to me to be an entirely reasonable question and, further, I believe I come down on the side of Christian orthodoxy. I don't believe you, Craig, come down against grace on this point, do you?
Craig...
Well, one of the scriptures for this morning was from Ecclesiastes 12, where we find this.
"...Fear God and keep His commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man. "
My question is this, why would the prophet (who is presumably speaking for God) command people to do something that (if we accept Dan's premise) is impossible?
We OUGHT to strive to keep God's commandments, as best we understand them. BUT, we won't always perfectly understand everything.
Do you think, Craig, that the Bible teaches we will and do have a "perfect understanding" on each and every action/potential sin? That would seem to be an extraordinary position to hold.
Craig...
How can we "keep His commandments", if there is doubt or ambiguity aver what those commandments are?
As best we can, by God's grace, right?
Craig...
It does seem that God has made His commands pretty clear, and that we are called to obey them. I guess where it gets cloudy is when we interpose our interpretation (think Jewish law) over God's commands. I still don't think God would command us to do obey a command that cannot be discerned as in Dan's example.
We all do. Those things that we think we understand about God, we think are pretty clear. But from one person to the next, in the details, we don't always agree.
Craig...
Dan has argued in the past that simply not knowing whether something is a sin is sufficient for one to not be accountable for the sin. I think most of the rest of us would disagree...
Dan has argued that when, due to our own human shortcomings, we don't always know the "sin nature" of each and every action and we sin unaware, that God's grace covers our lack of perfect understanding.
Is it the case that you think we will have perfect understanding?
Do you not think that God's grace covers our lack of perfect understanding?
Craig quoted me and continued...
"That's my point - we ALL have many many opinions about what is and isn't greedy, what is and isn't sexually appropriate, what is and isn't sin."
This isn't the best example of Dan's contention, but it makes my point. As long as our opinion of what is sin is the controlling factor then one can do what one wishes. Even if one has arrived at that position by study of scripture and prayer. My counter to that would be God defines sin, and God will judge us based on His definition, not ours. So even if we "don't know" that lying is a sin, we still sin when we lie.
1. ? Our opinion of what is sin IS the controlling factor (for us) in what we do. IF we study, pray and contemplate over an action and prayerfully/carefully reach the conclusion that X is a sin, that dictates to us (in our better moments) how we should behave.
If our opinion isn't the controlling factor in how you behave, what is?
2. Before you say, "The Bible," first acknowledge that if you read a passage and reach THE OPINION that it condemns behavior X, you are still talking about your opinion of biblical teaching. Yes, yes, God is who we believers look to in order to try to find God's will, but we ultimately are relying upon our opinions, our thoughts about what is and isn't right.
3. I don't know that that's the best way to put it, "God defines sin." Sin is. It's that which breaks relationships, it's the missing of the mark, it's the rejection of God's way in favor of our way. But perhaps that's just semantics.
4. Yes, yes, of course if we lie without knowing that lying is a sin, it remains a sin. I never said otherwise.
All I have said is that IF we sin in ignorance, then God's grace covers our ignorance.
Do you disagree?
I do so because Craig holds a misunderstanding of my positions and so, this is my attempt to clarify. These comments were generally on the topic of grace and when ought we be more confronting of Christians with whom we disagree and when we should "live and let live" on disagreements.
Craig said...
This is not the first time I have seen Dan play the "what if someone doesn't know something is a sin" card.
No "card" intended to be played. Just a reasonable question. The question (in my understanding) is "What if we have researched a behavior, we've prayerfully and carefully sought God's will, reading the Bible, taking into consideration others' view points and tradition and being open to the leading of God, and, at the end of that, we have decided that this behavior is NOT sinful?
What, then, if we discover upon "Judgment Day" that this action actually WAS a sin? Are we doomed because we were sincerely mistaken on a sin?"
My position has been that we are saved by God's grace. If, therefore, we are mistaken on a point, then we are STILL saved by God's grace. If we "lose" our salvation by being mistaken about a sin, then it is not grace which saves us, but works.
So it seems to me to be an entirely reasonable question and, further, I believe I come down on the side of Christian orthodoxy. I don't believe you, Craig, come down against grace on this point, do you?
Craig...
Well, one of the scriptures for this morning was from Ecclesiastes 12, where we find this.
"...Fear God and keep His commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man. "
My question is this, why would the prophet (who is presumably speaking for God) command people to do something that (if we accept Dan's premise) is impossible?
We OUGHT to strive to keep God's commandments, as best we understand them. BUT, we won't always perfectly understand everything.
Do you think, Craig, that the Bible teaches we will and do have a "perfect understanding" on each and every action/potential sin? That would seem to be an extraordinary position to hold.
Craig...
How can we "keep His commandments", if there is doubt or ambiguity aver what those commandments are?
As best we can, by God's grace, right?
Craig...
It does seem that God has made His commands pretty clear, and that we are called to obey them. I guess where it gets cloudy is when we interpose our interpretation (think Jewish law) over God's commands. I still don't think God would command us to do obey a command that cannot be discerned as in Dan's example.
We all do. Those things that we think we understand about God, we think are pretty clear. But from one person to the next, in the details, we don't always agree.
Craig...
Dan has argued in the past that simply not knowing whether something is a sin is sufficient for one to not be accountable for the sin. I think most of the rest of us would disagree...
Dan has argued that when, due to our own human shortcomings, we don't always know the "sin nature" of each and every action and we sin unaware, that God's grace covers our lack of perfect understanding.
Is it the case that you think we will have perfect understanding?
Do you not think that God's grace covers our lack of perfect understanding?
Craig quoted me and continued...
"That's my point - we ALL have many many opinions about what is and isn't greedy, what is and isn't sexually appropriate, what is and isn't sin."
This isn't the best example of Dan's contention, but it makes my point. As long as our opinion of what is sin is the controlling factor then one can do what one wishes. Even if one has arrived at that position by study of scripture and prayer. My counter to that would be God defines sin, and God will judge us based on His definition, not ours. So even if we "don't know" that lying is a sin, we still sin when we lie.
1. ? Our opinion of what is sin IS the controlling factor (for us) in what we do. IF we study, pray and contemplate over an action and prayerfully/carefully reach the conclusion that X is a sin, that dictates to us (in our better moments) how we should behave.
If our opinion isn't the controlling factor in how you behave, what is?
2. Before you say, "The Bible," first acknowledge that if you read a passage and reach THE OPINION that it condemns behavior X, you are still talking about your opinion of biblical teaching. Yes, yes, God is who we believers look to in order to try to find God's will, but we ultimately are relying upon our opinions, our thoughts about what is and isn't right.
3. I don't know that that's the best way to put it, "God defines sin." Sin is. It's that which breaks relationships, it's the missing of the mark, it's the rejection of God's way in favor of our way. But perhaps that's just semantics.
4. Yes, yes, of course if we lie without knowing that lying is a sin, it remains a sin. I never said otherwise.
All I have said is that IF we sin in ignorance, then God's grace covers our ignorance.
Do you disagree?
Friday, October 15, 2010
Cross posted at my church blog
Excerpts from a recent sermon at Jeff St by our dear sister, Karen...
...My professor and friend Roberta Bondi says: when it comes to prayer, the most important thing is to show up. But it's not as easy as it might sound, is it? Many of us would much prefer to have a shiny, cleaned-up version of our selves to present to God (and other church types).
The challenge then, is indeed, to show up as we are, to try to be as real as we can, as honest as we can be about who we are and be those true selves before God, however, whoever, we understand God to be – being as honest as we can there, too. There's a whole lot of ambiguity therein, requiring all manner of muddling, I think.
One thing I love about this church is that it is a place that gives us permission to show up and muddle through together with brothers and sisters, which is what we are doing this morning.
I chose the Prodigal Son as our gospel reading today, because it was already on my mind...
You know what prodigal really means, right? It means “excessive, lavish, extravagant”. And we attach this adjective with derision to the lost son. But the most prodigal character in this story is not that younger brother, you know, but, rather, the father.
If the son breaks the norms of society in acting prodigally, the father shatters those norms by his own prodigal behavior: his extravagant forgiveness, his lavish love, his excessive grace.. His son who has shamed him and the entire family should be dead to him. His honor, that commodity which was all-important socially, had been offended.
But the father who should have been nursing his wounded pride, was, instead, waiting and watching for the return of his son – like a Mama who cannot forget her baby... So when his boy finally did show up on the horizon, though he was still a long way off, Jesus says, this father spotted his son – even with that cataract in his left eye he knew his boy's walk, and, abandoning all pretense of dignity, he ran, yes ran (which dignified men did NOT do) he ran like a crazy old woman, kicking up enough dust to get his pristine white jellaba dirty, he RAN to meet his son and wrapped him in his arms.
By the time we get to the end of the story, we are not surprised to find that the Father's lavish, extravagant, embarassingly motherly prodigal love extends to his other son as well – the one who feels no need for grace, who doesn't realize that he needs forgiveness in his life, who doesn't realize how much is broken and unwell in his soul or in his family because he has worked so blastedly hard to keep things together on the farm that, by God, things better be in order or there'll be hell to pay in the morning. We see that the father does not condemn the older son for his hardness of heart any more than he condemned the younger one for his wantonness.
Rather, the father invites them both into the joy of relationship with him as his beloved children, bound together by a healing, “wholing” flow of grace.
The sparse language of the two sons in the parable makes the words they say telling. The younger son believes he is not worthy to be a son, and so will ask to simply be a servant/a slave – doulos (same word in Greek).
The older son spitefully reminds his father that he has worked like a slave for him all these years which ought to be worth something. But the father makes it plain to both of them that he does not want slaves, worthy or unworthy of their keep. He wants his own beloved children, just as they are, to show up, to come back to him, to join him in the circle of love and joy that is their true birthright as family...
To choose sonship, daughtership, our heritage of belovedness, is to let ourselves be caught up in the flow of God's prodigal love, to go with the flow, and trust it to keep flowing. And in the life of Jesus, we are invited to trust that the flow of grace will indeed keep on saving us from ourselves, that nothing will stop it – not even bony death.
For God is not some remote man upstairs who might quietly slip away and abandon us, but the Mother/Father who doesn't just promise to show up if we'll show up, but runs to meet us at every turn. In life, in death, and beyond death. Our loving God pours out forgiveness and grace upon our every breath, our every atom of being. God washes us with saving grace, and promises to hold us in love for eternity.
...My professor and friend Roberta Bondi says: when it comes to prayer, the most important thing is to show up. But it's not as easy as it might sound, is it? Many of us would much prefer to have a shiny, cleaned-up version of our selves to present to God (and other church types).
The challenge then, is indeed, to show up as we are, to try to be as real as we can, as honest as we can be about who we are and be those true selves before God, however, whoever, we understand God to be – being as honest as we can there, too. There's a whole lot of ambiguity therein, requiring all manner of muddling, I think.
One thing I love about this church is that it is a place that gives us permission to show up and muddle through together with brothers and sisters, which is what we are doing this morning.
I chose the Prodigal Son as our gospel reading today, because it was already on my mind...
You know what prodigal really means, right? It means “excessive, lavish, extravagant”. And we attach this adjective with derision to the lost son. But the most prodigal character in this story is not that younger brother, you know, but, rather, the father.
If the son breaks the norms of society in acting prodigally, the father shatters those norms by his own prodigal behavior: his extravagant forgiveness, his lavish love, his excessive grace.. His son who has shamed him and the entire family should be dead to him. His honor, that commodity which was all-important socially, had been offended.
But the father who should have been nursing his wounded pride, was, instead, waiting and watching for the return of his son – like a Mama who cannot forget her baby... So when his boy finally did show up on the horizon, though he was still a long way off, Jesus says, this father spotted his son – even with that cataract in his left eye he knew his boy's walk, and, abandoning all pretense of dignity, he ran, yes ran (which dignified men did NOT do) he ran like a crazy old woman, kicking up enough dust to get his pristine white jellaba dirty, he RAN to meet his son and wrapped him in his arms.
By the time we get to the end of the story, we are not surprised to find that the Father's lavish, extravagant, embarassingly motherly prodigal love extends to his other son as well – the one who feels no need for grace, who doesn't realize that he needs forgiveness in his life, who doesn't realize how much is broken and unwell in his soul or in his family because he has worked so blastedly hard to keep things together on the farm that, by God, things better be in order or there'll be hell to pay in the morning. We see that the father does not condemn the older son for his hardness of heart any more than he condemned the younger one for his wantonness.
Rather, the father invites them both into the joy of relationship with him as his beloved children, bound together by a healing, “wholing” flow of grace.
The sparse language of the two sons in the parable makes the words they say telling. The younger son believes he is not worthy to be a son, and so will ask to simply be a servant/a slave – doulos (same word in Greek).
The older son spitefully reminds his father that he has worked like a slave for him all these years which ought to be worth something. But the father makes it plain to both of them that he does not want slaves, worthy or unworthy of their keep. He wants his own beloved children, just as they are, to show up, to come back to him, to join him in the circle of love and joy that is their true birthright as family...
To choose sonship, daughtership, our heritage of belovedness, is to let ourselves be caught up in the flow of God's prodigal love, to go with the flow, and trust it to keep flowing. And in the life of Jesus, we are invited to trust that the flow of grace will indeed keep on saving us from ourselves, that nothing will stop it – not even bony death.
For God is not some remote man upstairs who might quietly slip away and abandon us, but the Mother/Father who doesn't just promise to show up if we'll show up, but runs to meet us at every turn. In life, in death, and beyond death. Our loving God pours out forgiveness and grace upon our every breath, our every atom of being. God washes us with saving grace, and promises to hold us in love for eternity.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Autumn
I sometimes practice walking
without making noise
through a leaf-carpeted ground
and find I cannot.
I cannot walk silently.
Quiet but not silent,
soft but not missing,
and I wonder if that's enough.
without making noise
through a leaf-carpeted ground
and find I cannot.
I cannot walk silently.
Quiet but not silent,
soft but not missing,
and I wonder if that's enough.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
My New Hero
My new hero is Chris Armstrong. Armstrong is the college kid who has been targeted for harassment by an Assistant District Attorney in Michigan. Turns out this jerk, named Shirvell (my new favorite creep) doesn't approve of Armstrong being the student body president at his alma mater because Armstrong is gay and is pushing "a radical gay agenda." Whatever that is.
And, with that excuse, Shirvell has gone on a one-man crusade against this college kid. He's established a "Chris Armstrong Watch" blog, where he rants against this young man, calling his a racist and a liar. He's posted swastikas on photos of Armstrong, suggesting he's a Nazi. He's protested outside student council meetings and outside Armstrong's residence!!
Armstrong, for his part, appears to have dealt with this creep with as much dignity as possible, ignoring him for the most part, it sounds like.
Armstrong spoke about this on CNN last night...
Chris Armstrong, the University of Michigan's first openly gay student body president, said the recent rash of headlines about gay teens who have committed suicide led him to break his silence about his own hurtful experience of being targeted online and in high school.
"It's hard not to say something," Armstrong told CNN's Anderson Cooper on "AC360" Wednesday night.
Shirvell is a disgrace and I can only wonder how long before his life self-destructs.
God be with you, Chris Armstrong.
And, with that excuse, Shirvell has gone on a one-man crusade against this college kid. He's established a "Chris Armstrong Watch" blog, where he rants against this young man, calling his a racist and a liar. He's posted swastikas on photos of Armstrong, suggesting he's a Nazi. He's protested outside student council meetings and outside Armstrong's residence!!
Armstrong, for his part, appears to have dealt with this creep with as much dignity as possible, ignoring him for the most part, it sounds like.
Armstrong spoke about this on CNN last night...
Chris Armstrong, the University of Michigan's first openly gay student body president, said the recent rash of headlines about gay teens who have committed suicide led him to break his silence about his own hurtful experience of being targeted online and in high school.
"It's hard not to say something," Armstrong told CNN's Anderson Cooper on "AC360" Wednesday night.
Shirvell is a disgrace and I can only wonder how long before his life self-destructs.
God be with you, Chris Armstrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)