Context
As I was crossing the street today, I saw a man on the other side waving his arms around. Then he got down into what looked like a racer's crouch.
Commentary
These were my thoughts, in chronological order:
Wow, he's acting strangely!
Is he mentally ill?
Is he dangerous?
Should I avoid crossing the street toward him?
Is that a runner's crouch?
Looks pretty funny with a cigarette in his hand.
I think I'll ask him if he's racing for the light when I pass him.
If that was someone I knew, I would think he was clowning, not crazy.
He looks kind of distracted, I guess I won't ask him about the crouch after all.
I don't know which thought I'm supposed to take away from the experience, "humor humanizes everything," or "what looks distressing in a stranger is just intriguing in someone you know."
What did you see today?
1/15/2006
I saw that everyone needs God’s Word, just in different ways.
Context
I’m reading the Gospel of Luke these days for a couple of reasons. One of them is, given the fact that Luke was a physician, it can be argued that Luke is the gospel for smart people. John could probably give Luke a run for his money, but he’s not who I’m reading right now.
When Luke talks about the devil’s first temptation, he only quotes Jesus as saying, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’” Luke 4:4 NRSV. For you Matthew fans out there, that means Luke skips the part about “but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Matthew 4:4b NRSV.
Even though I'm a member of the Religious Society of Friends, I teach Sunday School at my husband’s church, First Evangelical Lutheran. I missed Friends’ worship yesterday, so I decided to attend worship at First as well.
Commentary
I’m wondering if the reason Luke doesn’t include the “every word that comes from the mouth of God” part is because he expects a smart person to figure out what else we need to live. I already know the Matthian version of the story, so I don’t have to figure it out if I don’t want to, but sometimes it’s interesting to work with a passage of the Bible to see if you come to the same conclusion the writers did.
As a person who’s concerned about poverty (not that I do much about it, but I am concerned), the “man does not live by bread alone” idea troubles me. When it comes to missionary work, it seems to me that you need to feed people before you can preach the gospel. And yet, I don't behave as if that's true. My strongest missionary support goes to Lutheran Bible Translators. Partly that’s because my husband and I have a personal connection to one of the families working in Botswana, the Megahans. I don’t think that’s everything, though. Part of me just can’t help but think that no matter how bad off you are materially, your life will be better if you can experience the Bible in your native tongue.
My experience at First today led me to believe that definition of “native tongue” can be stretched pretty far. When I want to be, I can be a pretty focused person. Twice today, I was reading or considering material for future Sunday School classes and people interrupted me. In both cases, the people in question didn’t just say, “hi!”; they made it seem that it was odd for me to be concentrating so hard. I was annoyed; I don’t come to church to be social (I don’t do much of anything to be social); I come to church to learn and teach the Word of God. I started thinking, “maybe that’s what Luke’s talking about. Besides bread, I need the Word of God. These ladies need fellowship.”
But what if fellowship is these ladies “native tongue?” Can fellowship teach us the Word of God? Do we need to share with each other what God is doing in our lives and what we wish God would do? If not, why do I have this blog, anyway?
One more story: as I was thinking about these matters after the worship service had ended, a little girl I know walked around the corner looking upset. When I asked why, she said she was sad because she didn’t get to take anything home from church. I won’t get into the long story of why she thought she should get something to take home every week, as I’m not sure I understand it myself. Anyway, after a while I handed her my bulletin, and told her, “I get to take one of these home every week. It has lots of words in it [the little girl in question can read, but she’s not going to be plowing through the book of Job any time soon], but it also has a picture. That picture will always tell you something about God. In fact, this whole bulletin is about the Word of God. Every week, you can take home the Word of God from church, and no one will tell you ‘no.’” I also told her that she could carry the love of every person in the congregation home with her which, as John will tell you, is a great way of knowing the Word of God. Hey, maybe his is the gospel for smart people!
I’m reading the Gospel of Luke these days for a couple of reasons. One of them is, given the fact that Luke was a physician, it can be argued that Luke is the gospel for smart people. John could probably give Luke a run for his money, but he’s not who I’m reading right now.
When Luke talks about the devil’s first temptation, he only quotes Jesus as saying, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’” Luke 4:4 NRSV. For you Matthew fans out there, that means Luke skips the part about “but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Matthew 4:4b NRSV.
Even though I'm a member of the Religious Society of Friends, I teach Sunday School at my husband’s church, First Evangelical Lutheran. I missed Friends’ worship yesterday, so I decided to attend worship at First as well.
Commentary
I’m wondering if the reason Luke doesn’t include the “every word that comes from the mouth of God” part is because he expects a smart person to figure out what else we need to live. I already know the Matthian version of the story, so I don’t have to figure it out if I don’t want to, but sometimes it’s interesting to work with a passage of the Bible to see if you come to the same conclusion the writers did.
As a person who’s concerned about poverty (not that I do much about it, but I am concerned), the “man does not live by bread alone” idea troubles me. When it comes to missionary work, it seems to me that you need to feed people before you can preach the gospel. And yet, I don't behave as if that's true. My strongest missionary support goes to Lutheran Bible Translators. Partly that’s because my husband and I have a personal connection to one of the families working in Botswana, the Megahans. I don’t think that’s everything, though. Part of me just can’t help but think that no matter how bad off you are materially, your life will be better if you can experience the Bible in your native tongue.
My experience at First today led me to believe that definition of “native tongue” can be stretched pretty far. When I want to be, I can be a pretty focused person. Twice today, I was reading or considering material for future Sunday School classes and people interrupted me. In both cases, the people in question didn’t just say, “hi!”; they made it seem that it was odd for me to be concentrating so hard. I was annoyed; I don’t come to church to be social (I don’t do much of anything to be social); I come to church to learn and teach the Word of God. I started thinking, “maybe that’s what Luke’s talking about. Besides bread, I need the Word of God. These ladies need fellowship.”
But what if fellowship is these ladies “native tongue?” Can fellowship teach us the Word of God? Do we need to share with each other what God is doing in our lives and what we wish God would do? If not, why do I have this blog, anyway?
One more story: as I was thinking about these matters after the worship service had ended, a little girl I know walked around the corner looking upset. When I asked why, she said she was sad because she didn’t get to take anything home from church. I won’t get into the long story of why she thought she should get something to take home every week, as I’m not sure I understand it myself. Anyway, after a while I handed her my bulletin, and told her, “I get to take one of these home every week. It has lots of words in it [the little girl in question can read, but she’s not going to be plowing through the book of Job any time soon], but it also has a picture. That picture will always tell you something about God. In fact, this whole bulletin is about the Word of God. Every week, you can take home the Word of God from church, and no one will tell you ‘no.’” I also told her that she could carry the love of every person in the congregation home with her which, as John will tell you, is a great way of knowing the Word of God. Hey, maybe his is the gospel for smart people!
1/08/2006
I saw an interesting definition of terrorism.
Context
I'm reading Vengeance, by George Jonas. It's the book that inspired the movie Munich. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I want to. Anyway, Jonas gives this definition of terrorism, which he got from the 1979 Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism: the deliberate, systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear in order to gain political ends.
Commentary
You know, I think that's a definition of terrorism everyone can agree with except, of course, terrorists. In my experience, no one ever deliberately murders innocents. If I decide you should die, I don't consider you innocent. From what I understand of al Qaeda, the adherents believe in two classes of people: those who don't follow their religion, which makes them enemy combatants, and those who do, which makes them fellow combatants. Cute trick, huh? No innocents, because everyone's involved.
The Jordanian response to a hotel bombing in their country indicates that some people have decided they are innocent, and do not want to be involved. If enough people in the Middle East start to feel this way, al Qaeda loses a big chunk of its recruiting pool, which would make many of us unwilling enemy combatants very happy.
Americans might be tempted to feel morally superior at this point. "Jordanians only started caring about this war when their own people got hurt!" Not so fast there, Sparky. Many people who might have been considered innocent were killed in the Vietnam war, a la "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," and certainly there were plenty of people protesting those kinds of actions. However, the tide didn't really turn against our involvement until the shootings at Kent State. You know, "our own people."
The situations are not completely parallel by any means. But I think they have one aspect in common: they were both eye-openers.
What did you see today?
I'm reading Vengeance, by George Jonas. It's the book that inspired the movie Munich. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I want to. Anyway, Jonas gives this definition of terrorism, which he got from the 1979 Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism: the deliberate, systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear in order to gain political ends.
Commentary
You know, I think that's a definition of terrorism everyone can agree with except, of course, terrorists. In my experience, no one ever deliberately murders innocents. If I decide you should die, I don't consider you innocent. From what I understand of al Qaeda, the adherents believe in two classes of people: those who don't follow their religion, which makes them enemy combatants, and those who do, which makes them fellow combatants. Cute trick, huh? No innocents, because everyone's involved.
The Jordanian response to a hotel bombing in their country indicates that some people have decided they are innocent, and do not want to be involved. If enough people in the Middle East start to feel this way, al Qaeda loses a big chunk of its recruiting pool, which would make many of us unwilling enemy combatants very happy.
Americans might be tempted to feel morally superior at this point. "Jordanians only started caring about this war when their own people got hurt!" Not so fast there, Sparky. Many people who might have been considered innocent were killed in the Vietnam war, a la "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," and certainly there were plenty of people protesting those kinds of actions. However, the tide didn't really turn against our involvement until the shootings at Kent State. You know, "our own people."
The situations are not completely parallel by any means. But I think they have one aspect in common: they were both eye-openers.
What did you see today?
1/07/2006
I saw myself.
Context
Caddo Area Preparatory Friends Meeting meets Saturdays from 10:00 to noon at the Miller County Senior Citizens Center, 1007 Jefferson Avenue, Texarkana, Arkansas (y'all come!). Somebody mentioned something in vocal ministry today (this link gives a general description of Quaker worship, vocal ministry is part of it) that made me think that God most clearly expresses who He is by what He creates. Then I thought, "people express themselves most clearly that way as well." So I started looking at the things I create in order to see who I am.
Commentary
I do not consider the Bible the only, or sometimes even the best, source of knowledge about God. When I was a little girl I read a book produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses called Listening to the Great Teacher which had a justification for believing in God that has stuck with me. It went along these lines: some people don't believe in God because they can't see Him. You can't see the wind, either, but you see what it does. You can be sure God exists because you can see what He does. From my perspective, what God does best is create. Fiction stories that equate good with creation and evil with destruction, like Stephen King's The Stand, resonate with me. So when I want clues as to what God is like, I look at His creation. When I want to know what He wants me to do, I look at the Bible.
I am not an artistic person (shout out to my sister: what is that, a flying peanut?). So sometimes I don't think of myself as being creative either, but that's not true; I create all kinds of things. I create this blog. I create my work. I create my home and about 1/2 of my marriage. I even create the look I have when I choose what clothing to put on. All of these say something about me. The fact that I'm employed at an IT job and still use the most generic possible blog template speaks volumes about me.
Today I spent some time looking at the things I create and seeing what they express about me. I wasn't doing this to make sure I was making a good impression; I just thought it was a good way to learn more about myself.
What did you see today?
Caddo Area Preparatory Friends Meeting meets Saturdays from 10:00 to noon at the Miller County Senior Citizens Center, 1007 Jefferson Avenue, Texarkana, Arkansas (y'all come!). Somebody mentioned something in vocal ministry today (this link gives a general description of Quaker worship, vocal ministry is part of it) that made me think that God most clearly expresses who He is by what He creates. Then I thought, "people express themselves most clearly that way as well." So I started looking at the things I create in order to see who I am.
Commentary
I do not consider the Bible the only, or sometimes even the best, source of knowledge about God. When I was a little girl I read a book produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses called Listening to the Great Teacher which had a justification for believing in God that has stuck with me. It went along these lines: some people don't believe in God because they can't see Him. You can't see the wind, either, but you see what it does. You can be sure God exists because you can see what He does. From my perspective, what God does best is create. Fiction stories that equate good with creation and evil with destruction, like Stephen King's The Stand, resonate with me. So when I want clues as to what God is like, I look at His creation. When I want to know what He wants me to do, I look at the Bible.
I am not an artistic person (shout out to my sister: what is that, a flying peanut?). So sometimes I don't think of myself as being creative either, but that's not true; I create all kinds of things. I create this blog. I create my work. I create my home and about 1/2 of my marriage. I even create the look I have when I choose what clothing to put on. All of these say something about me. The fact that I'm employed at an IT job and still use the most generic possible blog template speaks volumes about me.
Today I spent some time looking at the things I create and seeing what they express about me. I wasn't doing this to make sure I was making a good impression; I just thought it was a good way to learn more about myself.
What did you see today?
1/06/2006
I saw that reality isn't as bad as my imagination.
Context
I disagreed with my boss about something today, and thought she was going to be mad about the disagreement. Turns out she just didn't have the same information I did, and that information caused her to change her mind. Duh!
Commentary
My title looks strange to me. I think of people most often saying, "xyz wasn't nearly as good as I anticipated it would be." I don't usually imagine good things; I imagine bad things.
I don't think this makes me a pessimist. I don't actually believe the worst possible thing will happen, I just prepare for it. Unfortunately, "prepare" sometimes means running through a veritable smorgasbord of stomach-knotting outcomes just so I'll be ready for each one.
I also don't think this makes me a dour person (people who know me well might disagree). In general, situations do not turn out as badly as I expect them to, and I'm constantly pleasantly surprised by that. I'm rarely disappointed by life, and in that respect I think I'm much better off than many people.
For most of my working life, I've held customer-service-oriented jobs. My favorite customer service slogan is, "underpromise; overdeliver." Well, that's what life does with me on a fairly consistent basis.
In a way, this is a meta-entry for my blog. I only discover the superiority of reality over my imagination when I open my eyes. Or, more accurately, when God forces me to open my eyes.
What did you see today?
I disagreed with my boss about something today, and thought she was going to be mad about the disagreement. Turns out she just didn't have the same information I did, and that information caused her to change her mind. Duh!
Commentary
My title looks strange to me. I think of people most often saying, "xyz wasn't nearly as good as I anticipated it would be." I don't usually imagine good things; I imagine bad things.
I don't think this makes me a pessimist. I don't actually believe the worst possible thing will happen, I just prepare for it. Unfortunately, "prepare" sometimes means running through a veritable smorgasbord of stomach-knotting outcomes just so I'll be ready for each one.
I also don't think this makes me a dour person (people who know me well might disagree). In general, situations do not turn out as badly as I expect them to, and I'm constantly pleasantly surprised by that. I'm rarely disappointed by life, and in that respect I think I'm much better off than many people.
For most of my working life, I've held customer-service-oriented jobs. My favorite customer service slogan is, "underpromise; overdeliver." Well, that's what life does with me on a fairly consistent basis.
In a way, this is a meta-entry for my blog. I only discover the superiority of reality over my imagination when I open my eyes. Or, more accurately, when God forces me to open my eyes.
What did you see today?
1/03/2006
I saw a photograph of my sister's haircut.
Context
My sister is planning to start chemotherapy in a few weeks, so she got her hair cut as a preemptive measure and I just received my first photo of her newly-short 'do. By the way, she donated her hair to Locks of Love.
Commentary
She looks different. She looks older. She looks better. That's kind of weird; we're accustomed to think that in middle age older-looking is never better-looking. It's not true though. She looks like a different, more mature, more relaxed person. Better.
I wonder if some other positive changes will come along with this haircut. It's odd to think that something as nerve-wracking as chemotherapy would actually be the door into a new life, but God has a flair for the odd. Especially the "it looks like a bad thing, but it's actually a good thing" kind of odd. Like Good Friday.
What did you see today?
My sister is planning to start chemotherapy in a few weeks, so she got her hair cut as a preemptive measure and I just received my first photo of her newly-short 'do. By the way, she donated her hair to Locks of Love.
Commentary
She looks different. She looks older. She looks better. That's kind of weird; we're accustomed to think that in middle age older-looking is never better-looking. It's not true though. She looks like a different, more mature, more relaxed person. Better.
I wonder if some other positive changes will come along with this haircut. It's odd to think that something as nerve-wracking as chemotherapy would actually be the door into a new life, but God has a flair for the odd. Especially the "it looks like a bad thing, but it's actually a good thing" kind of odd. Like Good Friday.
What did you see today?
1/02/2006
I saw a police car run a red light.
Context
Today is January 2, 2006. It’s a holiday for local and federal government, but I went to the bank and it was open and the library system I work for is also open. The streets of downtown Shreveport were not completely bare, but considerably less trafficked than usual.
Commentary
My adherence to the Quaker testimony of integrity requires me to say that I didn’t actually see the cop run a red light, in that I didn’t see her light. I saw her drive through a crosswalk that had a walk signal. It’s possible the traffic light was malfunctioning.
Traffic violations are a sore point for me, because this seems to be an entire body of law that most people consider optional. “It’s OK to cross against the light. Nobody’s coming anyway.” “Speed limits have a 5-10 mile-per-hour cushion to them.” It would be interesting if we treated other laws the same way. “Bigamy’s illegal, but we only get really upset on the third or fourth wife.” “It’s OK to kill this guy. Nobody’s going to find the body.”
I watch a lot of television. Now that we’re in the Tivo™ era, I can skip the commercials if I want. Sometimes I don’t want to, because I have favorites. All I remember from many commercials are the slogans, not the products, which must drive advertisers crazy. Anyway, one of my favorites was, “just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.” I think the idea behind the ad was a daredevil-type thing, as in “just because you are able to squeeze your body through the railing outside the window doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so.”
I think of it on a more ethical level, as a matter of personal responsibility. Sometimes we are permitted to do things that would normally be considered wrong. Like when there aren’t enough law enforcement resources to punish us for minor infractions. OK, you can do it, but should you?
What about when we’re given the power to break the rules under certain circumstances? After all, we expect police cars to run red lights when they need to get to a crime scene quickly. The officer I saw today, on the other hand, had no lights flashing and looked pretty carefree about life (something I am normally happy to see in law enforcement). Was it OK for her to run the red light? Nobody coming, no harm, no foul? Or is it an abuse of power? Did she just do it because she could?
What did you see today?
Today is January 2, 2006. It’s a holiday for local and federal government, but I went to the bank and it was open and the library system I work for is also open. The streets of downtown Shreveport were not completely bare, but considerably less trafficked than usual.
Commentary
My adherence to the Quaker testimony of integrity requires me to say that I didn’t actually see the cop run a red light, in that I didn’t see her light. I saw her drive through a crosswalk that had a walk signal. It’s possible the traffic light was malfunctioning.
Traffic violations are a sore point for me, because this seems to be an entire body of law that most people consider optional. “It’s OK to cross against the light. Nobody’s coming anyway.” “Speed limits have a 5-10 mile-per-hour cushion to them.” It would be interesting if we treated other laws the same way. “Bigamy’s illegal, but we only get really upset on the third or fourth wife.” “It’s OK to kill this guy. Nobody’s going to find the body.”
I watch a lot of television. Now that we’re in the Tivo™ era, I can skip the commercials if I want. Sometimes I don’t want to, because I have favorites. All I remember from many commercials are the slogans, not the products, which must drive advertisers crazy. Anyway, one of my favorites was, “just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.” I think the idea behind the ad was a daredevil-type thing, as in “just because you are able to squeeze your body through the railing outside the window doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so.”
I think of it on a more ethical level, as a matter of personal responsibility. Sometimes we are permitted to do things that would normally be considered wrong. Like when there aren’t enough law enforcement resources to punish us for minor infractions. OK, you can do it, but should you?
What about when we’re given the power to break the rules under certain circumstances? After all, we expect police cars to run red lights when they need to get to a crime scene quickly. The officer I saw today, on the other hand, had no lights flashing and looked pretty carefree about life (something I am normally happy to see in law enforcement). Was it OK for her to run the red light? Nobody coming, no harm, no foul? Or is it an abuse of power? Did she just do it because she could?
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)