Context
Continuing my reading in Luke, over the past two days I've read two accounts of Jesus performing miracles. The first is the healing of the centurion's slave (Luke 7:1-10 NRSV). The second is the raising of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17 NRSV).
Commentary
When I read the first of these passages, I thought, "man, I've got this Bible reading down!" The story completely supports an idea I've been exploring lately, that we get the God we expect. Like in the dear departed TV show Joan of Arcadia, where God says, "I come off snippy because you understand snippy." The centurion in the Bible story says, "I believe you can heal my slave because of my experience of how power works."
So Jesus heals the slave and praises the centurion for his faith. We get to see the trustworthy God, far more dependable in His dealings with us than vice versa.
But then we have the next story. The widow of Nain is expecting nothing from God. The story doesn't say whether she had any previous knowledge of Jesus' ministry, but I don't think it matters. Aside from the devastating reality of a woman losing her son, a widow without sons was completely without recourse in biblical times. She was, for all intents and purposes, as dead as her son. I doubt she spared a single thought for the man from Nazareth.
He thought about her, though. And raised her son from the dead. This is the God of surprising love. The Giver of unanticipated, sometimes even unwanted gifts.
It cannot be a coincidence (because I don't believe in them) that these stories are right next to each other in the Bible. I think it's important for us to realize that God will fulfill our worthy expectations and blow the others out of the water. He is the Rock that we can build on, but also Lord of all, and subject to no human whim or prediction.
What did you see today?
2/07/2006
I saw a fundraising letter from the AFSC
Context
The AFSC (American Friends Service Committee) is the social action arm of the Religious Society of Friends. I supported the AFSC before I became a Friend myself, but now I'm considerably more ardent about it. However, the latest fundraising letter I received disturbed me in some ways.
Commentary
This is easy; I'll just paste in the contents of the letter I'm sending to the General Secretary of the AFSC.
Mary Ellen McNish
General Secretary
American Friends Service Committee
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1403
Second Month 7, 2006
Dear Mary Ellen:
Your recent fundraising letter contained two passages that raised up concerns in me, one deep and one merely niggling.
The former concerns the passage about water purifiers sent to Iraq, in which you state, “As you consider your renewed support, please understand that for reasons of safety, I cannot always tell you about actions like this. But know, please, that your contribution will bolster our ability to do what is right . . .”
I cannot recall any examples from my Faith and Practice that prioritize “safety” over our testimonies regarding openness in our dealings with others. I believe that if the AFSC is considering an action that it is afraid to reveal to its membership, it should either not take the action or build up enough courage to talk about it and face the consequences. On a related note, it seems disingenuous for you to complain about Pentagon surveillance of the AFSC while still reserving the right to secretly violate federal law.
You could not have known that one of the reasons I joined the Religious Society of Friends was because I find myself unable to place blind faith in other human beings when it comes to faith matters, including pastors or say, wider religious organizations. However, now that I have told you, perhaps you’ll understand that I can’t just “know” that you’ll be exercising proper stewardship over the resources God has given me. One of the great strengths of Friends is our use of everyone’s light for discernment, not just that of a select few.
My other concern is minor, and you wouldn’t even be hearing about it if we hadn’t discussed it in the program part of our meeting last week. I didn’t like your use of the phrase “like-minded people” toward the end of your letter. It implies that there’s a certain group of people, let’s call them “us,” who are trying to change the world for the better. This, in turn, implies that there’s a second group of people (“them”) who are not. I believe the cause of peace is ultimately better served if we use the language of building bridges, not circling the wagons.
Please understand that the only reason I’m writing today is because I am normally so proud of AFSC’s work and the way it represents Friends in the wider world. You spoke about “bedrock principles” in your letter, so I wanted to share some of mine.
Yours in Christ,
Lynn Schlatter
If you're not a Quaker, the language of this letter might sound kind of funny. In spite of, and sometimes because of, the fact that our denomination embraces plain speaking as a religious principle, "Quakerspeak" definitely has some strange elements.
"Second month" is the traditional Quaker way of referring to February. Our founder, George Fox, objected to the fact that days and months were named after figures of mythology. He thought we should call them what they are, the first, second, or whatever month or day. Quaker children tend to go to "First Day School," not "Sunday School."
The passage I quote in the second paragraph pertains to a program whereby the AFSC supplied water purifiers to Iraq in violation of the pre-war trade sanctions. The "cannot tell you about actions like this" was a puzzler to me. I knew they were doing it at the time, although I cannot recall how I knew
A "Faith and Practice" is a Quaker catechism, essentially. Except we don't believe in dogma, so it's more like a collection of things "weighty" Friends have thought might be useful for spiritual growth.
If you don't know what I mean about Pentagon surveillance of the AFSC, here's their take on the issue. I use the term "you" purposefully in that paragraph, as Mary Ellen is one of the people who has gone on record decrying this action.
Actually, a great deal of this letter, which took up two sides of a legal sheet of paper, seemed to imply that the AFSC was going less in the direction of "building peace," and more in the direction of "bringing down the current administration." I don't know if that's the actual organizational culture or what they thought would play well in a fundraising letter. I actually hope it's the former. The latter would be a lot more Machiavellian than I'm comfortable with in my co-religionists.
What did you see today?
The AFSC (American Friends Service Committee) is the social action arm of the Religious Society of Friends. I supported the AFSC before I became a Friend myself, but now I'm considerably more ardent about it. However, the latest fundraising letter I received disturbed me in some ways.
Commentary
This is easy; I'll just paste in the contents of the letter I'm sending to the General Secretary of the AFSC.
Mary Ellen McNish
General Secretary
American Friends Service Committee
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1403
Second Month 7, 2006
Dear Mary Ellen:
Your recent fundraising letter contained two passages that raised up concerns in me, one deep and one merely niggling.
The former concerns the passage about water purifiers sent to Iraq, in which you state, “As you consider your renewed support, please understand that for reasons of safety, I cannot always tell you about actions like this. But know, please, that your contribution will bolster our ability to do what is right . . .”
I cannot recall any examples from my Faith and Practice that prioritize “safety” over our testimonies regarding openness in our dealings with others. I believe that if the AFSC is considering an action that it is afraid to reveal to its membership, it should either not take the action or build up enough courage to talk about it and face the consequences. On a related note, it seems disingenuous for you to complain about Pentagon surveillance of the AFSC while still reserving the right to secretly violate federal law.
You could not have known that one of the reasons I joined the Religious Society of Friends was because I find myself unable to place blind faith in other human beings when it comes to faith matters, including pastors or say, wider religious organizations. However, now that I have told you, perhaps you’ll understand that I can’t just “know” that you’ll be exercising proper stewardship over the resources God has given me. One of the great strengths of Friends is our use of everyone’s light for discernment, not just that of a select few.
My other concern is minor, and you wouldn’t even be hearing about it if we hadn’t discussed it in the program part of our meeting last week. I didn’t like your use of the phrase “like-minded people” toward the end of your letter. It implies that there’s a certain group of people, let’s call them “us,” who are trying to change the world for the better. This, in turn, implies that there’s a second group of people (“them”) who are not. I believe the cause of peace is ultimately better served if we use the language of building bridges, not circling the wagons.
Please understand that the only reason I’m writing today is because I am normally so proud of AFSC’s work and the way it represents Friends in the wider world. You spoke about “bedrock principles” in your letter, so I wanted to share some of mine.
Yours in Christ,
Lynn Schlatter
If you're not a Quaker, the language of this letter might sound kind of funny. In spite of, and sometimes because of, the fact that our denomination embraces plain speaking as a religious principle, "Quakerspeak" definitely has some strange elements.
"Second month" is the traditional Quaker way of referring to February. Our founder, George Fox, objected to the fact that days and months were named after figures of mythology. He thought we should call them what they are, the first, second, or whatever month or day. Quaker children tend to go to "First Day School," not "Sunday School."
The passage I quote in the second paragraph pertains to a program whereby the AFSC supplied water purifiers to Iraq in violation of the pre-war trade sanctions. The "cannot tell you about actions like this" was a puzzler to me. I knew they were doing it at the time, although I cannot recall how I knew
A "Faith and Practice" is a Quaker catechism, essentially. Except we don't believe in dogma, so it's more like a collection of things "weighty" Friends have thought might be useful for spiritual growth.
If you don't know what I mean about Pentagon surveillance of the AFSC, here's their take on the issue. I use the term "you" purposefully in that paragraph, as Mary Ellen is one of the people who has gone on record decrying this action.
Actually, a great deal of this letter, which took up two sides of a legal sheet of paper, seemed to imply that the AFSC was going less in the direction of "building peace," and more in the direction of "bringing down the current administration." I don't know if that's the actual organizational culture or what they thought would play well in a fundraising letter. I actually hope it's the former. The latter would be a lot more Machiavellian than I'm comfortable with in my co-religionists.
What did you see today?
2/02/2006
I saw a well-dressed woman walking into the library
Context
I work at the Shreve Memorial Library. Specifically, my cubicle is in the Main Library downtown. Shreveport is one of those cities where most of the poorest and a lot of the richest people tend to congregate downtown, at least during the day. The library is blessed to have both as patrons.
Commentary
Often, my first thought upon seeing someone who looks prosperous walking into the library is, "I hope the homeless people don't bother her." If I'm completely honest with myself, I'll admit that I usually point the word "bother" at the homeless people, as in "don't bother her by smelling bad and acting weird."
But is it possible that the blame for the "bother" actually belongs to the rest of us? Why are people who have money so reluctant to associate with those who don't? Do we think poverty is evil? Contageous? Incomprehensible? Outside our sphere of influence?
Or do we think it's damning? That if we're around poor people, we'll be reminded that we're really pretty selfish, even in the face of desperate need? No wonder they bother us. No one likes to feel guilty.
What did you see today?
I work at the Shreve Memorial Library. Specifically, my cubicle is in the Main Library downtown. Shreveport is one of those cities where most of the poorest and a lot of the richest people tend to congregate downtown, at least during the day. The library is blessed to have both as patrons.
Commentary
Often, my first thought upon seeing someone who looks prosperous walking into the library is, "I hope the homeless people don't bother her." If I'm completely honest with myself, I'll admit that I usually point the word "bother" at the homeless people, as in "don't bother her by smelling bad and acting weird."
But is it possible that the blame for the "bother" actually belongs to the rest of us? Why are people who have money so reluctant to associate with those who don't? Do we think poverty is evil? Contageous? Incomprehensible? Outside our sphere of influence?
Or do we think it's damning? That if we're around poor people, we'll be reminded that we're really pretty selfish, even in the face of desperate need? No wonder they bother us. No one likes to feel guilty.
What did you see today?
2/01/2006
I saw someone smile.
Context
I was trying to cross the street today and an off-duty policeman (wearing his uniform, not driving a police car) was trying to make what would have been a perfectly legal left turn if I hadn't been in the crosswalk. He had to stop pretty quickly and it was a slightly worrisome moment for me. He smiled, then I smiled, and I finished crossing the street. And he finished his turn.
Commentary
Another run-in with the police! There was potential for a lot of anger in this situation, and anyone who knows me knows I have anger to spare when it comes to yielding the right of way to pedestrians. And taking proper responsibility for your pets. But I digress.
The policeman also might have been angry at me for impeding his progress. But he smiled and I smiled. A split second of "OK, we had conflicting goals for a minute there, but it doesn't have to ruin anyone's day." And it didn't. In fact, it pretty much made mine, because apparently forgiving makes me happier than being angry. Who'd a thunk it?
What did you see today?
I was trying to cross the street today and an off-duty policeman (wearing his uniform, not driving a police car) was trying to make what would have been a perfectly legal left turn if I hadn't been in the crosswalk. He had to stop pretty quickly and it was a slightly worrisome moment for me. He smiled, then I smiled, and I finished crossing the street. And he finished his turn.
Commentary
Another run-in with the police! There was potential for a lot of anger in this situation, and anyone who knows me knows I have anger to spare when it comes to yielding the right of way to pedestrians. And taking proper responsibility for your pets. But I digress.
The policeman also might have been angry at me for impeding his progress. But he smiled and I smiled. A split second of "OK, we had conflicting goals for a minute there, but it doesn't have to ruin anyone's day." And it didn't. In fact, it pretty much made mine, because apparently forgiving makes me happier than being angry. Who'd a thunk it?
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)