Context
I was looking over the New Items List on my library's catalog when I found Eric LeGrand's Believe: my faith and the tackle that changed my life. LeGrand is paralyzed as the result of an injury he sustained while playing football for Rutgers University. The summary of the book mentions that earlier this year, LeGrand was signed to the roster of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers largely due to the efforts of the former Rutgers and current Tampa Bay coach, Greg Schiano.
Commentary
Up until today I would have told you I didn't like Greg Schiano. Earlier in the season, his first in the NFL, he told his players to knock down Eli Manning when the Giants went into what's called "the victory formation," ten guys huddled around the quarterback as he kneels on the ball in the closing seconds of a game. A very unflattering description of Schiano and the league-wide reaction to this legal, but not very sportsmanlike gesture can be found here. So it was very surprising to me to read about about this same man who many consider to be a classless bully deciding to extend the benefits of a NFL career, albeit briefly, to a guy who was never really going to have one.
There are 32 teams in the NFL. Because I was born in Michigan, I always root for the Lions and against whoever they're playing. However, that leaves 15 other games on most weeks that I want to choose a favorite in. Most of the times I make my choices pretty arbitrarily, focusing on one characteristic, good or bad, of the teams in question: Jay Cutler is whiny, Peyton Manning is brilliant, that sort of thing. So I had written off the Buccaneers because they had this badly behaved coach. It seemed like harmless fun to me, since I have no impact on Greg Schiano's actual life. It was just an opportunity for me to set up a straw man and knock him down, nothing to do with real life.
But what do I do with my newfound knowledge about Schiano, that he is in fact a normal human being who is capable of both great gestures and boneheaded ones? Should I now be rooting for the Buccaneers? Should I alternate weeks believing Schiano is a hero and a villain? Or should I just give up my love of quick and easy judgments, even about things that don't really matter? If I say "I don't know," I've kind of already made up my mind, haven't I?
What did you see today?
Showing posts with label sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sin. Show all posts
10/26/2012
8/29/2012
I saw a book description
Context
I was looking over the new children's nonfiction books at my library when I found Moonbird: a year on the wind with the great survivor B95 by Phillip Hoose. If you go to this link and click on A Look Inside, you'll see that the book describes the survival of an individual migrating shorebird in the face of myriad threats to his existence, including environmental changes wrought by human beings.
Commentary
Yes, once again I'm blogging about a book description, rather than the book itself. I'm a librarian; I read a lot of book descriptions. And movie descriptions. And CD descriptions. I also seem to be on an environmental kick as well, so forgive me if I grow repetitive.
I've been reading little bits of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species and feeling dismayed that some people hold it in such contempt. Far from being a dry scientific treatise tasked with disproving God's existence, it's actually page after page of Darwin describing the wonders he sees in nature and offering his best explanation as to why they happen. Perhaps I'm perverse, but to me it reads much more like a celebration of creation than a debunking of it.
Anyway, one of the things Darwin is particularly taken with is adaptation, and he devotes most of a chapter to talking about how human beings create (if I can use that word) adaptations in domesticated plants and animals. I agree that it's an amazing process, but not really a surprising one. As people, we're all about making things fit what we want and/or need.
Think about it. Most species reside in places that are suited to their physical makeup: tropical plants in Brazil, penguins in Antarctica. People move to places that are not suited to their physiology at all and then change their physiology! Well, they either put on some clothes or some sunscreen. Or they just change the place itself, by building air-conditioned condos in the middle of the desert.
I'm starting to think this is why we are so hard on the ecology of our planet. We figure we'll always be able to adapt to whatever nature throws at us. And we may be right about that, but we fail to take into account that other species do not adapt that quickly. When we change the environment to suit ourselves, we frequently make it lethally inhospitable to the other inhabitants of the planet. You might say we do this unintentionally, but that doesn't really excuse us. We're supposed to be the ones with the big brains, not to mention the caretakers of all creation. We ought to be able to both adapt and accommodate, not just carelessly wreck everything in our path.
What did you see today?
I was looking over the new children's nonfiction books at my library when I found Moonbird: a year on the wind with the great survivor B95 by Phillip Hoose. If you go to this link and click on A Look Inside, you'll see that the book describes the survival of an individual migrating shorebird in the face of myriad threats to his existence, including environmental changes wrought by human beings.
Commentary
Yes, once again I'm blogging about a book description, rather than the book itself. I'm a librarian; I read a lot of book descriptions. And movie descriptions. And CD descriptions. I also seem to be on an environmental kick as well, so forgive me if I grow repetitive.
I've been reading little bits of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species and feeling dismayed that some people hold it in such contempt. Far from being a dry scientific treatise tasked with disproving God's existence, it's actually page after page of Darwin describing the wonders he sees in nature and offering his best explanation as to why they happen. Perhaps I'm perverse, but to me it reads much more like a celebration of creation than a debunking of it.
Anyway, one of the things Darwin is particularly taken with is adaptation, and he devotes most of a chapter to talking about how human beings create (if I can use that word) adaptations in domesticated plants and animals. I agree that it's an amazing process, but not really a surprising one. As people, we're all about making things fit what we want and/or need.
Think about it. Most species reside in places that are suited to their physical makeup: tropical plants in Brazil, penguins in Antarctica. People move to places that are not suited to their physiology at all and then change their physiology! Well, they either put on some clothes or some sunscreen. Or they just change the place itself, by building air-conditioned condos in the middle of the desert.
I'm starting to think this is why we are so hard on the ecology of our planet. We figure we'll always be able to adapt to whatever nature throws at us. And we may be right about that, but we fail to take into account that other species do not adapt that quickly. When we change the environment to suit ourselves, we frequently make it lethally inhospitable to the other inhabitants of the planet. You might say we do this unintentionally, but that doesn't really excuse us. We're supposed to be the ones with the big brains, not to mention the caretakers of all creation. We ought to be able to both adapt and accommodate, not just carelessly wreck everything in our path.
What did you see today?
7/27/2012
I saw an article that contradicted itself
Context
I found this article regarding James Holmes's prison behavior while perusing the Time Magazine website today. The article states that Mr. Holmes has been engaging in erratic behavior in jail, then says that might not be true, and concludes that the man's behavior is "mysterious."
Commentary
Consider this my Friday evening snark: I believe there's a difference between mysterious behavior and not confirming your information before posting a news story. Oh wait! This is the internet age, where the truth is "fluid."
What I find particularly funny is that the updated version, the one that says Holmes has been quiet throughout his incarceration, seems less credible, quoting only "sources," as opposed to the more specific "Arapahoe County Jail officials." Honestly though, can we just not say anything until we find someone willing to go on the record? Or are we just as crazy as James Holmes himself, believing that if we stuff ourselves with every morsel of information thrown our way everything will eventually become clear?
What did you see today?
I found this article regarding James Holmes's prison behavior while perusing the Time Magazine website today. The article states that Mr. Holmes has been engaging in erratic behavior in jail, then says that might not be true, and concludes that the man's behavior is "mysterious."
Commentary
Consider this my Friday evening snark: I believe there's a difference between mysterious behavior and not confirming your information before posting a news story. Oh wait! This is the internet age, where the truth is "fluid."
What I find particularly funny is that the updated version, the one that says Holmes has been quiet throughout his incarceration, seems less credible, quoting only "sources," as opposed to the more specific "Arapahoe County Jail officials." Honestly though, can we just not say anything until we find someone willing to go on the record? Or are we just as crazy as James Holmes himself, believing that if we stuff ourselves with every morsel of information thrown our way everything will eventually become clear?
What did you see today?
6/25/2010
I saw a review of a book
Context
One of the tasks I perform at my library is looking over the new book lists in our catalog to make sure the items are displaying properly. Our catalog contains reviews of some items and sometimes I read those, even though it's not a necessary component of the task.
This is a quote I read today from the Library Journal review of Lynette Eason's Too Close to Home: "Readers who enjoy romantic suspense authors Suzanne Brockmann and Sandra Brown but who prefer their thrills with a little more conscience and a lot less sex will be thrilled with Eason's new series opener." Eason is classified as a Christian suspense author.
Commentary
I have been neglecting my calling. And as often happens with backsliding, I didn't realize it for a long time. I haven't posted to this blog for two and a half months, not because I haven't been seeing anything (I always see stuff), but because I didn't think I needed to say anything about it.
Here's an example: I was at a funeral visitation last weekend, waiting outside while a rosary was being said for the deceased. Some of the other people outside were making fun of the rosary. Yes, you read that correctly. At a funeral, there were people making fun of the rosary being said for the departed. Anyway, I didn't know anyone else who was around, so I didn't say anything to them about this appalling lack of respect. I figured it wouldn't do any good.
And this morning when I read the review excerpted above I had some thoughts about it, but I didn't plan to blog because I didn't think my opinions would be of interest to anyone. And then I remembered. The call was to open my eyes and open my mouth, not to be interesting or even effective. The words are my responsibility; the response is not. Luckily, repentance is always an option, so onward!
Although I am a Christian, I rarely read what is called Christian literature. I'm not using the conditional term above because I don't think the literature is Christian. It's just that, as with so many other parts of our culture today, it seems certain people have co-opted the term so that nothing outside their realm is considered Christian. In order to satisfy that segment of the population, a book has to uphold conservative values, particularly those pertaining to personal morality. It also has to say at its core that although there may be some ups and downs to life, correct religious belief and practice will eventually give you all the answers you need.
Which brings me to a Christian author I do like: C.S. Lewis. I read his works, you should pardon the expression, religiously. But apparently he's not quite Christian enough. A library colleague I respect in Arkansas, Lesley Knieriem, made this statement about him in response to a request for Christian authors: "Lewis's space trilogy [is] well known, but . . . once again would not be acceptable to the ECPA." The ECPA is the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. I had to look that up.
I can see what Lesley means. The final book in the series cited has the Jesus stand-in (named Ransom, because Lewis is not a subtle man) utter this line about one of his companions: "He is our sceptic; a very important office." Somehow I can't see a Gilbert Morris protagonist making that kind of statement. Even less can I picture a contemporary piece of Christian children's literature containing a scene like the one near the end of the Chronicles of Narnia series, where a person who has been serving Satan (or Baal, depending on your interpretation) all his life is told that there is a place for him in heaven because his actions were virtuous, even though they were pointed at the wrong God!
In the end, I think they problem is one of intent. It seems to be that the current crop of Christian authors seek to comfort their readers, while Lewis was always in the business of challenging his, even the youngest of them. And when it comes to my religious health, I don't need a lot of massage. I need resistance training.
What did you see today?
One of the tasks I perform at my library is looking over the new book lists in our catalog to make sure the items are displaying properly. Our catalog contains reviews of some items and sometimes I read those, even though it's not a necessary component of the task.
This is a quote I read today from the Library Journal review of Lynette Eason's Too Close to Home: "Readers who enjoy romantic suspense authors Suzanne Brockmann and Sandra Brown but who prefer their thrills with a little more conscience and a lot less sex will be thrilled with Eason's new series opener." Eason is classified as a Christian suspense author.
Commentary
I have been neglecting my calling. And as often happens with backsliding, I didn't realize it for a long time. I haven't posted to this blog for two and a half months, not because I haven't been seeing anything (I always see stuff), but because I didn't think I needed to say anything about it.
Here's an example: I was at a funeral visitation last weekend, waiting outside while a rosary was being said for the deceased. Some of the other people outside were making fun of the rosary. Yes, you read that correctly. At a funeral, there were people making fun of the rosary being said for the departed. Anyway, I didn't know anyone else who was around, so I didn't say anything to them about this appalling lack of respect. I figured it wouldn't do any good.
And this morning when I read the review excerpted above I had some thoughts about it, but I didn't plan to blog because I didn't think my opinions would be of interest to anyone. And then I remembered. The call was to open my eyes and open my mouth, not to be interesting or even effective. The words are my responsibility; the response is not. Luckily, repentance is always an option, so onward!
Although I am a Christian, I rarely read what is called Christian literature. I'm not using the conditional term above because I don't think the literature is Christian. It's just that, as with so many other parts of our culture today, it seems certain people have co-opted the term so that nothing outside their realm is considered Christian. In order to satisfy that segment of the population, a book has to uphold conservative values, particularly those pertaining to personal morality. It also has to say at its core that although there may be some ups and downs to life, correct religious belief and practice will eventually give you all the answers you need.
Which brings me to a Christian author I do like: C.S. Lewis. I read his works, you should pardon the expression, religiously. But apparently he's not quite Christian enough. A library colleague I respect in Arkansas, Lesley Knieriem, made this statement about him in response to a request for Christian authors: "Lewis's space trilogy [is] well known, but . . . once again would not be acceptable to the ECPA." The ECPA is the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. I had to look that up.
I can see what Lesley means. The final book in the series cited has the Jesus stand-in (named Ransom, because Lewis is not a subtle man) utter this line about one of his companions: "He is our sceptic; a very important office." Somehow I can't see a Gilbert Morris protagonist making that kind of statement. Even less can I picture a contemporary piece of Christian children's literature containing a scene like the one near the end of the Chronicles of Narnia series, where a person who has been serving Satan (or Baal, depending on your interpretation) all his life is told that there is a place for him in heaven because his actions were virtuous, even though they were pointed at the wrong God!
In the end, I think they problem is one of intent. It seems to be that the current crop of Christian authors seek to comfort their readers, while Lewis was always in the business of challenging his, even the youngest of them. And when it comes to my religious health, I don't need a lot of massage. I need resistance training.
What did you see today?
4/06/2010
I heard about a medical appointment
Context
A coworker who was in my office today mentioned that she wouldn't be available for something because she had a doctor's appointment in Dallas she'd made a year ago. As the day went on I grew increasingly curious about what sort of medical appointment one would make a year in advance.
Commentary
If you think I'm going to satisfy your curiosity about what kind of medical appointment is made a year in advance, I have bad news for you for two reasons:
1) I don't know.
2) It's someone's medical appointment, for crying out loud!
Anyway, my intent is to blog about my curiosity. I have always been enormously curious. The "open my eyes" aspect of this blog is never a burden on me; I'm constantly trying to see what's going on and why, especially when it comes to people. It's the main reason I studied history at Rice: the opportunity to find out what people did in a given situation, and better yet, how it turned out, was well-nigh irresistible to me.
Nothing wrong with curiosity since I'm not a cat, but in my case it can lead to snooping. My curiosity about what makes people tick has lead me to read diaries, eavesdrop on private conversations and, on one memorable occasion, read a series of love letters between a coworker and someone who was decidedly not her husband.
Please understand, I don't snoop in order to exert any power over a person, either in terms of blackmail or gossip. Frankly, in order to use any secrets I learn I would have to reveal how I came by the knowledge and that's just plain embarrassing. Nope, it really is just a case of me saying, "Oh! That's what's going on in that person's life. Interesting." In fact, if I wanted to justify myself I could even say that it gives me some insights that help me love my brothers and sisters in Christ more.
Except that it doesn't, any more than rape helps spark a romantic relationship. I was so pleased, by the way, when General Hospital finally dealt with that. I know it was hard to tarnish one of their supercouples, but seriously!
Anyway, snooping is information rape: it takes something from a person that they might have offered willingly without giving him/her a choice in the matter. It's not only violence, it's laziness, in the sense of not taking the time to cultivate a relationship where intimacies are shared as equals. So I think it's better to live with a little unsatisfied curiosity than to feed vampirically off someone else's emotional life.
What did you hear today?
A coworker who was in my office today mentioned that she wouldn't be available for something because she had a doctor's appointment in Dallas she'd made a year ago. As the day went on I grew increasingly curious about what sort of medical appointment one would make a year in advance.
Commentary
If you think I'm going to satisfy your curiosity about what kind of medical appointment is made a year in advance, I have bad news for you for two reasons:
1) I don't know.
2) It's someone's medical appointment, for crying out loud!
Anyway, my intent is to blog about my curiosity. I have always been enormously curious. The "open my eyes" aspect of this blog is never a burden on me; I'm constantly trying to see what's going on and why, especially when it comes to people. It's the main reason I studied history at Rice: the opportunity to find out what people did in a given situation, and better yet, how it turned out, was well-nigh irresistible to me.
Nothing wrong with curiosity since I'm not a cat, but in my case it can lead to snooping. My curiosity about what makes people tick has lead me to read diaries, eavesdrop on private conversations and, on one memorable occasion, read a series of love letters between a coworker and someone who was decidedly not her husband.
Please understand, I don't snoop in order to exert any power over a person, either in terms of blackmail or gossip. Frankly, in order to use any secrets I learn I would have to reveal how I came by the knowledge and that's just plain embarrassing. Nope, it really is just a case of me saying, "Oh! That's what's going on in that person's life. Interesting." In fact, if I wanted to justify myself I could even say that it gives me some insights that help me love my brothers and sisters in Christ more.
Except that it doesn't, any more than rape helps spark a romantic relationship. I was so pleased, by the way, when General Hospital finally dealt with that. I know it was hard to tarnish one of their supercouples, but seriously!
Anyway, snooping is information rape: it takes something from a person that they might have offered willingly without giving him/her a choice in the matter. It's not only violence, it's laziness, in the sense of not taking the time to cultivate a relationship where intimacies are shared as equals. So I think it's better to live with a little unsatisfied curiosity than to feed vampirically off someone else's emotional life.
What did you hear today?
2/04/2010
I saw an irate message
Context
A few days ago I received a call from a library patron who was puzzled because she couldn't use our Overdrive service. After investigation, I let her know that was because she held a Green Gold card. These cards are issued to patrons whose home library is in a parish near ours and allow the bearer access to our physical resources, but not our electronic ones.
The patron was dismayed by this for two reasons:
1) The Overdrive service was the only reason she had applied for the card, so she could have saved herself a trip from Minden to Shreveport.
2) Her friend had applied for the same reason, and she wasn't being blocked.
I apologized for our mistake in not explaining the Green Gold restrictions better and, trying to cover all bases, asked the patron if she wanted to rat out her friend so I could block her. The patron said, "No." The next day I received a message from a fellow staff member letting me know who the "friend" was. I had not solicited this information, but I used it to go ahead and block the second woman.
Today this e-mail the friend's husband sent the message to the "support" link on the Overdrive website. Messages sent to this link go to an account that everyone in our department reads.
"Well it seems the rumor is true. We heard that even with the Green Card and a membership in the Shreve Library, we were going to be cut off. You see we live in Minden, and made 2 trips to the Shreve Library with the intent of joining to be able to download E-Books. This was addressed up front and approved and now we are shut off. I am really disappointed. You see we spend probably more money in Shreveport than we do in Minden so its not like we don't support your city. I served 20 years in the Air Force and I don't recall saying I would not help if Shreveport was bombed or in some sort of trouble. I served my country including Shreveport. If us checking out an E-Book puts your system in that much of a bind then God have mercy on your city. Its all about greed from the man on the street to the Mayor and President. Thank goodness I don't live and die for your perfect city. Oh yes, card #[redacted] is the account and good luck on your greed."
Commentary
I could of course make many, many comments about the e-mail message above, and I'd be lying if I said we didn't pass the message around and make several of those remarks this morning, to general hilarity.
However, I'm more interested in talking about my immediate response when I saw the message. I started thinking of several replies I wanted to make to the patron and I could feel my pulse racing right along with my brain. In other words, a fight or flight response (as is customary for me, I was leaning toward "fight").
This was irrational. First of all, I'm a religious pacifist (yes, I'm reusing links from previous entries, cope!). Also, under no conceivable set of circumstances was I facing a threat. Truthfully, the circumstances should have provoked no other response but laughter and pity, but there it is. I didn't behave violently, but my body wanted to. My pacifist principles only go so far; they don't completely change my makeup. In fact, the Bible says my subsequent snarkiness does constitute violence.
Where does that leave me? Mindful of how wrong my immediate reaction to a situation can be, for one thing. Glad to be a Christian for another. I can say, along with the apostle Paul, that the good I would do, I do not do (another version here). Some people may think of this as a cop-out; I think it's just a realistic assessment of how badly we need the grace and love of our Father.
What did you see today?
A few days ago I received a call from a library patron who was puzzled because she couldn't use our Overdrive service. After investigation, I let her know that was because she held a Green Gold card. These cards are issued to patrons whose home library is in a parish near ours and allow the bearer access to our physical resources, but not our electronic ones.
The patron was dismayed by this for two reasons:
1) The Overdrive service was the only reason she had applied for the card, so she could have saved herself a trip from Minden to Shreveport.
2) Her friend had applied for the same reason, and she wasn't being blocked.
I apologized for our mistake in not explaining the Green Gold restrictions better and, trying to cover all bases, asked the patron if she wanted to rat out her friend so I could block her. The patron said, "No." The next day I received a message from a fellow staff member letting me know who the "friend" was. I had not solicited this information, but I used it to go ahead and block the second woman.
Today this e-mail the friend's husband sent the message to the "support" link on the Overdrive website. Messages sent to this link go to an account that everyone in our department reads.
"Well it seems the rumor is true. We heard that even with the Green Card and a membership in the Shreve Library, we were going to be cut off. You see we live in Minden, and made 2 trips to the Shreve Library with the intent of joining to be able to download E-Books. This was addressed up front and approved and now we are shut off. I am really disappointed. You see we spend probably more money in Shreveport than we do in Minden so its not like we don't support your city. I served 20 years in the Air Force and I don't recall saying I would not help if Shreveport was bombed or in some sort of trouble. I served my country including Shreveport. If us checking out an E-Book puts your system in that much of a bind then God have mercy on your city. Its all about greed from the man on the street to the Mayor and President. Thank goodness I don't live and die for your perfect city. Oh yes, card #[redacted] is the account and good luck on your greed."
Commentary
I could of course make many, many comments about the e-mail message above, and I'd be lying if I said we didn't pass the message around and make several of those remarks this morning, to general hilarity.
However, I'm more interested in talking about my immediate response when I saw the message. I started thinking of several replies I wanted to make to the patron and I could feel my pulse racing right along with my brain. In other words, a fight or flight response (as is customary for me, I was leaning toward "fight").
This was irrational. First of all, I'm a religious pacifist (yes, I'm reusing links from previous entries, cope!). Also, under no conceivable set of circumstances was I facing a threat. Truthfully, the circumstances should have provoked no other response but laughter and pity, but there it is. I didn't behave violently, but my body wanted to. My pacifist principles only go so far; they don't completely change my makeup. In fact, the Bible says my subsequent snarkiness does constitute violence.
Where does that leave me? Mindful of how wrong my immediate reaction to a situation can be, for one thing. Glad to be a Christian for another. I can say, along with the apostle Paul, that the good I would do, I do not do (another version here). Some people may think of this as a cop-out; I think it's just a realistic assessment of how badly we need the grace and love of our Father.
What did you see today?
9/03/2009
I saw a question
Context
First United Methodist Church has an electronic sign in their parking that flashes a variety of messages about events, upcoming sermons, etc. Today one of the messages said, I think, "How does God guide us? Romans 12:1-2."
This is the text of Romans 1:1-2, according to the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God--what is good and acceptable and perfect."
Commentary
I sometimes get concerned about the ways churches market themselves, believing that they sometimes work too hard to be the "cool kids," instead of the people of God, but I honestly like First Methodist's sign. I really feel like I've learned a lot about their faith community just by my almost daily observation of the sign.
That being said, I'm not sure what they were trying to say with today's question and quote. Maybe it's a preview of an upcoming sermon, because I don't think Romans 12:1-2 answers the question "How does God guide us?" More like, "How do we prepare ourselves for God's guidance?", which is an important question in and of itself.
As for the original question, I got to thinking about it right away. Not having the Bible memorized, I didn't know until I got home what Romans 12:1-2 said, but my answer to "How does guide God me?" (I wouldn't dream of speaking for anyone else) is, "By how I feel, as long as I'm wiling to examine those feelings closely."
As mentioned previously, my conscience is very active. I generally know when I've done wrong because I feel bad. Not always right away, because most of my sins involve anger and arrogance, and those emotions give a nice little adrenaline rush, but when I start to come down I realize, "Wow! That was bad behavior!" Conversely, when I do the right thing, I feel good. Again, not necessarily immediately; an onerous task in the pursuit of righteousness is still an onerous task, but eventually I find I'm given a generous measure of both peace and joy.
These "not right away"s and "eventually"s are the reason I make examining my feelings closely part of the formula for discerning God's will. I can't just take an "If it feels good, do it!" attitude, because being evil can feel awfully good at first. I believe we have a lot of lower instincts and sin appeals to all of them. I also think we have a tendency to tell ourselves we're happy or content or even justified when we're not, and can carry on that way for quite a while. But my experience is, if I really examine what's going on I feel unsatisfied if I've been unjust or callous or dishonest. My conscience is saying, "You've got unfinished business. And you can cover your ears and say, 'la, la, la' all you want. It doesn't change a thing."
What did you see today?
First United Methodist Church has an electronic sign in their parking that flashes a variety of messages about events, upcoming sermons, etc. Today one of the messages said, I think, "How does God guide us? Romans 12:1-2."
This is the text of Romans 1:1-2, according to the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God--what is good and acceptable and perfect."
Commentary
I sometimes get concerned about the ways churches market themselves, believing that they sometimes work too hard to be the "cool kids," instead of the people of God, but I honestly like First Methodist's sign. I really feel like I've learned a lot about their faith community just by my almost daily observation of the sign.
That being said, I'm not sure what they were trying to say with today's question and quote. Maybe it's a preview of an upcoming sermon, because I don't think Romans 12:1-2 answers the question "How does God guide us?" More like, "How do we prepare ourselves for God's guidance?", which is an important question in and of itself.
As for the original question, I got to thinking about it right away. Not having the Bible memorized, I didn't know until I got home what Romans 12:1-2 said, but my answer to "How does guide God me?" (I wouldn't dream of speaking for anyone else) is, "By how I feel, as long as I'm wiling to examine those feelings closely."
As mentioned previously, my conscience is very active. I generally know when I've done wrong because I feel bad. Not always right away, because most of my sins involve anger and arrogance, and those emotions give a nice little adrenaline rush, but when I start to come down I realize, "Wow! That was bad behavior!" Conversely, when I do the right thing, I feel good. Again, not necessarily immediately; an onerous task in the pursuit of righteousness is still an onerous task, but eventually I find I'm given a generous measure of both peace and joy.
These "not right away"s and "eventually"s are the reason I make examining my feelings closely part of the formula for discerning God's will. I can't just take an "If it feels good, do it!" attitude, because being evil can feel awfully good at first. I believe we have a lot of lower instincts and sin appeals to all of them. I also think we have a tendency to tell ourselves we're happy or content or even justified when we're not, and can carry on that way for quite a while. But my experience is, if I really examine what's going on I feel unsatisfied if I've been unjust or callous or dishonest. My conscience is saying, "You've got unfinished business. And you can cover your ears and say, 'la, la, la' all you want. It doesn't change a thing."
What did you see today?
8/04/2009
I saw a TV show about politics
Context
I bought the entire run of The West Wing on DVD recently. Tonight I watched an episode called "Five Votes Down," which was about the West Wing staffers' attempts to get a gun control law passed by Congress.
Commentary
I love The West Wing, so now that I have this set you may be hearing me comment on it a lot!
I'm concerned about gun control. I'm also concerned about health care, the various wars taking place around the globe, and the environment. But after watching the beginning of this episode, which contains the great line "There are two things in the world you never want to let people see how you make 'em - laws and sausages," I've decided to become a one-issue voter. At least for now.
The issue is decency. And I don't mean the "politicians have to adhere to a strict moral code that I can't uphold myself" variety. I mean treating people decently. Being respectful of people you disagree with. Agreeing with people because you believe what they're saying, not because of some potential personal gain in the future. Seeing a person who's been brought low and helping them, even if you warned them in advance that this was where their actions would lead. Not indulging the urge to tear down those who have some advantage over you because you're jealous of their good fortune. Decency.
It may just be that I think our tangible problems are intractable, so I've decided to concentrate on something more ephemeral, but I hope not. I think what's going on here is that I no longer believe we can solve any problems by treating our opponents badly. I'm a pacifist because I believe violence doesn't solve anything, and over time I've learned that violence can take a lot of subtle forms, like contempt and close-mindedness and fearmongering.
So when it comes time to vote I'm looking for problem-solvers, not naysayers and "I told you so"ers. I don't mind if you hold a strong opinion; I hold plenty of them myself. I'm just no longer willing to believe that my opinion or yours is the only one decent people can hold.
What did you see today?
I bought the entire run of The West Wing on DVD recently. Tonight I watched an episode called "Five Votes Down," which was about the West Wing staffers' attempts to get a gun control law passed by Congress.
Commentary
I love The West Wing, so now that I have this set you may be hearing me comment on it a lot!
I'm concerned about gun control. I'm also concerned about health care, the various wars taking place around the globe, and the environment. But after watching the beginning of this episode, which contains the great line "There are two things in the world you never want to let people see how you make 'em - laws and sausages," I've decided to become a one-issue voter. At least for now.
The issue is decency. And I don't mean the "politicians have to adhere to a strict moral code that I can't uphold myself" variety. I mean treating people decently. Being respectful of people you disagree with. Agreeing with people because you believe what they're saying, not because of some potential personal gain in the future. Seeing a person who's been brought low and helping them, even if you warned them in advance that this was where their actions would lead. Not indulging the urge to tear down those who have some advantage over you because you're jealous of their good fortune. Decency.
It may just be that I think our tangible problems are intractable, so I've decided to concentrate on something more ephemeral, but I hope not. I think what's going on here is that I no longer believe we can solve any problems by treating our opponents badly. I'm a pacifist because I believe violence doesn't solve anything, and over time I've learned that violence can take a lot of subtle forms, like contempt and close-mindedness and fearmongering.
So when it comes time to vote I'm looking for problem-solvers, not naysayers and "I told you so"ers. I don't mind if you hold a strong opinion; I hold plenty of them myself. I'm just no longer willing to believe that my opinion or yours is the only one decent people can hold.
What did you see today?
4/03/2009
I saw a DVD on harassment and discrimination
Context
The Technical Services division of my library had its annual training on discrimination and harassment in the workplace today. Interspersed with watching a DVD called Without Regard we had some commentary and discussion time. At one point while we were discussing discrimination one of my co-workers made, I think without realizing it, a blatantly discriminatory remark about the suitability of men and women for a particular job. A little later on, when the HR director was talking about the potential harm caused by jokes, I thought to myself, "people are just being silly if they get offended when we do stuff like that."
Commentary
I don't have much to say about the situation today. Instead I want to say something else about Matthew 7:1-5: it is a quality of sinners that if it's wrong we don't think we do it (my coworker), and if we do it, we don't think it's wrong (me).
What did you see today?
The Technical Services division of my library had its annual training on discrimination and harassment in the workplace today. Interspersed with watching a DVD called Without Regard we had some commentary and discussion time. At one point while we were discussing discrimination one of my co-workers made, I think without realizing it, a blatantly discriminatory remark about the suitability of men and women for a particular job. A little later on, when the HR director was talking about the potential harm caused by jokes, I thought to myself, "people are just being silly if they get offended when we do stuff like that."
Commentary
I don't have much to say about the situation today. Instead I want to say something else about Matthew 7:1-5: it is a quality of sinners that if it's wrong we don't think we do it (my coworker), and if we do it, we don't think it's wrong (me).
What did you see today?
7/07/2008
I saw a discussion about law enforcement
Context
Slashdot is a website that bills itself as "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." Since I fancy myself a nerd, I have a space on my iGoogle page for an RSS feed from it. Today I was reading this story about the criminal prosecution of a woman who was caught creating fake profiles for herself on MySpace. A word of caution: the Slashdot summary is inoffensive, but the comments, including one I'll be discussing below contain some profanity.
Commentary
Slashdot uses tagging to describe various posts, just like I do on this blog. You see those things that say, variously, "index" or "labels"? Those are tags. You might notice that this particular story on Slashdot is tagged as "badsummary." That's because, as noted in the comments below the story, Lori Drew is not a simple "user" on MySpace. She's an adult woman who said such hurtful things while using a fake profile that portrayed her as a teenage boy that she appears to have induced a teenaged girl to kill herself.
I agree with some of the comments on this article that say things like, "this is a tragedy, but the specific offense (violating a website's Terms of Service) is a civil one, not criminal." I do not, however, agree with this one: "Using fake accounts for access to some websites is de riguer on the internet. Everyone does it for a WIDE variety of reasons (dont want to get caught f*****g someone else, dont want to get caught looking up c4 recipies, dont want to get spam)." And it's not just the bad spelling and grammar that bother me, although they are egregious. It's the fact that no, everyone does not do it. For example, I don't.
From my perspective, if you're doing something (even, gasp, on the Internet!) you either believe it's right or wrong. I can see wanting to hide your identity if you believe you're doing wrong, but I can't see why other people get so up in arms about defending your right to do so. It's like we've added a new component to the Bill of Rights: the right to behave unethically without detection.
Am I against the right to privacy? No, although I think truly believing you can keep your actions secret in today's society is a pipe dream. But I don't think MySpace should be allowed to set up a hidden camera in my bedroom. However, if I set up a webcam in my bedroom and broadcast the contents on MySpace (which also violates their Terms of Service), I think the people providing the server space can reasonably insist that I identify myself. If I don't want to, maybe I shouldn't use their service.
The same goes for the spam consideration. If I believe that using a specific website is likely to get me on a junk e-mail list, I don't use the website! After all, free access to everything you want on your terms isn't guaranteed in the Bill of Rights either.
What did you see today?
Slashdot is a website that bills itself as "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." Since I fancy myself a nerd, I have a space on my iGoogle page for an RSS feed from it. Today I was reading this story about the criminal prosecution of a woman who was caught creating fake profiles for herself on MySpace. A word of caution: the Slashdot summary is inoffensive, but the comments, including one I'll be discussing below contain some profanity.
Commentary
Slashdot uses tagging to describe various posts, just like I do on this blog. You see those things that say, variously, "index" or "labels"? Those are tags. You might notice that this particular story on Slashdot is tagged as "badsummary." That's because, as noted in the comments below the story, Lori Drew is not a simple "user" on MySpace. She's an adult woman who said such hurtful things while using a fake profile that portrayed her as a teenage boy that she appears to have induced a teenaged girl to kill herself.
I agree with some of the comments on this article that say things like, "this is a tragedy, but the specific offense (violating a website's Terms of Service) is a civil one, not criminal." I do not, however, agree with this one: "Using fake accounts for access to some websites is de riguer on the internet. Everyone does it for a WIDE variety of reasons (dont want to get caught f*****g someone else, dont want to get caught looking up c4 recipies, dont want to get spam)." And it's not just the bad spelling and grammar that bother me, although they are egregious. It's the fact that no, everyone does not do it. For example, I don't.
From my perspective, if you're doing something (even, gasp, on the Internet!) you either believe it's right or wrong. I can see wanting to hide your identity if you believe you're doing wrong, but I can't see why other people get so up in arms about defending your right to do so. It's like we've added a new component to the Bill of Rights: the right to behave unethically without detection.
Am I against the right to privacy? No, although I think truly believing you can keep your actions secret in today's society is a pipe dream. But I don't think MySpace should be allowed to set up a hidden camera in my bedroom. However, if I set up a webcam in my bedroom and broadcast the contents on MySpace (which also violates their Terms of Service), I think the people providing the server space can reasonably insist that I identify myself. If I don't want to, maybe I shouldn't use their service.
The same goes for the spam consideration. If I believe that using a specific website is likely to get me on a junk e-mail list, I don't use the website! After all, free access to everything you want on your terms isn't guaranteed in the Bill of Rights either.
What did you see today?
4/05/2008
I saw the morning light
Context
I'm in Detroit for the SiRSI Superconference, which I've mentioned in a previous blog post. My hotel room is on the 53rd floor (!) of the Marriott Renaissance Center. When I arrived last night I could see an variety of city lights outside my window, including the very complex sign for the Fox Theater. This morning when I opened my curtains just after daybreak, I couldn't see the Fox Theater at all.
Commentary
I think I frequently blog when I travel because it's a great opportunity to see new stuff. And if you're going to travel, I highly recommend staying on the 53rd floor of the Marriott Renaissance Center. I could sit here in front of the window with my iTunes on all day if I didn't have conference events to attend. It's better than television! And that's saying a lot, 'cuz I likes me some television.
Anyway, the disappearance of the Fox was quite startling today. It might have happened because they turn off the sign in the daytime, but I think it more likely that it just couldn't compete with the brilliance of the sun. It's like certain temptations of this world. In a particular context they're bright and attractive, or maybe a little mysterious (I was really fascinated by how this sign worked!). For whatever reason, you can't tear your attention away. But in light of the things you can see by the Spirit, they fade so badly that it's as if they never existed.
Please don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the Fox Theater or their sign and I don't think it's a hotbed of evil or anything (traditional Quakers were opposed to the theater, but I'm not). I'm just of a metaphorical cast of mind at the moment.
What did you see today?
I'm in Detroit for the SiRSI Superconference, which I've mentioned in a previous blog post. My hotel room is on the 53rd floor (!) of the Marriott Renaissance Center. When I arrived last night I could see an variety of city lights outside my window, including the very complex sign for the Fox Theater. This morning when I opened my curtains just after daybreak, I couldn't see the Fox Theater at all.
Commentary
I think I frequently blog when I travel because it's a great opportunity to see new stuff. And if you're going to travel, I highly recommend staying on the 53rd floor of the Marriott Renaissance Center. I could sit here in front of the window with my iTunes on all day if I didn't have conference events to attend. It's better than television! And that's saying a lot, 'cuz I likes me some television.
Anyway, the disappearance of the Fox was quite startling today. It might have happened because they turn off the sign in the daytime, but I think it more likely that it just couldn't compete with the brilliance of the sun. It's like certain temptations of this world. In a particular context they're bright and attractive, or maybe a little mysterious (I was really fascinated by how this sign worked!). For whatever reason, you can't tear your attention away. But in light of the things you can see by the Spirit, they fade so badly that it's as if they never existed.
Please don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the Fox Theater or their sign and I don't think it's a hotbed of evil or anything (traditional Quakers were opposed to the theater, but I'm not). I'm just of a metaphorical cast of mind at the moment.
What did you see today?
3/16/2008
I heard a sermon on the prodigal son
Context
I'm in Dallas today, so I attended a worship service at King of Glory Lutheran Church. Pastor Jon Bustard preached on, among other things, the prodigal son story from Luke. The text and a recording of his sermon of the week usually get posted to the King of Glory website, but as of this writing, they're not up yet.
Commentary
I think Pastor Bustard preached a great sermon today. That's really saying something coming from me because I hate preaching. It's even more surprising because, being having been a Christian all my life, I've probably heard at least 25 prodigal son sermons. But this one actually made me think about a new aspect of the story, because Pastor Bustard was challenging us to be involved in God's recovery of the rest of His prodigal children, instead of just emphasizing how happy we are that God found us.
Rationalist that I am, if I'm going to be involved in solving a problem, I need to know what causes it. Pastor Bustard's sermon made clear to me that there are two reasons the prodigal son stays away from his father, and that both of those apply to people who stay away from church today:
1) Guilt. Late in the story, the prodigal son realizes what he's done wrong and is convinced his father will never want to take him back. Today, there are many people who think, "I can't go to church. Who I am and what I've done are too awful to be in the holy presence of God." This is not true, but I think as Christians we forget that. After all, how often do we seek out child molesters to join our congregation?
2) Lack of perceived need. This is the one that really stood out for me today. As I was saying to my husband, "you can't catch the prodigal son when he's received his inheritance and he's walking away." It's kind of like the first step in Alcoholics Anonymous: "we admitted we were powerless over alcohol — that our lives had become unmanageable." Only when one's life becomes unmanageable (like when one's out slopping pigs and starts wanting their food) does one really need Christ.
This second reason made me feel worried. If people I knew had that lack of perceived need for years and years and constantly told me how unnecessary religion was in their lives, would I get lulled into inaction and not be prepared or available when their need suddenly came up and punched them in the stomach? I hope not, and here are two ways I can think of to prevent it:
1) I can insulate them a little. When they lack a perceived need I can say things like, "I understand that this is not necessary in your life, but here's how grace works for me," kind of like programming 911 into their spiritual speed dial in case of emergency.
2) I can keep my eyes open. I can recognize that opportunities to bring back prodigals may be sudden and brief and be prepared for them at all times. In other words, I can stay awake and keep plenty of oil in my lamp.
What did you hear today?
I'm in Dallas today, so I attended a worship service at King of Glory Lutheran Church. Pastor Jon Bustard preached on, among other things, the prodigal son story from Luke. The text and a recording of his sermon of the week usually get posted to the King of Glory website, but as of this writing, they're not up yet.
Commentary
I think Pastor Bustard preached a great sermon today. That's really saying something coming from me because I hate preaching. It's even more surprising because, being having been a Christian all my life, I've probably heard at least 25 prodigal son sermons. But this one actually made me think about a new aspect of the story, because Pastor Bustard was challenging us to be involved in God's recovery of the rest of His prodigal children, instead of just emphasizing how happy we are that God found us.
Rationalist that I am, if I'm going to be involved in solving a problem, I need to know what causes it. Pastor Bustard's sermon made clear to me that there are two reasons the prodigal son stays away from his father, and that both of those apply to people who stay away from church today:
1) Guilt. Late in the story, the prodigal son realizes what he's done wrong and is convinced his father will never want to take him back. Today, there are many people who think, "I can't go to church. Who I am and what I've done are too awful to be in the holy presence of God." This is not true, but I think as Christians we forget that. After all, how often do we seek out child molesters to join our congregation?
2) Lack of perceived need. This is the one that really stood out for me today. As I was saying to my husband, "you can't catch the prodigal son when he's received his inheritance and he's walking away." It's kind of like the first step in Alcoholics Anonymous: "we admitted we were powerless over alcohol — that our lives had become unmanageable." Only when one's life becomes unmanageable (like when one's out slopping pigs and starts wanting their food) does one really need Christ.
This second reason made me feel worried. If people I knew had that lack of perceived need for years and years and constantly told me how unnecessary religion was in their lives, would I get lulled into inaction and not be prepared or available when their need suddenly came up and punched them in the stomach? I hope not, and here are two ways I can think of to prevent it:
1) I can insulate them a little. When they lack a perceived need I can say things like, "I understand that this is not necessary in your life, but here's how grace works for me," kind of like programming 911 into their spiritual speed dial in case of emergency.
2) I can keep my eyes open. I can recognize that opportunities to bring back prodigals may be sudden and brief and be prepared for them at all times. In other words, I can stay awake and keep plenty of oil in my lamp.
What did you hear today?
9/05/2007
I saw a description of Christianity
Context
While web surfing today, I came across this blog entry which ends up positing that Christianity is, in fact, a "doom cult."
Commentary
I like to read analyses of Christianity written by non-Christians; it often helps me see where our message is going astray (e.g., "we're better than you" is not a basic tenet of the faith, regardless of how many people seem to espouse it,). In this case, however, I'm forced to say that Bronze Blog has hit the nail right on the head. We are a doom cult. Well, "cult" might not be the term I would use, but I concede the blogger's point that "cult" and "religion" have the same semantic relationship as "terrorist" and "freedom fighter": it depends on where you're standing.
But we're definitely all about the doom. In our defense, though, every religion is about doom. The basic premise of faith is, "you are there. You oughta be here instead. If you don't come over here, bad things will happen." Certainly we vary as to where "here" is and the appropriate method to get from the one place to the other, but as a general rule religion says things have got to change and it knows the way. It really doesn't have any other purpose.
So why does Bronze Blog think this is an insight worth blogging about? Well, for one thing, I've noticed there are a number of things that anti-Christians think of as "shocking revelations" that most Christians have long since assimilated into their understanding of how complex a relationship with God really is. I think some people really believe that as soon as they tell me that Jesus cursed a fig tree the scales will drop from my eyes and I'll renounce my deluded ways forever. Of course, scales dropping from the eyes is itself a Biblical phenomenon, but I digress.
On the other hand, maybe Bronze Blog is not so far afield. Maybe we have come to the point where Christians do think of apocalyptic nature of our faith as a "shocking revelation." Maybe we've become so comfortable and satisfied with the status quo that we really do believe that "God’s in his heaven: All’s right with the world."
But that's a Robert Browning line, not a biblical one. The Bible says the world is broken and that God will not stand for it forever. And the only consolation we get is that the new world will be better than the old. Hey, we're a doom cult, not a despairing one.
What did you see today?
While web surfing today, I came across this blog entry which ends up positing that Christianity is, in fact, a "doom cult."
Commentary
I like to read analyses of Christianity written by non-Christians; it often helps me see where our message is going astray (e.g., "we're better than you" is not a basic tenet of the faith, regardless of how many people seem to espouse it,). In this case, however, I'm forced to say that Bronze Blog has hit the nail right on the head. We are a doom cult. Well, "cult" might not be the term I would use, but I concede the blogger's point that "cult" and "religion" have the same semantic relationship as "terrorist" and "freedom fighter": it depends on where you're standing.
But we're definitely all about the doom. In our defense, though, every religion is about doom. The basic premise of faith is, "you are there. You oughta be here instead. If you don't come over here, bad things will happen." Certainly we vary as to where "here" is and the appropriate method to get from the one place to the other, but as a general rule religion says things have got to change and it knows the way. It really doesn't have any other purpose.
So why does Bronze Blog think this is an insight worth blogging about? Well, for one thing, I've noticed there are a number of things that anti-Christians think of as "shocking revelations" that most Christians have long since assimilated into their understanding of how complex a relationship with God really is. I think some people really believe that as soon as they tell me that Jesus cursed a fig tree the scales will drop from my eyes and I'll renounce my deluded ways forever. Of course, scales dropping from the eyes is itself a Biblical phenomenon, but I digress.
On the other hand, maybe Bronze Blog is not so far afield. Maybe we have come to the point where Christians do think of apocalyptic nature of our faith as a "shocking revelation." Maybe we've become so comfortable and satisfied with the status quo that we really do believe that "God’s in his heaven: All’s right with the world."
But that's a Robert Browning line, not a biblical one. The Bible says the world is broken and that God will not stand for it forever. And the only consolation we get is that the new world will be better than the old. Hey, we're a doom cult, not a despairing one.
What did you see today?
7/27/2007
I saw some people sitting around talking
Context
I went to give blood today. The person who attended to me struggled with almost all of the tasks associated with drawing blood and the end result was that my pint had to be discarded due to air contamination. Most of the time she was struggling, four or five of her coworkers were sitting around talking.
Commentary
Because of the Quaker testimony on integrity, I try to make the Context part of my blog as straightforward and fact-based as possible. Now that I'm in Commentary, I can tell you I was royally pissed off about the situation this morning.
I am what they call a baby blood donor, so I try to donate regularly. I enjoy the chance to do something that helps out and normally causes me very little trouble. Today's missteps at the blood collection site not only inconvenienced me, they made it impossible for me to donate for another eight weeks, which is likely to inconvenience some babies! So I'm a little perturbed about that.
However, I found the woman's coworkers blasé attitude even more disturbing. It's entirely possible that there was nothing they could have done to improve the situation, but from my viewpoint they looked like their work was of no consequence at all to them.
So that got me thinking about salvation. You don't really want to know how my mind works, because you'll become just as crazy as me, but here's what happened: my husband and I had a discussion about religious universalism yesterday in which I was generally in favor of it (my opinion on this topic changes almost daily). His main objection to universalism is that it fails to give enough importance to God sending his Son to die for us. In response I said, "yeah, but salvation doesn't seem all that important to some people."
That made me wonder why salvation is more important to me than many people I know, so I resolved to spend some time thinking about it today. Here's the progression I then went through: I think salvation is important because I believe in sin, which I know is not true of all everyone. Most of the people I know who don't believe in sin are moral relativists. I think moral relativism starts from a good place, i.e. "there are different moral standards in different contexts." However, it too often seems to end up at "since there's no absolute morality, it doesn't matter what I do!"
Do you see how I got back to the blood center workers? I believe that the moment we start believing that what we do doesn't matter, we start doing wrong. I also believe we get really depressed because it sucks to not matter, but that's an issue for another time.
What did you see today?
I went to give blood today. The person who attended to me struggled with almost all of the tasks associated with drawing blood and the end result was that my pint had to be discarded due to air contamination. Most of the time she was struggling, four or five of her coworkers were sitting around talking.
Commentary
Because of the Quaker testimony on integrity, I try to make the Context part of my blog as straightforward and fact-based as possible. Now that I'm in Commentary, I can tell you I was royally pissed off about the situation this morning.
I am what they call a baby blood donor, so I try to donate regularly. I enjoy the chance to do something that helps out and normally causes me very little trouble. Today's missteps at the blood collection site not only inconvenienced me, they made it impossible for me to donate for another eight weeks, which is likely to inconvenience some babies! So I'm a little perturbed about that.
However, I found the woman's coworkers blasé attitude even more disturbing. It's entirely possible that there was nothing they could have done to improve the situation, but from my viewpoint they looked like their work was of no consequence at all to them.
So that got me thinking about salvation. You don't really want to know how my mind works, because you'll become just as crazy as me, but here's what happened: my husband and I had a discussion about religious universalism yesterday in which I was generally in favor of it (my opinion on this topic changes almost daily). His main objection to universalism is that it fails to give enough importance to God sending his Son to die for us. In response I said, "yeah, but salvation doesn't seem all that important to some people."
That made me wonder why salvation is more important to me than many people I know, so I resolved to spend some time thinking about it today. Here's the progression I then went through: I think salvation is important because I believe in sin, which I know is not true of all everyone. Most of the people I know who don't believe in sin are moral relativists. I think moral relativism starts from a good place, i.e. "there are different moral standards in different contexts." However, it too often seems to end up at "since there's no absolute morality, it doesn't matter what I do!"
Do you see how I got back to the blood center workers? I believe that the moment we start believing that what we do doesn't matter, we start doing wrong. I also believe we get really depressed because it sucks to not matter, but that's an issue for another time.
What did you see today?
2/22/2007
I saw a quote on the value of watching
Context
I was reading some of the entries in the "Ask ET" forum today. You can find the index for the forum here. "ET" in this context stands for Edward Tufte, a professor emeritus at Yale University whose current passion is analytical design. I find a great deal of Tufte's work fascinating, if only because of his elegant defense of the idea that how you present information is as important as the information itself. However, today I was particularly struck by the wisdom of this entry in the forum, where the author decided to open up a broader philosophical discussion on "Grand Truths about Human Behavior." Here's one quote that Tufte believes fits the "Grand Truths" bill: "Upon expecting fair play in high places: You'll get it if enough folk are watching." ( J. P. Donleavy's variant of Wendell Phillips' "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.")
Commentary
Yippee! Another chance to justify the existence of this blog, this time by quoting people who think just watching what other people do is important.
The political theory expressed above looks remarkably cynical: people in power don't base their decisions on ethical principles; they do as much evil as they think they can get away with. I'm not sure that's actually what's being said, though. I believe that most of the time, people think they're doing the right thing. This belief requires a really broad definition of "right" that encompasses convenience, instant gratification and no small amount of self-centeredness, but what I'm saying is that we very rarely pull out our Snidely Whiplash capes and decide to do wrong. So what Donleavy is saying is that a few extra eyes will tilt a governing authority away from a selfish view of what's right toward a more socially beneficial one. I think he may be right in some cases, but I think we have to recognize that oftentimes people are sufficiently set on a bad path that just seeing them doing wrong will not be enough. We have to both care and act.
I spend most of my work day in front of a computer. In this Information Age, that means I learn about a lot of situations that could be defined as "wrong," if only grammatically. In the vast majority of circumstances, I don't care because life's too short to worry about every little thing. I've seen what someone is doing, but I deem his/her action unimportant, so my seeing has little impact on either me or her/him.
Some items bubble up to the level of concern. They make me mad or sad or depressed, but I don't do anything about it for any number of reasons (sometimes the emotions themselves paralyze me). Well, now the person's choice has an effect on me, but if I don't at least take the step of letting him/her know my opinion, I don't think it matters much to that person.
So in order to inspire fair play in high places, or to effect any positive change for that matter, we have to see and care and act. Luckily, "acting" can take many forms. Just in the non-violent realm there's voting, protesting, debating, educating and publicizing (this last one adheres to the "more eyes watching are more likely to provoke good behavior theory."). Or you could try writing in a blog that hardly anyone reads. Hey, it's a start!
What did you see today?
I was reading some of the entries in the "Ask ET" forum today. You can find the index for the forum here. "ET" in this context stands for Edward Tufte, a professor emeritus at Yale University whose current passion is analytical design. I find a great deal of Tufte's work fascinating, if only because of his elegant defense of the idea that how you present information is as important as the information itself. However, today I was particularly struck by the wisdom of this entry in the forum, where the author decided to open up a broader philosophical discussion on "Grand Truths about Human Behavior." Here's one quote that Tufte believes fits the "Grand Truths" bill: "Upon expecting fair play in high places: You'll get it if enough folk are watching." ( J. P. Donleavy's variant of Wendell Phillips' "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.")
Commentary
Yippee! Another chance to justify the existence of this blog, this time by quoting people who think just watching what other people do is important.
The political theory expressed above looks remarkably cynical: people in power don't base their decisions on ethical principles; they do as much evil as they think they can get away with. I'm not sure that's actually what's being said, though. I believe that most of the time, people think they're doing the right thing. This belief requires a really broad definition of "right" that encompasses convenience, instant gratification and no small amount of self-centeredness, but what I'm saying is that we very rarely pull out our Snidely Whiplash capes and decide to do wrong. So what Donleavy is saying is that a few extra eyes will tilt a governing authority away from a selfish view of what's right toward a more socially beneficial one. I think he may be right in some cases, but I think we have to recognize that oftentimes people are sufficiently set on a bad path that just seeing them doing wrong will not be enough. We have to both care and act.
I spend most of my work day in front of a computer. In this Information Age, that means I learn about a lot of situations that could be defined as "wrong," if only grammatically. In the vast majority of circumstances, I don't care because life's too short to worry about every little thing. I've seen what someone is doing, but I deem his/her action unimportant, so my seeing has little impact on either me or her/him.
Some items bubble up to the level of concern. They make me mad or sad or depressed, but I don't do anything about it for any number of reasons (sometimes the emotions themselves paralyze me). Well, now the person's choice has an effect on me, but if I don't at least take the step of letting him/her know my opinion, I don't think it matters much to that person.
So in order to inspire fair play in high places, or to effect any positive change for that matter, we have to see and care and act. Luckily, "acting" can take many forms. Just in the non-violent realm there's voting, protesting, debating, educating and publicizing (this last one adheres to the "more eyes watching are more likely to provoke good behavior theory."). Or you could try writing in a blog that hardly anyone reads. Hey, it's a start!
What did you see today?
7/17/2006
I saw the consequences of an oft-repeated mistake
Context
I have a variety of job duties at Shreve Memorial Library, which is not unusual for my profession. One of these is administrating our integrated library system. Another is training staff members on how to use it. Today I was informed that someone made a mistake on the system last Wednesday. The person who notified me stated in her e-mail that “everyone claims innocence,” but further pressing revealed that it was probably a third party who has made this error many times before. It’s possible that the only reason I was told about it was because the mistake in question requires my intervention before anyone at that particular branch can perform the same task. The fix took about 30 seconds, but because I’ve been on vacation, what should be a daily task at that branch has been left undone for five days. It took considerably longer than 30 seconds to compose an e-mail expressing my ire at this ongoing situation to the mistake-maker’s supervisor (a fourth party!).
Commentary
One of the ladies who attends my Quaker meeting thinks Jesus can’t have been perfect because He got mad at people. I disagree. I definitely think there’s such thing as righteous anger and that mine usually fits the criteria ;-).
Anyway, I hope my e-mail to the supervisor expressed the reason for my anger adequately. It’s a little irritating that the same mistake keeps being made over and over again, but what really burns my butt is not being told about it by the responsible party. Politically, I didn’t feel like I could confront the mistake-maker directly, so I was left to speculate on the reasons why she didn’t tell me about the problem herself. I came up with three:
1) She doesn’t think it’s a big enough problem to bother mentioning. As you can tell by this entry, she’s wrong. It’s a sufficient inconvenience to enough people to require immediate action.
2) She figures I’ll find out eventually from someone. Why should she lay herself on the line? I did find out about this eventually from someone, so she was right about that. On the other hand, she’s still smack in the middle of the situation, not because I want to blame someone, but because of necessity any solution to the problem will involve her.
3) She feels like she’s made this mistake so many times that we’ve used up every possible preventative. She’s wrong about that as well. I’m a professional trainer; I’ve always got another educational trick up my sleeve.
So this whole episode got me thinking about confession. Essentially, what I’m wanting from my coworker is what God wants from us: He wants us to admit that we’ve done wrong. Christians (well, everybody actually, but I know the Christian experience better than any other) have many reasons for not wanting to confess our sins to God. Or at least, three:
1) We don’t think the sin is big enough that we need to confess it. What’s a little lust in your heart as compared to bombing innocent children? The problem is, the sinner almost never has any idea of the magnitude of her sin or the effect it’s going to have on other people. We are all too inclined to let ourselves slide for actions we would find unacceptable in other people. Better to let an outside judge take a look at that error for us, I think.
2) God knows that we sin; it seems pointless to discuss it with Him. People use a similar reason for not offering prayers of petition: God knows what I need. Of course He does! In my experience, prayer of all types is not for the purpose of getting God’s attention. It’s to focus ours. In the case of confession, any twelve-step program will tell you that the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one.
3) We feel like it’s hopeless. We’ve been down the same path so many times before and nothing ever changes. Really? Nothing? In my experience, it’s never actually the same situation twice. Maybe this time I realize a split-second earlier that I’m doing wrong. Maybe this person calls me on it instead of suffering in silence like the last 29 have done. I’m not saying the changes are always pleasant or even appear positive. I am saying that if Lynn the trainer always has a trick up her sleeve, imagine what God must have in that big old white robe or whatever He wears?
What did you see today?
I have a variety of job duties at Shreve Memorial Library, which is not unusual for my profession. One of these is administrating our integrated library system. Another is training staff members on how to use it. Today I was informed that someone made a mistake on the system last Wednesday. The person who notified me stated in her e-mail that “everyone claims innocence,” but further pressing revealed that it was probably a third party who has made this error many times before. It’s possible that the only reason I was told about it was because the mistake in question requires my intervention before anyone at that particular branch can perform the same task. The fix took about 30 seconds, but because I’ve been on vacation, what should be a daily task at that branch has been left undone for five days. It took considerably longer than 30 seconds to compose an e-mail expressing my ire at this ongoing situation to the mistake-maker’s supervisor (a fourth party!).
Commentary
One of the ladies who attends my Quaker meeting thinks Jesus can’t have been perfect because He got mad at people. I disagree. I definitely think there’s such thing as righteous anger and that mine usually fits the criteria ;-).
Anyway, I hope my e-mail to the supervisor expressed the reason for my anger adequately. It’s a little irritating that the same mistake keeps being made over and over again, but what really burns my butt is not being told about it by the responsible party. Politically, I didn’t feel like I could confront the mistake-maker directly, so I was left to speculate on the reasons why she didn’t tell me about the problem herself. I came up with three:
1) She doesn’t think it’s a big enough problem to bother mentioning. As you can tell by this entry, she’s wrong. It’s a sufficient inconvenience to enough people to require immediate action.
2) She figures I’ll find out eventually from someone. Why should she lay herself on the line? I did find out about this eventually from someone, so she was right about that. On the other hand, she’s still smack in the middle of the situation, not because I want to blame someone, but because of necessity any solution to the problem will involve her.
3) She feels like she’s made this mistake so many times that we’ve used up every possible preventative. She’s wrong about that as well. I’m a professional trainer; I’ve always got another educational trick up my sleeve.
So this whole episode got me thinking about confession. Essentially, what I’m wanting from my coworker is what God wants from us: He wants us to admit that we’ve done wrong. Christians (well, everybody actually, but I know the Christian experience better than any other) have many reasons for not wanting to confess our sins to God. Or at least, three:
1) We don’t think the sin is big enough that we need to confess it. What’s a little lust in your heart as compared to bombing innocent children? The problem is, the sinner almost never has any idea of the magnitude of her sin or the effect it’s going to have on other people. We are all too inclined to let ourselves slide for actions we would find unacceptable in other people. Better to let an outside judge take a look at that error for us, I think.
2) God knows that we sin; it seems pointless to discuss it with Him. People use a similar reason for not offering prayers of petition: God knows what I need. Of course He does! In my experience, prayer of all types is not for the purpose of getting God’s attention. It’s to focus ours. In the case of confession, any twelve-step program will tell you that the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one.
3) We feel like it’s hopeless. We’ve been down the same path so many times before and nothing ever changes. Really? Nothing? In my experience, it’s never actually the same situation twice. Maybe this time I realize a split-second earlier that I’m doing wrong. Maybe this person calls me on it instead of suffering in silence like the last 29 have done. I’m not saying the changes are always pleasant or even appear positive. I am saying that if Lynn the trainer always has a trick up her sleeve, imagine what God must have in that big old white robe or whatever He wears?
What did you see today?
4/20/2006
I saw my sin
Context
Shreve Memorial Library, where I work, held a Staff Development Day yesterday. One of our speakers came to talk with us about the Fish! Philosophy. Fish! has four basic components: play, be there, make their day, and choose your attitude. After I’d been back at work for a little over an hour today, I had a conversation with a coworker that caused me to mentally convert “choose your attitude” into “slam their attitude.” A little while after that, I recognized how wrong, wrong, wrong that was.
Commentary
It is my perception, correct or not, that I have a more sensitive conscience than other people. My sins are like Cole Sear's dead people; I see them all the time. This is one of those traits that some people think must make me unhappy. On the contrary, I consider my conscience a huge blessing from God for a couple of reasons:
1) I’m really, really aware of other people’s sins, too, as you can tell by my comment about this morning. I’m already pretty insufferable about it; imagine if I didn’t see the log in my own eye.
2) I cannot be a Christian without it. People have many different definitions of Christianity, but mine, which probably owes a great deal to my upbringing in the Lutheran Church, is this: it’s the religion that exists because people sin and they need to be saved from it.
I believe in Jesus Christ is the person who saves me from my sin. Having a tender conscience reminds me of my sin and so, perhaps somewhat ironically, reminds me of everything Jesus has done for me. So every time I see myself sinning, I see Jesus. Yay! St. Paul has something to say about whether we should continue sinning so grace can abound, but that’s a topic for another time.
What did you see today?
Shreve Memorial Library, where I work, held a Staff Development Day yesterday. One of our speakers came to talk with us about the Fish! Philosophy. Fish! has four basic components: play, be there, make their day, and choose your attitude. After I’d been back at work for a little over an hour today, I had a conversation with a coworker that caused me to mentally convert “choose your attitude” into “slam their attitude.” A little while after that, I recognized how wrong, wrong, wrong that was.
Commentary
It is my perception, correct or not, that I have a more sensitive conscience than other people. My sins are like Cole Sear's dead people; I see them all the time. This is one of those traits that some people think must make me unhappy. On the contrary, I consider my conscience a huge blessing from God for a couple of reasons:
1) I’m really, really aware of other people’s sins, too, as you can tell by my comment about this morning. I’m already pretty insufferable about it; imagine if I didn’t see the log in my own eye.
2) I cannot be a Christian without it. People have many different definitions of Christianity, but mine, which probably owes a great deal to my upbringing in the Lutheran Church, is this: it’s the religion that exists because people sin and they need to be saved from it.
I believe in Jesus Christ is the person who saves me from my sin. Having a tender conscience reminds me of my sin and so, perhaps somewhat ironically, reminds me of everything Jesus has done for me. So every time I see myself sinning, I see Jesus. Yay! St. Paul has something to say about whether we should continue sinning so grace can abound, but that’s a topic for another time.
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)