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?
4/20/2006
4/17/2006
I saw an article about faith
Context
The American Library Association has a e-mail list that's supposed to relate to intellectual freedom called IFFORUM (archives here). Because it's unmoderated, it often becomes a magnet for all kinds of political commentary. Today someone posted an excerpt from this interview with Sam Harris. There was a great deal of food for thought in the interview, (translation: I could rant about it all day, if you let me), but I was particularly struck by this exchange:
Amazon.com: In other words, you are careful to distinguish between what you term "faith" and "spirituality." In a nutshell, what is this distinction?
Harris: "Faith" is false conviction in unjustified propositions (a certain book was written by God; we will be reunited with our loved ones after death; the Creator of the universe can hear our thoughts, etc.). "Spirituality" or "mysticism" (both words are pretty terrible, but there are no good alternatives in English) refers to any process of introspection by which a person can come to realize that the feeling he calls "I" is a cognitive illusion. The core truth of mysticism is this: It is possible to experience the world without feeling like a separate "self" in the usual sense. Such a change in the character of one's experience need not become the basis for making unsupportable claims about the nature of the universe, however.
Commentary
Let's start with where I agree with Sam Harris: I, too, think there's a difference between "faith" and "spirituality." When I'm at my most cynical, I think faith is when you actually believe in something and spirituality is when you have the vague feeling that you want to/ought to believe in something, but haven't settled on anything in particular.
Thanks to my husband, Mark, I've started thinking about the distinction more rationally. Faith is still when you believe in something, or as the writer of Hebrews would have it, "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 NRSV)
Spirituality has more to do with what one believes in. I agree with Harris that it is something separate from the self, but I think he’s too anthrocentric about it, in that he views the transformation of the individual as the important component. I think the most important aspect of spirituality is learning about an entity that is separate from the self. I’ve been taught to call this entity the Holy Spirit.
At this point, Harris would be perfectly justified in crying “foul!” I’ve taken an article in which he defines spirituality as something separate from the most evil aspects of Western religion, and stuck it smack dab in the center of the enemy camp. The problem is, despite Christianity’s reputation for couching things in terms of black and white, I don’t see the duality Harris proposes. In fact, my “real” definition of spirituality is in some way related to my cynical one above. It’s that separate entity, whether we call it “God,” or “the Holy Spirit,” or “Nature,” or “the Avatar,” that prompts us to think, “maybe I ought to believe in something that’s outside my immediate experience and self-interest.” In other words, “maybe I ought to have a little faith.”
That being said, I think Harris does have some faith himself. For example, he believes that, “It is possible to experience the world without feeling like a separate ‘self’ in the usual sense.” Personally, I think that’s an unsupportable claim about the nature of the universe.
What did you see today?
The American Library Association has a e-mail list that's supposed to relate to intellectual freedom called IFFORUM (archives here). Because it's unmoderated, it often becomes a magnet for all kinds of political commentary. Today someone posted an excerpt from this interview with Sam Harris. There was a great deal of food for thought in the interview, (translation: I could rant about it all day, if you let me), but I was particularly struck by this exchange:
Amazon.com: In other words, you are careful to distinguish between what you term "faith" and "spirituality." In a nutshell, what is this distinction?
Harris: "Faith" is false conviction in unjustified propositions (a certain book was written by God; we will be reunited with our loved ones after death; the Creator of the universe can hear our thoughts, etc.). "Spirituality" or "mysticism" (both words are pretty terrible, but there are no good alternatives in English) refers to any process of introspection by which a person can come to realize that the feeling he calls "I" is a cognitive illusion. The core truth of mysticism is this: It is possible to experience the world without feeling like a separate "self" in the usual sense. Such a change in the character of one's experience need not become the basis for making unsupportable claims about the nature of the universe, however.
Commentary
Let's start with where I agree with Sam Harris: I, too, think there's a difference between "faith" and "spirituality." When I'm at my most cynical, I think faith is when you actually believe in something and spirituality is when you have the vague feeling that you want to/ought to believe in something, but haven't settled on anything in particular.
Thanks to my husband, Mark, I've started thinking about the distinction more rationally. Faith is still when you believe in something, or as the writer of Hebrews would have it, "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 NRSV)
Spirituality has more to do with what one believes in. I agree with Harris that it is something separate from the self, but I think he’s too anthrocentric about it, in that he views the transformation of the individual as the important component. I think the most important aspect of spirituality is learning about an entity that is separate from the self. I’ve been taught to call this entity the Holy Spirit.
At this point, Harris would be perfectly justified in crying “foul!” I’ve taken an article in which he defines spirituality as something separate from the most evil aspects of Western religion, and stuck it smack dab in the center of the enemy camp. The problem is, despite Christianity’s reputation for couching things in terms of black and white, I don’t see the duality Harris proposes. In fact, my “real” definition of spirituality is in some way related to my cynical one above. It’s that separate entity, whether we call it “God,” or “the Holy Spirit,” or “Nature,” or “the Avatar,” that prompts us to think, “maybe I ought to believe in something that’s outside my immediate experience and self-interest.” In other words, “maybe I ought to have a little faith.”
That being said, I think Harris does have some faith himself. For example, he believes that, “It is possible to experience the world without feeling like a separate ‘self’ in the usual sense.” Personally, I think that’s an unsupportable claim about the nature of the universe.
What did you see today?
4/04/2006
I saw my boss's boss make a face
Context
My boss's boss came to my cubicle to invite me to a meeting today. When I asked questions regarding duration and agenda, she said, "I don't know," and made a "why are you asking me questions" face.
Commentary
"Perceived" sounded too pompous. We'll just deal with the fact that sometimes "What I Saw Today" will encompass "What I Heard Today."
My boss's boss's reaction (is that a fun phrase, or what?) to my inquiries made me ponder what causes us not to want to hear questions. I think I've broken it down to three basic reasons:
1) We don't know the answer, and we think we should. I think this fit the situation today. This is sad, because I thought "I don't know" was a perfectly reasonable response, but it seemed to make my b.b. unhappy to have to say it.
2) We think the questioner doesn't actually care about the answer to the question. In other words, he/she's trying to provoke a reaction, not being genuinely curious.
3) We know the answer and we're uncomfortable giving it. When we hear the question, we respond by saying something like, "I was afraid you were going to ask that."
I'm wondering if we can get over having a unfavorable reaction to questions. I'd like to accomplish this both because I think questions are generally a good form of communication and because I frequently have all the responses listed above.
Just to let myself off 1/3 of the hook, I'll say I don't think the #3 reaction can be vanquished. It's never going to be pleasant to say, "no, I'm really not interested in dating you anymore," or "it's going to take $500 to fix this and your warranty has expired."
Reaction #1 begs a flippant answer: just make sure you know everything you think you're supposed to know. OK, not likely. How about: become more comfortable with your ignorance? That's better, but still not wholly satisfying. After all, maybe you'd be perfectly OK with saying "I don't know," but you think your questioner expects you to have all the answers. Isn't this why we're so reluctant to admit our ignorance when questioned by a little kid? I mean, we're adults, haven't we had time to learn everything yet? Um, no. The best thing about questions, particularly little kid questions, is that they open up the possibility of learning more if we choose to.
And then there's reaction #2. If we're correct about our questioner's motivation, then we have every right to be unhappy with the question. The problem that frequently happens in my life is assumption of provocation where none was intended. What if I were to treat every question as if it were asked in good faith? Does it actually do any harm to act this way even if someone is actually trying to get your goat?
I am a fashion nightmare. It would be easier to if I could just say I don't care about clothes, but that's not true. I care deeply about my clothing, and my opinion about what looks good is different from just about everyone else on the planet. When I was in middle school and sensitive about such things, fashionistas would look at my outfit and say, "are you in a play?" This would cause the usual adolescent angst on my part, but what if my answer had been, "no, but if I was, I'd be sure to let you know. Thanks for asking."?
If we do that, the insulting person will think we were ignorant of their intent. We'll look like we didn't know something we were supposed to. In that case, refer to reaction #1. Although why we would want to learn more about how evil people can be is beyond me.
What did you see today?
My boss's boss came to my cubicle to invite me to a meeting today. When I asked questions regarding duration and agenda, she said, "I don't know," and made a "why are you asking me questions" face.
Commentary
"Perceived" sounded too pompous. We'll just deal with the fact that sometimes "What I Saw Today" will encompass "What I Heard Today."
My boss's boss's reaction (is that a fun phrase, or what?) to my inquiries made me ponder what causes us not to want to hear questions. I think I've broken it down to three basic reasons:
1) We don't know the answer, and we think we should. I think this fit the situation today. This is sad, because I thought "I don't know" was a perfectly reasonable response, but it seemed to make my b.b. unhappy to have to say it.
2) We think the questioner doesn't actually care about the answer to the question. In other words, he/she's trying to provoke a reaction, not being genuinely curious.
3) We know the answer and we're uncomfortable giving it. When we hear the question, we respond by saying something like, "I was afraid you were going to ask that."
I'm wondering if we can get over having a unfavorable reaction to questions. I'd like to accomplish this both because I think questions are generally a good form of communication and because I frequently have all the responses listed above.
Just to let myself off 1/3 of the hook, I'll say I don't think the #3 reaction can be vanquished. It's never going to be pleasant to say, "no, I'm really not interested in dating you anymore," or "it's going to take $500 to fix this and your warranty has expired."
Reaction #1 begs a flippant answer: just make sure you know everything you think you're supposed to know. OK, not likely. How about: become more comfortable with your ignorance? That's better, but still not wholly satisfying. After all, maybe you'd be perfectly OK with saying "I don't know," but you think your questioner expects you to have all the answers. Isn't this why we're so reluctant to admit our ignorance when questioned by a little kid? I mean, we're adults, haven't we had time to learn everything yet? Um, no. The best thing about questions, particularly little kid questions, is that they open up the possibility of learning more if we choose to.
And then there's reaction #2. If we're correct about our questioner's motivation, then we have every right to be unhappy with the question. The problem that frequently happens in my life is assumption of provocation where none was intended. What if I were to treat every question as if it were asked in good faith? Does it actually do any harm to act this way even if someone is actually trying to get your goat?
I am a fashion nightmare. It would be easier to if I could just say I don't care about clothes, but that's not true. I care deeply about my clothing, and my opinion about what looks good is different from just about everyone else on the planet. When I was in middle school and sensitive about such things, fashionistas would look at my outfit and say, "are you in a play?" This would cause the usual adolescent angst on my part, but what if my answer had been, "no, but if I was, I'd be sure to let you know. Thanks for asking."?
If we do that, the insulting person will think we were ignorant of their intent. We'll look like we didn't know something we were supposed to. In that case, refer to reaction #1. Although why we would want to learn more about how evil people can be is beyond me.
What did you see today?
3/10/2006
I heard someone make a promise he couldn't keep.
Context
I'm afraid to fly, even though I've done it for 35 years. Today the pilot on my Northwest Airlines flight said he promised the crew would get us safely to our destination. Quakers take the Biblical injunction against oaths pretty seriously, as exemplified by this excerpt from the Faith and Practice of the Pacific Yearly Meeting.
Commentary
In case you didn't notice, I've changed the name of this blog. The call I'm answering with it was to open my eyes and open my mouth. Since I'm already typing instead of opening my mouth, I'm thinking that the "eyes" part can be stretched a little as well. The blog will probably still predominantly consist of things I see and hear, but if I start tasting, smelling or touching things I need to call attention to, you'll be the first to know.
For a split second, I'm almost felt reassured when the pilot promised to get me safely to my destination. Then I realized he was lying. People sometimes object when I put it bluntly like that, but to me lying describes what you say, not what you intend. Since there are an almost infinite number of things that could have kept me from getting safely to my destination in spite of the pilot's best intentions, he was lying. The most truthful thing he could have said was that he was going to do his best. Even venturing to promise the best efforts of other people on the crew would have been pushing it.
Most of the time, I pay the most attention to the part of Matthew 5:33-37 that says to just say yes or no, rather than taking an oath (this is stated more strongly in James 5:12). Today I started thinking more about the surrounding language that says there's no point in swearing by anything, because we don't control anything. I'm wondering if one of the reasons we're not supposed to take oaths is that not only are we not in control of what we swear by, but usually don't have as much influence over what we swear to as we might think.
Consider: does anyone really tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? If God helped us I suppose we could, but I know it doesn't often happen in my life. I'm not even trying to be deceitful; I've just forgotten stuff. Sometimes, without even realizing it, I've made up stuff to fill in the gaps where I've forgotten stuff. Anyone with relatives knows that either you or them must be doing that, given how different the accounts of the same event are.
The funny thing is that when I'm sitting on a plane, I'm more likely to believe a pilot, who says he's going to get me to my destination safely, than God, who says all things work together for good for those who love Him (Romans 8:28 NRSV). It's ridiculous how low we set our sights. Or our hearing.
What did you hear today?
I'm afraid to fly, even though I've done it for 35 years. Today the pilot on my Northwest Airlines flight said he promised the crew would get us safely to our destination. Quakers take the Biblical injunction against oaths pretty seriously, as exemplified by this excerpt from the Faith and Practice of the Pacific Yearly Meeting.
Commentary
In case you didn't notice, I've changed the name of this blog. The call I'm answering with it was to open my eyes and open my mouth. Since I'm already typing instead of opening my mouth, I'm thinking that the "eyes" part can be stretched a little as well. The blog will probably still predominantly consist of things I see and hear, but if I start tasting, smelling or touching things I need to call attention to, you'll be the first to know.
For a split second, I'm almost felt reassured when the pilot promised to get me safely to my destination. Then I realized he was lying. People sometimes object when I put it bluntly like that, but to me lying describes what you say, not what you intend. Since there are an almost infinite number of things that could have kept me from getting safely to my destination in spite of the pilot's best intentions, he was lying. The most truthful thing he could have said was that he was going to do his best. Even venturing to promise the best efforts of other people on the crew would have been pushing it.
Most of the time, I pay the most attention to the part of Matthew 5:33-37 that says to just say yes or no, rather than taking an oath (this is stated more strongly in James 5:12). Today I started thinking more about the surrounding language that says there's no point in swearing by anything, because we don't control anything. I'm wondering if one of the reasons we're not supposed to take oaths is that not only are we not in control of what we swear by, but usually don't have as much influence over what we swear to as we might think.
Consider: does anyone really tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? If God helped us I suppose we could, but I know it doesn't often happen in my life. I'm not even trying to be deceitful; I've just forgotten stuff. Sometimes, without even realizing it, I've made up stuff to fill in the gaps where I've forgotten stuff. Anyone with relatives knows that either you or them must be doing that, given how different the accounts of the same event are.
The funny thing is that when I'm sitting on a plane, I'm more likely to believe a pilot, who says he's going to get me to my destination safely, than God, who says all things work together for good for those who love Him (Romans 8:28 NRSV). It's ridiculous how low we set our sights. Or our hearing.
What did you hear today?
3/07/2006
I saw two African-American guys at my hotel.
Context
I’m attending the SirsiDynix Superconference, which is being held at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center. Gaylord Opryland is a huge, enclosed facility with a hotel, shops, restaurants, a convention center, and even a river all under one roof. Or one skylight, if you will. I have seen very few African-Americans since I arrived.
Commentary
I always feel like there’s something wrong when I’m in a place that seems lily white. Some of that out-of-whack feeling may come from residing in Shreveport, which is predominantly African-American. However, I also grew up as a member of a racial minority in Mexico City, so I think being in the majority always makes me feel weird.
Yesterday, I would have told you that I was going completely the other way. It seemed like every black face I saw was causing a mental hiccup in me. “What are those people doing here? Are they supposed to be in the convention area?” So, two days away from Shreveport and I become a total racist.
It’s not that simple, though. I had no qualms at all about the two African-American guys I saw today. They were middle-aged, professionally dressed, and out and about pretty early in the morning. In other words, even though they weren’t wearing the seemingly ubiquitous name badges, they looked like they were at a convention. And now that I think about it, I was pretty uncertain about the white kids in the baggy shorts I saw yesterday, too.
The idea that in the United States we are more culturalist than racist is not a new one, but it’s often unpopular. Bill Cosby was quickly criticized for daring to suggest that some African-Americans might actually be bringing negative reactions on themselves by their language and dress. But I’m wondering if we have reached a place that was unanticipated by Dr. King, where people are not judged by the color of their skin or the content of their character, but by the length of their pants and the size of their vocabulary.
I’m not saying this is a morally superior criterion for prejudice, but it is a different one. Without the use of heavy makeup, you have no control over your racial identity. Usually, however, you can control your speech patterns and your fashion choices. Here are some questions I think we all struggle with: How much am I willing to change in order to not trigger the prejudices of people like employers, family members, and random passers-by on the street? How much is it up to them to change instead?
What did you see today?
I’m attending the SirsiDynix Superconference, which is being held at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center. Gaylord Opryland is a huge, enclosed facility with a hotel, shops, restaurants, a convention center, and even a river all under one roof. Or one skylight, if you will. I have seen very few African-Americans since I arrived.
Commentary
I always feel like there’s something wrong when I’m in a place that seems lily white. Some of that out-of-whack feeling may come from residing in Shreveport, which is predominantly African-American. However, I also grew up as a member of a racial minority in Mexico City, so I think being in the majority always makes me feel weird.
Yesterday, I would have told you that I was going completely the other way. It seemed like every black face I saw was causing a mental hiccup in me. “What are those people doing here? Are they supposed to be in the convention area?” So, two days away from Shreveport and I become a total racist.
It’s not that simple, though. I had no qualms at all about the two African-American guys I saw today. They were middle-aged, professionally dressed, and out and about pretty early in the morning. In other words, even though they weren’t wearing the seemingly ubiquitous name badges, they looked like they were at a convention. And now that I think about it, I was pretty uncertain about the white kids in the baggy shorts I saw yesterday, too.
The idea that in the United States we are more culturalist than racist is not a new one, but it’s often unpopular. Bill Cosby was quickly criticized for daring to suggest that some African-Americans might actually be bringing negative reactions on themselves by their language and dress. But I’m wondering if we have reached a place that was unanticipated by Dr. King, where people are not judged by the color of their skin or the content of their character, but by the length of their pants and the size of their vocabulary.
I’m not saying this is a morally superior criterion for prejudice, but it is a different one. Without the use of heavy makeup, you have no control over your racial identity. Usually, however, you can control your speech patterns and your fashion choices. Here are some questions I think we all struggle with: How much am I willing to change in order to not trigger the prejudices of people like employers, family members, and random passers-by on the street? How much is it up to them to change instead?
What did you see today?
2/15/2006
I saw two Bible passages close together.
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?
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?
1/26/2006
I saw a person behaving strangely in the street
Context
As I was crossing the street today, I saw a man on the other side waving his arms around. Then he got down into what looked like a racer's crouch.
Commentary
These were my thoughts, in chronological order:
Wow, he's acting strangely!
Is he mentally ill?
Is he dangerous?
Should I avoid crossing the street toward him?
Is that a runner's crouch?
Looks pretty funny with a cigarette in his hand.
I think I'll ask him if he's racing for the light when I pass him.
If that was someone I knew, I would think he was clowning, not crazy.
He looks kind of distracted, I guess I won't ask him about the crouch after all.
I don't know which thought I'm supposed to take away from the experience, "humor humanizes everything," or "what looks distressing in a stranger is just intriguing in someone you know."
What did you see today?
As I was crossing the street today, I saw a man on the other side waving his arms around. Then he got down into what looked like a racer's crouch.
Commentary
These were my thoughts, in chronological order:
Wow, he's acting strangely!
Is he mentally ill?
Is he dangerous?
Should I avoid crossing the street toward him?
Is that a runner's crouch?
Looks pretty funny with a cigarette in his hand.
I think I'll ask him if he's racing for the light when I pass him.
If that was someone I knew, I would think he was clowning, not crazy.
He looks kind of distracted, I guess I won't ask him about the crouch after all.
I don't know which thought I'm supposed to take away from the experience, "humor humanizes everything," or "what looks distressing in a stranger is just intriguing in someone you know."
What did you see today?
1/15/2006
I saw that everyone needs God’s Word, just in different ways.
Context
I’m reading the Gospel of Luke these days for a couple of reasons. One of them is, given the fact that Luke was a physician, it can be argued that Luke is the gospel for smart people. John could probably give Luke a run for his money, but he’s not who I’m reading right now.
When Luke talks about the devil’s first temptation, he only quotes Jesus as saying, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’” Luke 4:4 NRSV. For you Matthew fans out there, that means Luke skips the part about “but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Matthew 4:4b NRSV.
Even though I'm a member of the Religious Society of Friends, I teach Sunday School at my husband’s church, First Evangelical Lutheran. I missed Friends’ worship yesterday, so I decided to attend worship at First as well.
Commentary
I’m wondering if the reason Luke doesn’t include the “every word that comes from the mouth of God” part is because he expects a smart person to figure out what else we need to live. I already know the Matthian version of the story, so I don’t have to figure it out if I don’t want to, but sometimes it’s interesting to work with a passage of the Bible to see if you come to the same conclusion the writers did.
As a person who’s concerned about poverty (not that I do much about it, but I am concerned), the “man does not live by bread alone” idea troubles me. When it comes to missionary work, it seems to me that you need to feed people before you can preach the gospel. And yet, I don't behave as if that's true. My strongest missionary support goes to Lutheran Bible Translators. Partly that’s because my husband and I have a personal connection to one of the families working in Botswana, the Megahans. I don’t think that’s everything, though. Part of me just can’t help but think that no matter how bad off you are materially, your life will be better if you can experience the Bible in your native tongue.
My experience at First today led me to believe that definition of “native tongue” can be stretched pretty far. When I want to be, I can be a pretty focused person. Twice today, I was reading or considering material for future Sunday School classes and people interrupted me. In both cases, the people in question didn’t just say, “hi!”; they made it seem that it was odd for me to be concentrating so hard. I was annoyed; I don’t come to church to be social (I don’t do much of anything to be social); I come to church to learn and teach the Word of God. I started thinking, “maybe that’s what Luke’s talking about. Besides bread, I need the Word of God. These ladies need fellowship.”
But what if fellowship is these ladies “native tongue?” Can fellowship teach us the Word of God? Do we need to share with each other what God is doing in our lives and what we wish God would do? If not, why do I have this blog, anyway?
One more story: as I was thinking about these matters after the worship service had ended, a little girl I know walked around the corner looking upset. When I asked why, she said she was sad because she didn’t get to take anything home from church. I won’t get into the long story of why she thought she should get something to take home every week, as I’m not sure I understand it myself. Anyway, after a while I handed her my bulletin, and told her, “I get to take one of these home every week. It has lots of words in it [the little girl in question can read, but she’s not going to be plowing through the book of Job any time soon], but it also has a picture. That picture will always tell you something about God. In fact, this whole bulletin is about the Word of God. Every week, you can take home the Word of God from church, and no one will tell you ‘no.’” I also told her that she could carry the love of every person in the congregation home with her which, as John will tell you, is a great way of knowing the Word of God. Hey, maybe his is the gospel for smart people!
I’m reading the Gospel of Luke these days for a couple of reasons. One of them is, given the fact that Luke was a physician, it can be argued that Luke is the gospel for smart people. John could probably give Luke a run for his money, but he’s not who I’m reading right now.
When Luke talks about the devil’s first temptation, he only quotes Jesus as saying, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’” Luke 4:4 NRSV. For you Matthew fans out there, that means Luke skips the part about “but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Matthew 4:4b NRSV.
Even though I'm a member of the Religious Society of Friends, I teach Sunday School at my husband’s church, First Evangelical Lutheran. I missed Friends’ worship yesterday, so I decided to attend worship at First as well.
Commentary
I’m wondering if the reason Luke doesn’t include the “every word that comes from the mouth of God” part is because he expects a smart person to figure out what else we need to live. I already know the Matthian version of the story, so I don’t have to figure it out if I don’t want to, but sometimes it’s interesting to work with a passage of the Bible to see if you come to the same conclusion the writers did.
As a person who’s concerned about poverty (not that I do much about it, but I am concerned), the “man does not live by bread alone” idea troubles me. When it comes to missionary work, it seems to me that you need to feed people before you can preach the gospel. And yet, I don't behave as if that's true. My strongest missionary support goes to Lutheran Bible Translators. Partly that’s because my husband and I have a personal connection to one of the families working in Botswana, the Megahans. I don’t think that’s everything, though. Part of me just can’t help but think that no matter how bad off you are materially, your life will be better if you can experience the Bible in your native tongue.
My experience at First today led me to believe that definition of “native tongue” can be stretched pretty far. When I want to be, I can be a pretty focused person. Twice today, I was reading or considering material for future Sunday School classes and people interrupted me. In both cases, the people in question didn’t just say, “hi!”; they made it seem that it was odd for me to be concentrating so hard. I was annoyed; I don’t come to church to be social (I don’t do much of anything to be social); I come to church to learn and teach the Word of God. I started thinking, “maybe that’s what Luke’s talking about. Besides bread, I need the Word of God. These ladies need fellowship.”
But what if fellowship is these ladies “native tongue?” Can fellowship teach us the Word of God? Do we need to share with each other what God is doing in our lives and what we wish God would do? If not, why do I have this blog, anyway?
One more story: as I was thinking about these matters after the worship service had ended, a little girl I know walked around the corner looking upset. When I asked why, she said she was sad because she didn’t get to take anything home from church. I won’t get into the long story of why she thought she should get something to take home every week, as I’m not sure I understand it myself. Anyway, after a while I handed her my bulletin, and told her, “I get to take one of these home every week. It has lots of words in it [the little girl in question can read, but she’s not going to be plowing through the book of Job any time soon], but it also has a picture. That picture will always tell you something about God. In fact, this whole bulletin is about the Word of God. Every week, you can take home the Word of God from church, and no one will tell you ‘no.’” I also told her that she could carry the love of every person in the congregation home with her which, as John will tell you, is a great way of knowing the Word of God. Hey, maybe his is the gospel for smart people!
1/08/2006
I saw an interesting definition of terrorism.
Context
I'm reading Vengeance, by George Jonas. It's the book that inspired the movie Munich. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I want to. Anyway, Jonas gives this definition of terrorism, which he got from the 1979 Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism: the deliberate, systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear in order to gain political ends.
Commentary
You know, I think that's a definition of terrorism everyone can agree with except, of course, terrorists. In my experience, no one ever deliberately murders innocents. If I decide you should die, I don't consider you innocent. From what I understand of al Qaeda, the adherents believe in two classes of people: those who don't follow their religion, which makes them enemy combatants, and those who do, which makes them fellow combatants. Cute trick, huh? No innocents, because everyone's involved.
The Jordanian response to a hotel bombing in their country indicates that some people have decided they are innocent, and do not want to be involved. If enough people in the Middle East start to feel this way, al Qaeda loses a big chunk of its recruiting pool, which would make many of us unwilling enemy combatants very happy.
Americans might be tempted to feel morally superior at this point. "Jordanians only started caring about this war when their own people got hurt!" Not so fast there, Sparky. Many people who might have been considered innocent were killed in the Vietnam war, a la "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," and certainly there were plenty of people protesting those kinds of actions. However, the tide didn't really turn against our involvement until the shootings at Kent State. You know, "our own people."
The situations are not completely parallel by any means. But I think they have one aspect in common: they were both eye-openers.
What did you see today?
I'm reading Vengeance, by George Jonas. It's the book that inspired the movie Munich. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I want to. Anyway, Jonas gives this definition of terrorism, which he got from the 1979 Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism: the deliberate, systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear in order to gain political ends.
Commentary
You know, I think that's a definition of terrorism everyone can agree with except, of course, terrorists. In my experience, no one ever deliberately murders innocents. If I decide you should die, I don't consider you innocent. From what I understand of al Qaeda, the adherents believe in two classes of people: those who don't follow their religion, which makes them enemy combatants, and those who do, which makes them fellow combatants. Cute trick, huh? No innocents, because everyone's involved.
The Jordanian response to a hotel bombing in their country indicates that some people have decided they are innocent, and do not want to be involved. If enough people in the Middle East start to feel this way, al Qaeda loses a big chunk of its recruiting pool, which would make many of us unwilling enemy combatants very happy.
Americans might be tempted to feel morally superior at this point. "Jordanians only started caring about this war when their own people got hurt!" Not so fast there, Sparky. Many people who might have been considered innocent were killed in the Vietnam war, a la "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," and certainly there were plenty of people protesting those kinds of actions. However, the tide didn't really turn against our involvement until the shootings at Kent State. You know, "our own people."
The situations are not completely parallel by any means. But I think they have one aspect in common: they were both eye-openers.
What did you see today?
1/07/2006
I saw myself.
Context
Caddo Area Preparatory Friends Meeting meets Saturdays from 10:00 to noon at the Miller County Senior Citizens Center, 1007 Jefferson Avenue, Texarkana, Arkansas (y'all come!). Somebody mentioned something in vocal ministry today (this link gives a general description of Quaker worship, vocal ministry is part of it) that made me think that God most clearly expresses who He is by what He creates. Then I thought, "people express themselves most clearly that way as well." So I started looking at the things I create in order to see who I am.
Commentary
I do not consider the Bible the only, or sometimes even the best, source of knowledge about God. When I was a little girl I read a book produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses called Listening to the Great Teacher which had a justification for believing in God that has stuck with me. It went along these lines: some people don't believe in God because they can't see Him. You can't see the wind, either, but you see what it does. You can be sure God exists because you can see what He does. From my perspective, what God does best is create. Fiction stories that equate good with creation and evil with destruction, like Stephen King's The Stand, resonate with me. So when I want clues as to what God is like, I look at His creation. When I want to know what He wants me to do, I look at the Bible.
I am not an artistic person (shout out to my sister: what is that, a flying peanut?). So sometimes I don't think of myself as being creative either, but that's not true; I create all kinds of things. I create this blog. I create my work. I create my home and about 1/2 of my marriage. I even create the look I have when I choose what clothing to put on. All of these say something about me. The fact that I'm employed at an IT job and still use the most generic possible blog template speaks volumes about me.
Today I spent some time looking at the things I create and seeing what they express about me. I wasn't doing this to make sure I was making a good impression; I just thought it was a good way to learn more about myself.
What did you see today?
Caddo Area Preparatory Friends Meeting meets Saturdays from 10:00 to noon at the Miller County Senior Citizens Center, 1007 Jefferson Avenue, Texarkana, Arkansas (y'all come!). Somebody mentioned something in vocal ministry today (this link gives a general description of Quaker worship, vocal ministry is part of it) that made me think that God most clearly expresses who He is by what He creates. Then I thought, "people express themselves most clearly that way as well." So I started looking at the things I create in order to see who I am.
Commentary
I do not consider the Bible the only, or sometimes even the best, source of knowledge about God. When I was a little girl I read a book produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses called Listening to the Great Teacher which had a justification for believing in God that has stuck with me. It went along these lines: some people don't believe in God because they can't see Him. You can't see the wind, either, but you see what it does. You can be sure God exists because you can see what He does. From my perspective, what God does best is create. Fiction stories that equate good with creation and evil with destruction, like Stephen King's The Stand, resonate with me. So when I want clues as to what God is like, I look at His creation. When I want to know what He wants me to do, I look at the Bible.
I am not an artistic person (shout out to my sister: what is that, a flying peanut?). So sometimes I don't think of myself as being creative either, but that's not true; I create all kinds of things. I create this blog. I create my work. I create my home and about 1/2 of my marriage. I even create the look I have when I choose what clothing to put on. All of these say something about me. The fact that I'm employed at an IT job and still use the most generic possible blog template speaks volumes about me.
Today I spent some time looking at the things I create and seeing what they express about me. I wasn't doing this to make sure I was making a good impression; I just thought it was a good way to learn more about myself.
What did you see today?
1/06/2006
I saw that reality isn't as bad as my imagination.
Context
I disagreed with my boss about something today, and thought she was going to be mad about the disagreement. Turns out she just didn't have the same information I did, and that information caused her to change her mind. Duh!
Commentary
My title looks strange to me. I think of people most often saying, "xyz wasn't nearly as good as I anticipated it would be." I don't usually imagine good things; I imagine bad things.
I don't think this makes me a pessimist. I don't actually believe the worst possible thing will happen, I just prepare for it. Unfortunately, "prepare" sometimes means running through a veritable smorgasbord of stomach-knotting outcomes just so I'll be ready for each one.
I also don't think this makes me a dour person (people who know me well might disagree). In general, situations do not turn out as badly as I expect them to, and I'm constantly pleasantly surprised by that. I'm rarely disappointed by life, and in that respect I think I'm much better off than many people.
For most of my working life, I've held customer-service-oriented jobs. My favorite customer service slogan is, "underpromise; overdeliver." Well, that's what life does with me on a fairly consistent basis.
In a way, this is a meta-entry for my blog. I only discover the superiority of reality over my imagination when I open my eyes. Or, more accurately, when God forces me to open my eyes.
What did you see today?
I disagreed with my boss about something today, and thought she was going to be mad about the disagreement. Turns out she just didn't have the same information I did, and that information caused her to change her mind. Duh!
Commentary
My title looks strange to me. I think of people most often saying, "xyz wasn't nearly as good as I anticipated it would be." I don't usually imagine good things; I imagine bad things.
I don't think this makes me a pessimist. I don't actually believe the worst possible thing will happen, I just prepare for it. Unfortunately, "prepare" sometimes means running through a veritable smorgasbord of stomach-knotting outcomes just so I'll be ready for each one.
I also don't think this makes me a dour person (people who know me well might disagree). In general, situations do not turn out as badly as I expect them to, and I'm constantly pleasantly surprised by that. I'm rarely disappointed by life, and in that respect I think I'm much better off than many people.
For most of my working life, I've held customer-service-oriented jobs. My favorite customer service slogan is, "underpromise; overdeliver." Well, that's what life does with me on a fairly consistent basis.
In a way, this is a meta-entry for my blog. I only discover the superiority of reality over my imagination when I open my eyes. Or, more accurately, when God forces me to open my eyes.
What did you see today?
1/03/2006
I saw a photograph of my sister's haircut.
Context
My sister is planning to start chemotherapy in a few weeks, so she got her hair cut as a preemptive measure and I just received my first photo of her newly-short 'do. By the way, she donated her hair to Locks of Love.
Commentary
She looks different. She looks older. She looks better. That's kind of weird; we're accustomed to think that in middle age older-looking is never better-looking. It's not true though. She looks like a different, more mature, more relaxed person. Better.
I wonder if some other positive changes will come along with this haircut. It's odd to think that something as nerve-wracking as chemotherapy would actually be the door into a new life, but God has a flair for the odd. Especially the "it looks like a bad thing, but it's actually a good thing" kind of odd. Like Good Friday.
What did you see today?
My sister is planning to start chemotherapy in a few weeks, so she got her hair cut as a preemptive measure and I just received my first photo of her newly-short 'do. By the way, she donated her hair to Locks of Love.
Commentary
She looks different. She looks older. She looks better. That's kind of weird; we're accustomed to think that in middle age older-looking is never better-looking. It's not true though. She looks like a different, more mature, more relaxed person. Better.
I wonder if some other positive changes will come along with this haircut. It's odd to think that something as nerve-wracking as chemotherapy would actually be the door into a new life, but God has a flair for the odd. Especially the "it looks like a bad thing, but it's actually a good thing" kind of odd. Like Good Friday.
What did you see today?
1/02/2006
I saw a police car run a red light.
Context
Today is January 2, 2006. It’s a holiday for local and federal government, but I went to the bank and it was open and the library system I work for is also open. The streets of downtown Shreveport were not completely bare, but considerably less trafficked than usual.
Commentary
My adherence to the Quaker testimony of integrity requires me to say that I didn’t actually see the cop run a red light, in that I didn’t see her light. I saw her drive through a crosswalk that had a walk signal. It’s possible the traffic light was malfunctioning.
Traffic violations are a sore point for me, because this seems to be an entire body of law that most people consider optional. “It’s OK to cross against the light. Nobody’s coming anyway.” “Speed limits have a 5-10 mile-per-hour cushion to them.” It would be interesting if we treated other laws the same way. “Bigamy’s illegal, but we only get really upset on the third or fourth wife.” “It’s OK to kill this guy. Nobody’s going to find the body.”
I watch a lot of television. Now that we’re in the Tivo™ era, I can skip the commercials if I want. Sometimes I don’t want to, because I have favorites. All I remember from many commercials are the slogans, not the products, which must drive advertisers crazy. Anyway, one of my favorites was, “just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.” I think the idea behind the ad was a daredevil-type thing, as in “just because you are able to squeeze your body through the railing outside the window doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so.”
I think of it on a more ethical level, as a matter of personal responsibility. Sometimes we are permitted to do things that would normally be considered wrong. Like when there aren’t enough law enforcement resources to punish us for minor infractions. OK, you can do it, but should you?
What about when we’re given the power to break the rules under certain circumstances? After all, we expect police cars to run red lights when they need to get to a crime scene quickly. The officer I saw today, on the other hand, had no lights flashing and looked pretty carefree about life (something I am normally happy to see in law enforcement). Was it OK for her to run the red light? Nobody coming, no harm, no foul? Or is it an abuse of power? Did she just do it because she could?
What did you see today?
Today is January 2, 2006. It’s a holiday for local and federal government, but I went to the bank and it was open and the library system I work for is also open. The streets of downtown Shreveport were not completely bare, but considerably less trafficked than usual.
Commentary
My adherence to the Quaker testimony of integrity requires me to say that I didn’t actually see the cop run a red light, in that I didn’t see her light. I saw her drive through a crosswalk that had a walk signal. It’s possible the traffic light was malfunctioning.
Traffic violations are a sore point for me, because this seems to be an entire body of law that most people consider optional. “It’s OK to cross against the light. Nobody’s coming anyway.” “Speed limits have a 5-10 mile-per-hour cushion to them.” It would be interesting if we treated other laws the same way. “Bigamy’s illegal, but we only get really upset on the third or fourth wife.” “It’s OK to kill this guy. Nobody’s going to find the body.”
I watch a lot of television. Now that we’re in the Tivo™ era, I can skip the commercials if I want. Sometimes I don’t want to, because I have favorites. All I remember from many commercials are the slogans, not the products, which must drive advertisers crazy. Anyway, one of my favorites was, “just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.” I think the idea behind the ad was a daredevil-type thing, as in “just because you are able to squeeze your body through the railing outside the window doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so.”
I think of it on a more ethical level, as a matter of personal responsibility. Sometimes we are permitted to do things that would normally be considered wrong. Like when there aren’t enough law enforcement resources to punish us for minor infractions. OK, you can do it, but should you?
What about when we’re given the power to break the rules under certain circumstances? After all, we expect police cars to run red lights when they need to get to a crime scene quickly. The officer I saw today, on the other hand, had no lights flashing and looked pretty carefree about life (something I am normally happy to see in law enforcement). Was it OK for her to run the red light? Nobody coming, no harm, no foul? Or is it an abuse of power? Did she just do it because she could?
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)